Which you and I may not bring up in the report does not mean it did not happen. You and I may have forgot or it did not have to be brought up.
Sometimes we are taking a piecemeal of a writing to declare something definite where it is not what it was originally stated from the subject context. What is the true purpose of the whole writing. If the main point is titled the successors of Peter and Peter is not declared. Yes strange not to put Peter. But if the argument is not to exactly clarified that fact it is not an absolute that Irenaeus agrees. He did say Apostles ,which Peter was foremost. Suppose he is talking about how the figured out a problem and Peter either has last say or has given delegated authority with the apostles statement. The writing is not clear cut that Peter is not the First Pope either. It just is not stated.
When pressed for who Jesus thought was the leader of the apostles He rather scolded them for even thinking there was a leader among them.
Luke 22:24 And there was also a strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest. 25 And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. 26 But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve.
Matthew 23:10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ. 11 But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.
Jesus did NOT designate Peter as any type of leader.