Silveira, P.; Goncalves de Sousa, F.; Boning, P.; Medeiros Maciel, N.; Stropp, J.; Lotters, S.

Aim: Aposematic animals, i.e. those that are defended and warn potential predators through signals, are suggested to have resource-gathering advantages against non-aposematic ones. We here explore this in a biogeographic frame expecting that aposematic species are better dis-persers, which translates into larger geographic range size. Location: South America. Taxon: Poison frogs (Amphibia; Aromobatidae and Dendrobatidae). Methods: We use 43 toxic and 26 non-toxic poison frog species from the lowlands only as representatives of aposematic and non-aposematic study organisms, respectively. Realized and potential geographic ranges are calculated using minimum convex polygon and species distri-bution modelling methods, respectively. Accounting for species body size and phylogeny, we test if both range and aposematism are correlated using linear mixed models. Results: Aposematic and non-aposematic species do neither differ in realized nor in potential geographic range size. There was no effect of body size. Main conclusions: The role of aposematism yet is not as clear as suggested and determinants of poison frog range sizes are multifaceted. A more integrative approach is needed using in-formation of behaviour, predation risk, and reproductive biology to assess the role of apose-matism on observed species distributions. Such data are not yet available for most species, neither poison frogs nor other aposematic animals. KEYWORDS: Aromobatidae, Dendrobatidae, geographic distribution, species distribution model, chemical defence, dispersal