We compare the results, benefits and disadvantages of two techniques for mo
delling wildlife species distribution: Logistic Regression and Overlap Anal
ysis. While Logistic Regression uses mathematic equations to correlate vari
ables with presence/absence of the species, Overlap Analysis simply combine
variables with the presence points, eliminating the non-explanatory variab
les and recombining the others. Both techniques were performed in a Geograp
hic Information System and we attempted to minimise the spatial autocorrela
tion of data. The species used was the Schreiber's green lizard Lacerta sch
reiberi and the study area was Portugal, using 10 x 10 km UTM squares. Both
techniques identified the same group of variables as the most important fo
r explaining the distribution of the species. Both techniques gave high ave
rage correct classification rates for the squares with presence of the spec
ies (79% for Logistic Regression and 92% for Overlap Analysis). Correct abs
ence classification was higher with Logistic Regression (73%) than with Ove
rlap Analysis (32%). Overlap Analysis tends to maximise the potential area
of occurrence of the species, which induces a reduced correct classificatio
n of absences, since many absences will fall in the potential area. This is
because a single presence in a given class of a variable makes all the are
a of that class to be considered as potential. The technique does not consi
der that the species may occasionally occupy an unfavourable region. Althou
gh, in Logistic Regression, modelling procedures are more complex and time-
consuming, the results are more statistically robust. Moreover, Logistic Re
gression has the capability of associating probability of occurrence to the
potential area. Overlap Analysis is very simple in building procedures and
swift in obtaining reliable potential areas. It is a valid technique espec
ially in exploratory analysis of species distributions or in the initial st
ages of research when data may be scarce.