“…Accordingly, previous attempts to measure brain size and determine brain shape in therapsids resulted more in approximations than true estimations as there was a reliance on a variety of indirect approaches, ranging from geometric simplifications to conjectural visual approximations of brain morphology [Cluver, 1971;Kemp, 1969Kemp, , 1979Kemp, , 2009Jerison, 1973;Hopson, 1979;Quiroga, 1980Quiroga, , 1984Rowe et al, 2011;Rodrigues et al, 2014;Laass, 2015a]. Even the most recent CT scan-based surveys have encountered difficulties in obtaining a reliable picture of the therapsid braincase [Kemp, 2009;Rowe et al, 2011;Castanhinha et al, 2013;Rodrigues et al, 2014;Laass, 2015a;Araújo et al, 2017]. Accordingly, most endocranial volumes have been calculated on indirect evidence [Jerison, 1973;Hopson, 1979;Quiroga, 1980Quiroga, , 1984Kielan-Jaworowska et al, 2004;Rowe et al, 2011;Rodrigues et al, 2014;Laass, 2015a; but see Laass and Kaestner, 2017], and resulting estimations of the encephalisation quotient (EQ, a measure of brain volume relative to body mass [Jerison, 1973]) are controversial [see Kemp, 2009].…”