## 3 Results  
### Sampling, Identification, and Morphology  
A total of 136 unknown males were resolved into seven Anisolabididae morphospecies based on combinations of the shapes of the male forceps and parameres (Figure 1a-n). Anisolabididae were found only in SA and WA. The morphospecies could be sorted to two genera, _Anisolabis_ Fieber and _Gonolabis_ Burr, based on the shape of the parameres, which were either much longer than wide or truncate respectively (Figure 1). Individually, forceps shape was similar for some species (cf. _G. forcipata_, _G. sp. 2, and _G. sp. 3; Figure 1e,f,k-n) but the combinations of characters reliably distinguished morphospecies. Most morphospecies could not be identified to species using Steinmann [6], except _G. forcipata_ and _G. nr. gilesi_. Some morphospecies are easily recognisable by forceps alone. _Anisolabis_ sp. 1 is the only morphospecies with a distinct lateral tooth on the forceps (Figure 1a), and _G. nr. gilesi_ the only one with a dorsoventral tooth (Figure 1g). _Anisolabis_ sp. 2 and _G. sp. 1 have broadly similar forceps shapes (Figure 1c,i), with the former distinguished by the parallel region towards the base of the forceps. Summary statistics for morphometric variables (derived variables and original measurements) are provided in the Supplementary Material (Table S2). Principal component analysis (PCA) reduced variation across the four morphometric variables to three principal components (PCs) that cumulatively explained 94.5% of the total variance (41.7%, 27.6% and 25.2% respectively) (Table 1) among individuals. The first PC is dominated by the forceps asymmetry and the paramere ratio although the other two variables show relatively high loadings, and the second PC by the basal width of the forceps and the paramere ratio (Table 1). A biplot of the first two PCs revealed that the two putative _Anisolabis_ spp. are easily separable from the putative _Gonolabis_ spp. by morphometrics, although _G. nr. gilesi_ shows some overlap with _Anisolabis_ sp. 1 (but is otherwise distinguishable). _Anisolabis_ sp. 2 is clearly distinguished from all other morphospecies. The _Gonolabis_ spp. show much overlap. _Gonolabis_ sp. 3, of which only 3 males were present in the sample, showed greater variation between individuals than other _Gonolabis_ morphospecies, and is not easily distinguishable by these morphometrics, showing overlap with _G. sp. 2 and _G. forcipata_ (Figure 2). Discriminant function analysis reliably distinguished the two putative genera and the two _Anisolabis_ species with 100% accuracy, but accuracy was only 71.28% (95% CI: 61.02-80.14%) for the _Gonolabis_ spp., which increased to 75.82% (65.72-84.19%) when \(G\). sp. 3 was excluded. _Gonolabis_ nr. _gilesi_ was classified with the least accuracy, in 57.14% of cases. The analysis classified \(G\). _forcipata_ with 73.913% accuracy and \(G\). sp. 1 with 90.625% accuracy, invariant to the inclusion of \(G\). sp. 3, while the classification of \(G\). sp. 2 improved from 59.091 to 68.182% when \(G\). sp. 3 was excluded. _Gonolabis_ sp. 3 was not correctly classified in any case when it was included. The most informative variables of the discriminant functions varied by the classification being performed. To distinguish genus, the forceps asymmetry and paramere ratio were the most informative; for distinguishing the _Anisolabis_, the forceps ratio was the most informative; and for the _Gonolabis_ classification, the most informative variable was the paramere ratio (Table S3). However, the data did not satisfy multivariate normality ([PERSON]'s test of multivariate normality; H = 147.286, \(p\) < 0.001), even when split by genus (_Anisolabis_, H = 14.005, \(p\) = 0.001; _Gonolabis_, H = 62.871, \(p\) < 0.001). Barcode sequences indicated that five of the seven male morphospecies had female representatives in the sample, and these were used to define female morphology for \(A\). sp. 1, \(A\). sp. 2, \(G\). _forcipata_, \(G\). nr. _gilesi_, and \(G\). sp. 1. Female \(A\). sp.