taxonID	type	format	identifier	references	title	description	created	creator	contributor	publisher	audience	source	license	rightsHolder	datasetID
03F687C8FFFDFFCF7BE2403CC740FBF7.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/StillImage	image/png	https://zenodo.org/record/5403936/files/figure.png	https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5403936	FIGURE 4: Size distributions of Proctophyllodes troncatus adult females, adult males and nymphs with and without docking papillae. Body size was measured as the length of the idiosoma (µm) from the anterior margin of the prodorsum to the posterior region of the body excluding the terminal hyaline appendages in adult females and the opisthosomal lamellae in males. Nymphs were catego- rized as having docking papillae or lacking docking papillae. Adult females were significantly larger than adult males as indicated by an unpaired t-test (t38 = 22.6, P <0.001). Similarly, nymphs with docking papillae were larger on average than were those without docking papillae (t194 = 20.6, P <0.001).	FIGURE 4: Size distributions of Proctophyllodes troncatus adult females, adult males and nymphs with and without docking papillae. Body size was measured as the length of the idiosoma (µm) from the anterior margin of the prodorsum to the posterior region of the body excluding the terminal hyaline appendages in adult females and the opisthosomal lamellae in males. Nymphs were catego- rized as having docking papillae or lacking docking papillae. Adult females were significantly larger than adult males as indicated by an unpaired t-test (t38 = 22.6, P <0.001). Similarly, nymphs with docking papillae were larger on average than were those without docking papillae (t194 = 20.6, P <0.001).	2014-03-28	Byers, K. A.;Proctor, H. C.		Zenodo	biologists	Byers, K. A.;Proctor, H. C.			
