Table 6.

Significant p-values from the results of the ANOVA analyses comparing all combinations of OTU pairs of the Cyrtodactylusbrevipalmatus group. SVL and TL4U are not listed because no species pairs differed significantly from one another. * = Results based on a Games-Howell post hoc test. Character abbreviations are listed in the Materials and methods.

Morphometric characters	AG*	HumL*	ForL	FemL	TibL	HL	HW	HD*	ED*	EE*	ES	EN*	IO	EL	IN
Cyrtodactylusfluvicavus sp. nov. vs. C.brevipalmatus			0.00	0.01		< 0.001	0.001	0.048			< 0.001	0.004		0.002	0.004
C.interdigitalis vs. C.brevipalmatus			0.00		0.00	0.00					< 0.001
C.ngati vs. C.brevipalmatus						0.00						0.003		0.001	< 0.001
C.ngati3 vs. C.brevipalmatus	0.014			0.03	0.01	< 0.001		0.008		0.038	< 0.001	0.004			0.000
C.rukhadeva vs. C.brevipalmatus						< 0.001	0.001	0.022			< 0.001	0.021
C. sp.9 vs. C.brevipalmatus						0.01	< 0.001				< 0.001	0.03
C.interdigitalis vs. Cyrtodactylusfluvicavus sp. nov.					0.01
C.ngati vs. Cyrtodactylusfluvicavus sp. nov.	< 0.001	0.002		0.04			< 0.001	0.005			< 0.001			< 0.001
C.ngati3 vs. Cyrtodactylusfluvicavus sp. nov.	< 0.001									0.025				0.038
C.rukhadeva vs. Cyrtodactylusfluvicavus sp. nov.	0.049		< 0.001	< 0.001										0.004
C. sp.9 vs. Cyrtodactylusfluvicavus sp. nov.			0.0					0.007			0.013	0.023		0.007
C.ngati vs. C.interdigitalis							0.007		0.031		0.010			< 0.001	0.000
C.ngati3 vs. C.interdigitalis	0.011														0.003
C.rukhadeva vs. C.interdigitalis			0.0	0.01	0.00								0.044
C. sp.9 vs. C.interdigitalis					0.00		0.007
C.ngati3 vs. C.ngati	< 0.001	0.019						0.006			< 0.001			0.001
C.rukhadeva vs. C.ngati		0.003					< 0.001	< 0.001	0.046		< 0.001	0.001	< 0.001	< 0.001	0.001
C. sp.9 vs. C.ngati	< 0.001						< 0.001	0.042			0.007	< 0.001		< 0.001	0.000
C.rukhadeva vs. C.ngati3	< 0.001	0.021	0.0	0.00						0.007		0.02			0.006
C. sp.9 vs. C.ngati3	0.001				0.01	0.03	0.003	0.043		0.001	0.019	0.019			0.003
C. sp.9 vs. C.rukhadeva	0.02	0.004			0.02			0.033
Meristic characters	SL	IL*	PVT*	LRT	VS	VSM	TL4E	TL4T	FL4E	FL4U*	FL4T*	FS	PCS*	BB*
Cyrtodactylusfluvicavus sp. nov. vs. C.brevipalmatus							0.037						< 0.001	0.05
C.interdigitalis vs C.brevipalmatus				< 0.001			0.000				0.002		0.044
C.ngati vs C.brevipalmatus									< 0.001			0.028	< 0.001
C.ngati3 vs C.brevipalmatus				0.017									0.029
C.rukhadeva vs C.brevipalmatus				< 0.001									< 0.001
C. sp.9 vs C.brevipalmatus				< 0.001	0.003					0.022			< 0.001	0.05
C.interdigitalis vs Cyrtodactylusfluvicavus sp. nov.				0.000	0.000	0.021					< 0.001	0.000		< 0.001
C.ngati vs Cyrtodactylusfluvicavus sp. nov.	0.037		0.002					< 0.001	< 0.001	0.033		0.000	0.002	< 0.001
C.ngati3 vs Cyrtodactylusfluvicavus sp. nov.												0.005
C.rukhadeva vs Cyrtodactylusfluvicavus sp. nov.				0.000								0.001		0.001
C. sp.9 vs Cyrtodactylusfluvicavus sp. nov.			< 0.001	< 0.001						0.001	0.004	0.020
C.ngati vs C.interdigitalis			0.001		0.029			< 0.001	< 0.001	0.029
C.ngati3 vs C.interdigitalis					0.029	0.025					0.005
C.rukhadeva vs C.interdigitalis		0.004			0.011	0.001	0.044				0.001			0.002
C. sp.9 vs C.interdigitalis			0.003		< 0.001	0.005			0.043		0.01			< 0.001
C.ngati3 vs C.ngati	0.0267		0.001						< 0.001
C.rukhadeva vs C.ngati		< 0.001	< 0.001					0.008	< 0.001	0.008			0.03	< 0.001
C. sp.9 vs C.ngati	0.003		0.016	0.011				0.000	< 0.001	< 0.001			< 0.001	< 0.001
C.rukhadeva vs C.ngati3
C. sp.9 vs C.ngati3			0.001	0.042						< 0.001	0.001
C. sp.9 vs C.rukhadeva	0.029		< 0.001		0.002									0.001