The terms "microsmatic" and "macrosmatic" are used to compare species with greater versus lesser olfactory capabilities, such as carnivores compared to certain primates. These categories have been morphologically defined based on the size of olfactory bulb and surface area of olfactory epithelium in the nasal fossa. The present study examines assumptions regarding the morphological relationship of bony elements to the olfactory mucosa, the utility of olfactory epithelial surface area as a comparative measurement, and the utility of the microsmatic concept. We examined the distribution of olfactory neuroepithelium (OE) across the anteroposterior length of the nasal fossa (from the first completely enclosed cross-section of the nasal fossa to the choanae) in the microsmatic marmoset (Callithrix jacchus) compared to four species of nocturnal strepsirrhines (Otolemur crassicaudatus, O. garnetti, Microcebus murinus, and Cheirogaleus medius). Adults of all species were examined and infant C. jacchus, O. crassicaudatus, M. murinus, and C. medius were also examined. All specimens were serially sectioned in the coronal plane and prepared for light microscopic study. Distribution of OE across all the turbinals, nasal septal surfaces, and accessory spaces of the nasal chamber was recorded for each specimen. The right nasal fossae of one adult C. jacchus and one neonatal M. murinus were also three-dimensionally reconstructed using Scion Image software to reveal OE distribution. Findings showed OE to be distributed relatively more anteriorly in adult C. jacchus compared to strepsirrhines. It was also distributed more anteriorly along the nasal septal walls and recesses in neonates than adults. Our findings also showed that OE surface area was not a reliable proxy for receptor neuron numbers due to differing OE thickness among species. Such results indicate that nasal cavity morphology must be carefully reconsidered regarding traditional functional roles (olfaction versus air conditioning) assigned to various nasal cavity structures. At present, the microsmatic concept itself lacks a basis in nasal chamber morphology, since OE may have varying patterns of distribution among different primates.

Explanations for the chemosensory abilities of newborn mammals focus primarily on food (milk) acquisition and communication (e.g., maternal-infant bonding). However, the relative importance of the main and accessory (vomeronasal) olfactory systems is hypothesized to differ at birth between altricial and precocial mammals. Strepsirrhines (lemurs and lorises) possess main and accessory olfactory systems, and vary in life-history traits related to infant dependency and maturation. Accordingly, this study examines the size and maturational characteristics of vomeronasal (VNNE) and olfactory (OE) neuroepithelia in strepsirrhines. Serially sectioned heads of 18 infant cadavers were examined microscopically for neuroepithelial distribution. Measurements were taken on the length of the nasal fossa on one side that was occupied by VNNE and OE. The data were corrected for body size using the cranial length or body mass, and were then examined for correlation with several life-history variables, as well as activity pattern. In addition, immunohistochemistry was used to identify cells in the VNNE and OE that express olfactory marker protein (OMP), a marker of mature olfactory neurons. Relative OE extent was not significantly correlated with any of the life-history variables. Relative VNNE length was negatively correlated with relative gestation length and relative neonatal mass (P<0.05). However, when we corrected for phylogenetic relationships, we found no significant correlations between either of the neuroepithelial measurements and life-history variables. Immunohistochemical findings suggest that OE has more OMP-reactive cells than VNNE in all species. OMP-reactive cells appear to be less numerous in diurnal species compared to most nocturnal species. These results indicate that the VNNE may be relatively longer at birth in altricial species. However, it remains uncertain how phylogeny and/or ontogeny may explain these findings.