Table 7.

Summary statistics from the PERMANOVA analysis of the OTUs and proposed morphogroups of the Cyrtodactylusbrevipalmatus group.

OTU pairs	F model	R2	p-value	p-adjusted
C.rukhadeva vs. C.cf.ngati2	6.8474	0.4064	0.015	0.544
C.rukhadeva vs. C.ngati3	8.8824	0.4467	0.003	0.122
C.rukhadeva vs. C.interdigitalis	3.3630	0.2189	0.006	0.201
C.rukhadeva vs. C.ngati	10.4580	0.4874	0.003	0.114
C.rukhadeva vs. C.brevipalmatus	6.5983	0.3367	0.000	0.012
C.rukhadeva vs. Cyrtodactylusfluvicavus sp. nov.	6.6357	0.3067	0.000	0.004
C.rukhadeva vs. C. sp.9	3.8646	0.1945	0.001	0.033
C.cf.ngati2 vs. C.brevipalmatus	15.4818	0.7559	0.048	1.000
C.cf.ngati2 vs. Cyrtodactylusfluvicavus sp. nov.	15.9186	0.6946	0.027	0.967
C.cf.ngati2 vs. C. sp.9	19.0130	0.7038	0.022	0.804
C.ngati3 vs. C.interdigitalis	4.4753	0.4723	0.029	1.000
C.ngati3 vs. C.brevipalmatus	14.9425	0.7135	0.018	0.643
C.ngati3 vs. Cyrtodactylusfluvicavus sp. nov.	8.7953	0.5237	0.009	0.317
C.ngati3 vs. C. sp.9	14.7978	0.6218	0.006	0.226
C.interdigitalis vs. C.ngati	9.8976	0.6644	0.029	1.000
C.interdigitalis vs. C.brevipalmatus	4.5646	0.3947	0.008	0.278
C.interdigitalis vs. Cyrtodactylusfluvicavus sp. nov.	6.7120	0.4272	0.003	0.124
C.interdigitalis vs. C. sp.9	5.6585	0.3614	0.002	0.067
C.ngati vs. C.brevipalmatus	7.4818	0.5550	0.018	0.643
C.ngati vs. Cyrtodactylusfluvicavus sp. nov.	22.8234	0.7405	0.008	0.283
C.ngati vs. C. sp.9	17.0146	0.6540	0.006	0.227
C.brevipalmatus vs. Cyrtodactylusfluvicavus sp. nov.	17.8585	0.6410	0.001	0.048
C.brevipalmatus vs. C. sp.9	9.3960	0.4607	0.001	0.025
Cyrtodactylusfluvicavus sp. nov. vs. C. sp.9	8.2047	0.3869	0.000	0.005