Oxyligyrus peruanus Endrödi, 1966

Hielkema, Auke J. & Hielkema, Meindert A., 2019, An annotated checklist of the Scarabaeoidea (Insecta: Coleoptera) of the Guianas, Insecta Mundi 732 (732), pp. 1-306 : 209

§ Oxyligyrus peruanus Endrödi, 1966

Oxyligyrus (Oxyligyrus) peruanus Endrödi 1966b: 530 ( Brazil)

Distribution. Guyana: López-García et al. 2016: 500. French Guiana: Duranton 2011: 20; Ponchel 2011: 61. Brazil: Endrödi 1966b: 530 (as O. (Oxyligyrus) peruanus ), 1969a: 28 (as O. (Oxyligyrus) peruanus ), 1985a: 239 (as O. (Oxyligyrus) peruanus ); López-García et al. 2016: 500. Other: Dupuis 2016b: 106 (not mentioned); López-García et al. 2016: 500 ( Peru).

Note 1. López-García et al. (2016: 500) mention Guyana as part of the distributional range of Oxyligyrus peruanus , but this is erroneous; based on the cited literature, which they name as their sole data source, the location should be French Guiana rather than Guyana. However, Dupuis (2016b: 106) compares the types of O. champenoisi and O. peruanus , gives differentiating features between these often-commingled species and removes O. peruanus from the list of species occurring in French Guiana. Because we are unaware of any other records of this species for the research area, we regard this species as not occurring there.

Note 2. It should be noted that the name Oxyligyrus peruanus is given to this species by Endrödi (1966b: 530) although he only records it from the state of Pará in Brazil. In Endrödi (1969a: 28) it is mentioned that the name is an error, and that the species remains unrecorded for Peru. Ratcliffe et al. (2015: 202) list this species for Peru, but given the distance between the type locality and Peru and the fact that we have found no actual Peruvian records for this species in their cited literature, we suspect that Ratcliffe et al. (2015) have included this species based on its name rather than on collecting data. We have found no original records for this species other than those given by Endrödi (1966b) and the ones from French Guiana in Duranton (2011: 20) and Ponchel (2011: 61), which are refuted by Duranton (2016b) as mentioned in the previous note. We thus assume this species to be restricted to the state of Pará, from where it is described.