Brindlensia jeekeli was first described 1985 by G. K. Srivastava in Notes on some Dermaptera from Australia preserved in the Zoologisch Museum, Amsterdam. (https://repository.naturalis.nl/pub/5053...85010009001.pdf)

Austroblandex bituberculatus was first described 1987 by Alan Brindle in New Australian Dermaptera including one new genus.

I compared pictures of the holotype of A. bituberculatus, that were sent to permico from Chris Grinter, the collection manager of the entomology of the CAS (https://ibb.co/qrVd2cp), with the original drawings from Brindle (https://ibb.co/HdkD6mw), the original drawings by Srivastava (https://ibb.co/vkcT7pV) and observations of living specimens on iNaturalist:
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?taxon_id=1477784

It seems to me, like it's either the same species or two closely related species. Since Steinmann (1986) didn't mention B. jeekeli, it is for me possible, that Brindle also didn't know about Srivastavas first description and described the same species shortly after, despite the genus and subfamily dedicated to him by name.

permico also wrote me:
I have a hypothesis that A. bituberculatus and B. jeekeli may be single species or related species.
For me the holotype of Austroblandex may fit with Brindlensia jeekeli description and even genitalia are quite similar.
Type locations for both species are quite close.

I asked Srivastava per mail about it, but he probably won't answer, if he even is still alive...Fabian Haas told me he reached out to him many years ago and didn't receive an answer.

Does anybody know, how to fix this problem without a huge field search in Australia? Is it possible to compare and synonymize the species by comparing the type specimens from California Academy of Sciences and the Museum in Amsterdam? Since they even were put in two different subfamilies, it would probably be good to get fresh material for DNA barcoding, maybe we could reach out to some observers on iNaturalist.