Fig. 19

Hardness (H) and Young’s modulus (E), both given in GPa, of the forcipule of Lithobius forficatus (n = 2) and Cryptops hortensis (n = 2). H and E values are displayed in relation to the locality on trochanteroprefemur, femur and tibia, as well as tarsungulum. H and E correlate with each other in L. forficatus (Spearman’s rank correlation, correlation coefficient: 0.916, p < 0.001) and C. hortensis (Spearman’s rank correlation, correlation coefficient: 0.949, p < 0.001). H of the tarsungulum of L. forficatus is statistically not different to the H of other podomeres (Mann–Whitney rank sum test, U = 683, T = 1095, p = 0.979) and E of the tarsungulum is statistically not different to the E of other podomeres (Mann–Whitney rank sum test, U = 538, T = 944, p = 0.118). H of the tarsungulum of C. hortensis is statistically not different than the H of other podomeres (Mann–Whitney rank sum test, U = 168, T = 378, p = 0.171) and E of the tarsungulum is statistically not different than the E of the podomeres (Mann–Whitney rank sum test, U = 190, T = 356, p = 0.391). The tarsungula of L. forficatus and C. hortensis are statistically not different in hardness H (Mann–Whitney rank sum test, U = 260, T = 468, p = 0.316) and elastic modulus E (Mann–Whitney rank sum test, U = 257, T = 471, p = 0.292)