(Figs. 1a–b, 2a, 2c, 3a–b)
Leptagrion andromache Hagen in Selys, 1876: 978 (description of male and female);— Kirby 1890: 155 (data on publication and distribution);— Williamson 1917: Plate XVII, 3-4 (illustration of appendages in lateral and dorsal views);— Kennedy 1919: 182 (illustration of appendages in lateral and dorsal views);— Santos 1962: 5, Figs. 9, 11 (data on distribution, female prothorax in dorsal view, female pterostigma hind wing);— Santos 1965a: 30 (compared with L. aculeatum);— Santos 1965b: 43 (compared with L. capixabae Santos, 1965);— Santos 1966: 83 (data on larvae);— Santos 1968: 64 (compared with L. dardanoi);— Santos 1978: 5 (compared with L. vriesianum Santos, 1978);— Davies & Tobin 1984: 82 (data on publication and distribution);— Bridges 1994: (VII) 12 (data on publication, type depository, type locality and references);— Costa & Garrison 2001: 382, Figs.: 5, 26, 38a, 47b (distribution, key to Brazilian Leptagrion, illustration of appendages in lateral, mediodorsal and dorsal, male forewing pterostigma, female prothorax in dorsal view, female hindwing pterostigma);— Lencioni 2006: 141, Figs. 82C–82E (illustration of male forewing pterostigma, female hind wing pterostigma, female prothorax in dorsal view. Appendages in lateral and dorsal views of a specimen incorrectly identified by the author as L. andromache, but corresponding to the new species hereby described);— Machado 2007: 126 (occurrence in Minas Gerais as “ L. andromadra ”);— Muzón et al. 2009: 65, Figs. 1 –10 (description of larvae and first occurrence of the genus in Argentina, larval illustrations);— Costa et al. 2009: 94 (larval description and illustrations);— Garrison et al. 2010: 264 (data on species);— Lencioni 2017a: 369, Figs. 213A–213E, 214A (data on description, type locality, type deposition, distribution, and larval description, illustration belongs to the new species hereby described).
Material examined: 2♂♂ (UFAP), Brazil: Amapá, Laranjal do Jari, Comunidade de Água Branca do Cajari, (0.5693 S, 52.1759 W), 20.viii.2019, M.D.N. Garcia Júnior leg.
Remarks and differential diagnosis. What lead us to believe that our material represented a new species was that, before comparing our specimens to the lectotype housed in Belgium, we first compared them to specimens identified as L. andromache from Frederico Lencioni’s Collection in Jacareí, São Paulo State, collected in Bahia. In that comparison, we found that those specimens had significant differences in cercus, hind lobe of prothorax and shape of pterostigma, therefore they are described here as L. jeromei. In regard to overall morphology, the closest species to L. jeromei is L. andromache. Despite their resemblance, there are many structures in L. jeromei that allow us to differentiate these two species (L. andromache in brackets): in dorsal view hind lobe of prothorax (Fig. 2d) nearly straight at the middle (with a slight cleft, Fig. 2c), with blunt rounded corners (Figs. 2b, 2d) (with thin lateral projections, Figs. 2a, 2c); pterostigma rhomboid (Fig. 1d, below) (quadrilateral, Fig. 1d, above); cercus in lateral view (Fig. 3c) with a small, blunt, medial projection (with a more pronounced medial projection, Fig. 3a); cercus in dorsal view (Fig. 3d) distal tooth not reaching middle of cercus, blunt tips (distal tooth longer, reaching middle of cercus, acute tip, Fig. 3b). Apart from the morphology, coloration has also shown to be different among the two species, such as the postocular region with a transversal pale stripe (such stripe absent), and some paler areas in L. jeromei. However, due to the paucity of individuals of L. jeromei, we could not make further statements on coloration according to aging.
Habitat and ecology. Leptagrion jeromei was always collected associated with epiphyte bromeliads which indicates that, as the other congeners, this new species also breeds in phytotelmata.