Summary catalogue of the Odonata of Peru. Kommentiertes Faksimile des Manuscripts von J. COWLEY, Cambridge, 20.05.1933 und aktuelle Liste der Odonaten Perus mit Fundortangaben sowie Historie zu Sammlern und Odonatologen in Peru

In the entomological library of the Natural History Museum of Lima, Peru, a badly damaged manuscript, entitled 'Summary Catalogue of the Odonata of Peru' was discovered at the beginning of the 1990s. This manuscript had been kept there since 1933. Its author was stated as 'J. Cowley'. Whether indeed Cowley is the sole author of the whole text, cannot be asserted with certainty. However there are numerous indications that the manuscript was written in Cambridge, England. It seems certain that the list itself was written by Cowley, since many examples were given from his collection and the way the locations were cited. Presumably the manuscript was written together with the German veterinarian Paul Martin and his wife Margarita who lived in Lima. Martin was a very enthusiastic amateur lepidopterologist who had set up a network of butterfly collectors in Peru. Insects 2 Hoffmann - Libellen von Peru: Faksimile des Manuskripts von J. COWLEY, Checklist, Historie other than Lepidoptera were passed on by Martin to specialists, dragonflies apparently mainly to Cowley, who named a species in honour of Martin. The manuscript is of great value, since it is the first known and most complete list of Odonata with localities based on the state of knowledge of those days. Up to this time these records were scattered across few and also incomplete lists as part of taxonomic works or collection catalogues. On the basis of the state of knowledge and rules of nomenclature of his days (1933) Cowley named a total of 174 dragonfly species (synonymised 168 species) from 71 localities. Eleven years later Schmidt (1942) published a list of 173 Peruvian odonates, while 21 years later a catalogue with 165 species (synonymised 158 species) was published by Soukop in 1954. A comprehensive list of 252 species (synonymised to 243) was published by Racenis (1959) 26 years after Cowleys unpublished list. Since then there have been only a few complete lists. Currently and here presented, there are 481 species known from 238 localities, of which 87 were new species first described on the basis of type material from Peru. Up to the end of the 1960s material from commercial collectors and the trade with insects was the basis for most catalogues, with dragonflies being only a bycatch of butterfly collecting expeditions. Publications of lists from scientific expeditions on the other hand, were a rare event. The history of Odonatology in Peru is, therefore, largely connected to the history of research and collecting expeditions into the Amazon region for the greater part of the 20th century. Up to the era of Cowley, expeditions into the collection regions of Peru took place mainly out of the east of the continent by way of the Amazon and its tributaries. The first of such odonatological evidences are by the famous Amazon researcher Henry Walter Bates, who also collected a large number of dragonflies between the years 1848 and 1859. With an increasing interest in the flora and fauna in their own country and with the founding of natural history institutions at the beginning of the 20th century in Lima, more and more expeditions were organised from Lima. Until the middle of the last century the majority of researchers and collectors active in Peru were still mainly Europeans. With the beginnings of the 70s of the last century, pure collecting expeditions became progressively less common. Odonata, collected during the last 20 years in Peru, mainly stem from research projects with a defined goal. A map of the locations until 2007 shows that more than 70% of the country is still unexplored as far as odonates are concerned. Thus the list of the 481 species more than likely does not reflect the actual inventory of dragonfly species and distribution of Peru. The register lists all the species which have definitely been recorded for the country and takes into account their present validity and comprehensible taxonomic relationships. IDF-Report 16 (2009): 1-117