Anopheles peruvianus Tamayo, 1907

Harbach, Ralph E. & Wilkerson, Richard C., 2023, The insupportable validity of mosquito subspecies (Diptera: Culicidae) and their exclusion from culicid classification, Zootaxa 5303 (1), pp. 1-184 : 61

Anopheles peruvianus Tamayo, 1907

Currently a junior synonym of An. pseudopunctipennis sensu stricto, we can find no justification for its taxonomic status. It was cited as a synonym in Howard et al. (1917), Shannon & del Ponte (1928) and Lane (1953). A type does not exist for comparison, the original description is ambiguous and the illustrations that accompany the description of the nominal species lack detail. Unlike other species in the complex, the illustrations show the wing with a sector pale spot, no apical pale spot nor pale fringe scales at the ends of the veins. In contrast, the text (interpreted by RCW) agrees with characters on other species in the complex with the costal vein dark except for subcostal pale and apical pale spots, and the sector pale spot is on the subcosta and vein R 1, but not on the costa. Pale fringe is not noted in the description. In addition, the text and illustration show the femur (femora?) slightly speckled, which is not seen elsewhere in the complex. Lacking evidence, we do not think this nominal species should remain a junior synonym of An. pseudopunctipennis sensu stricto. It is possible it could be a senior synonym of one of the other species, especially rivadeneirai . In addition to the type locality, Tamayo also mentioned its occurrence in Peru: San Pedro de Lloc, San Pedro Province, La Libertad Region; environs of Lima; and, Chanchamayo, Junín Region. Lane (1953) said “Levi-Castillo (1944–1945) described two subspecies ( rivadeneirai and levi -castilloi). We [?] believe that there is quite a probability that his subspecies rivadeneirai is A. peruvianus Tamayo, 1927 [sic] while levi-castilloi is the typical form. The work on subspecies of A. pseudopunctipennis will be subject to error up to the time when the cycle of this species is described in detail from the type locality.” Until more information becomes available, we surmise that An. peruvianus should be considered a nomen dubium. If its validity is established as conspecific with An. rivadeneirai , it would replace it as the senior synonym. We here elevate An. peruvianus from synonymy with pseudopunctipennis and formally recognize it as a nomen dubium: Anopheles (Anopheles) peruvianus Tamayo, 1907 .

Both the female and male of peruvianus were described in Tamayo & García (1907). The last paragraph of the description of the male is a bit of a puzzle: “ Fórmula ungueal. Uno de nosotros lo considera como especie distinta, habiendo propuesto el nombre de Anopheles multimaculatus que no le ha conservado en la citada descripción.” [English translation: “ Claw formula. One of us considers it as a different species, having proposed the name of Anopheles multimaculatus which has not been preserved in the aforementioned description.”] How this statement came to follow the heading for the “claw formula” is not clear. What is clear is that one of the authors thought that the male, we assume, was a different species and assigned it a name not employed elsewhere in the description. We propose that Anopheles multimaculatus Tamayo, 1907 (or Tamayo & García?) should be considered a synonym of An. peruvianus until it is shown that there is another distinct species sympatric with peruvianus that can be associated with the name multimaculatus . Or until such time a better explanation is offered.