Bigger is not necessarily better: empirical tests show that dispersal proxies misrepresent actual dispersal ability.

Tests for the role of species' relative dispersal abilities in ecological and biogeographical models rely heavily on dispersal proxies, which are seldom substantiated by empirical measures of actual dispersal. This is exemplified by tests of dispersal-range size relationships and by metacommunity research that often features invertebrates, particularly freshwater insects. Using rare and unique empirical data on dispersal abilities of caddisflies, we tested whether actual dispersal abilities were associated with commonly used dispersal proxies (metrics of wing size and shape; expert opinion). Across 59 species in 12 families, wing morphology was not associated with actual dispersal. Within some families, individual wing metrics captured some dispersal differences among species, although useful metrics varied among families and predictive power was typically low. Dispersal abilities assigned by experts were either no better than random or actually poorer than random. Our results cast considerable doubt on research underpinned by dispersal proxies and scrutiny of previous research results may be warranted. Greater progress may lie in employing innovative survey and experimental design to measure actual dispersal in the field.