Dilophus bicolor Wiedemann, 1821 (Macquart’s (1838) specimen)

Records in Uruguay. Hunter, (1900), Brèthes, (1908).

Distribution. Uruguay.

Wiedemann described Dilophus bicolor in 1821 without giving the locality, but later (Wiedemann 1828) the type locality was given as “Kap” [Cape, South Africa] (Skartveit and Freidberg 2023). Macquart (1838) identified a specimen from Montevideo (Uruguay) as D. bicolor, which is unexpected considering the type locality of the species. After that, several catalogs listed this species for the Neotropical Region (Lynch Arribálzaga 1881, Hunter 1900, Kertész 1902, Bréthes 1908, Hardy 1959, 1966). Hardy (1966) erroneously treated the species as described by Macquart, i.e., D. bicolor Macquart, 1838, and also considered it an unrecognizable species. According to Skartveit and Freidberg (2023), listing the species in catalogs as if it occurred in the Neotropical region is erroneous. Thus, the real identity of Macquart’s (1838) specimen is unknown.

Based on some features of D. bicolor, such as the orange-red thorax, coxae and femorae of female and the presence of one set with 4 medial spines (Skartveit and Freidberg 2023), which are possibly present in Macquart’s specimen and led him to attribute it as the Afrotropical species, it can be assumed that the Montevideo specimen is D. pectoralis, a species that also has reddish parts on thorax and legs, and has one set with 4-8 medial spines (Hardy 1953). However, it is not possible to properly identify the specimen without examining the material, which is housed in the Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle (MNHN) in France.