Aim The aim of this study is to answer the questions: (1) do small organisms disperse farther than large, or vice versa; and (2) does the observed pattern differ for passive and active dispersers? These questions are central to several themes in biogeography (including microbial biogeography), macroecology, metacommunity ecology and conservation biology.Location The meta-analysis was conducted using published data collected worldwide. MethodsWe collected and analysed 795 data values in the peer-reviewed literature for direct observations of both maximal dispersal distance and mass of the dispersing organisms (e.g. seeds, not trees). Analysed taxa ranged in size from bacteria to whales. We applied macroecology analyses based on null models (using Monte Carlo randomizations) to test patterns relative to specific hypotheses. ResultsCollected dispersal distance and mass data spanned 9 and 21 orders of magnitude, respectively. Active dispersers dispersed significantly farther ( P < 0.001) and were significantly greater in mass ( P < 0.001) than passive dispersers. Overall, size matters: larger active dispersers attained greater maximum observed dispersal distances than smaller active dispersers. In contrast, passive-disperser distances were random with respect to propagule mass, but not uniformly random, in part due to sparse data available for tiny propagules. ConclusionsSize is important to maximal dispersal distance for active dispersers, but not for passive dispersers. Claims that microbes disperse widely cannot be tested by current data based on direct observations of dispersal: indirect approaches will need to be applied. Distance-mass relationships should contribute to a resolution of neutral and niche-based metacommunity theories by helping scale expectations for dispersal limitation. Also, distance-mass relationships should inform analyses of latitudinal species richness and conservation biology topics such as fragmentation, umbrella species and taxonomic homogenization.

Species in the genus Bothrops s. l. are extraordinarily variable in ecology and geography, compared with other genera in the subfamily Crotalinae. In contrast to the trend of splitting large and variable groups into smaller, more ecologically and phenotypically cohesive genera, the genus Bothrops has remained speciose. In addition, previous phylogenetic analyses have found Bothrops to be paraphyletic with respect to the genus Bothriopsis. Taxonomic arguments exist for synonymizing Bothriopsis with Bothrops, and for splitting Bothrops into smaller genera, but the greatest hindrance to taxonomic revision has been incomplete phylogenetic information. We present a phylogeny of Bothrops, Bothriopsis, and Bothrocophias based on 85 characters of morphology and 2343 bp of four mitochondrial gene regions, and with significantly greater taxonomic coverage than previous studies. The combined data provide improved support over independent datasets, and support the existence of discrete species groups within Bothrops. The monophyly and distinctness of these groups warrant recognition at the generic level, and we propose a new taxonomic arrangement to reflect these findings.