Catalog of the horse-flies (Diptera: Tabanidae) of Chile Author González, Christian R. 0000-0003-2582-6071 Instituto de Entomología, Facultad de Ciencias Básicas, Universidad Metropolitana de Ciencias de la Educación, Santiago, Chile. christian. gonzalez @ umce. cl; https: // orcid. org / 0000 - 0003 - 2582 - 6071 christian.gonzalez@umce.cl Author Elgueta, Mario Área de Entomología, Museo Nacional de Historia Natural, Santiago, Chile. Author Krolow, Tiago K. 0000-0002-6453-0057 Universidade Federal do Tocantins-UFT, Curso de Ciências Biológicas, Cx. Postal 136, 77500 - 000, Porto Nacional, TO, Brazil. tkkrolow @ gmail. com; https: // orcid. org / 0000 - 0002 - 6453 - 0057 tkkrolow@gmail.com Author Henriques, Augusto L. 0000-0001-6601-2061 Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas da Amazônia-INPA, Coordenação de Biodiversidade, Cx. Postal 2223, CEP 69080 - 971, Manaus, AM, Brazil. loureiro @ inpa. gov. br; https: // orcid. org / 0000 - 0001 - 6601 - 2061 loureiro@inpa.gov.br text Zootaxa 2022 2022-01-13 5091 2 201 257 journal article 2595 10.11646/zootaxa.5091.2.1 7fe3b790-63af-4c3e-bdad-2a0c2b5390ba 1175-5326 5843635 D26ABC55-B26F-440C-8999-ADEF63BA6DA9 Caenopangonia aspera ( Philip, 1958 ) Mycteromyia asper Philip, 1958: 65–66 . Holotype .? Female ( CAS ). Type-locality: Chile , Coquimbo, Fray Jorge Forest. Distribution. Chile : Región de Coquimbo (Limarí). References . Fairchild, 1971: 12 (cat., Mycteromyia , as asper , error); Moucha, 1976: 25 (cat., Mycteromyia , as asper , error); Coscarón & Philip, 1979: 448 (redes., as asper , error, figs. 10K–N); Arnaud, 1985: 101 (Philip’s species, as asper , error); Coscarón & González, 1991: 129 ( Chile spp., as asper , error, fig. 60); Fairchild & Burger, 1994: 34 (cat., as asper , error); Coscarón, 1998: 349 (list, dist.); Coscarón & Papavero, 2009a: 52 (male, figs. 24K–N); Coscarón & Papavero, 2009b: 34 (cat.); Lessard, 2014: 239 (rev. Scionini , as asper , error); Krolow et al ., 2016: 544 (rev., figs. 2 A–F, 3A–D). Remarks. C. aspera was described by Philip (1958: 65) as female, but Coscarón & Philip (1979: 448) treated the female as unknown. This inconsistency is probably due to the fact that Philip (1958) did not dissect the genitalia for the original description (see Krolow et al . 2016: 544 ).