Relative brain size and basal metabolic rate in terrestrial vertebrates

Martín, Robert D.

doi:10.1038/293057a0

Cited by 671 publications

(478 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

431

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, it is well established that reduction of body size within a mammal species (including Homo sapiens) is usually associated with only moderate reduction in brain size. Whereas the exponent value for scaling of brain mass size to body mass in comprehensive interspecific comparisons across placental mammals is close to 0.75 (Martin, 1981;Martin et al, 2005), there is a progressive decline with decreasing taxonomic rank and the value for intraspecific scaling among adults of a single species is typically about 0.25 (Martin and Harvey, 1985;Kruska, 2005). One of the best-documented cases is that of the domestic dog, with an exponent value of 0.27 determined for 26 breeds covering a 21-fold range of body sizes generated by artificial selection (Bronson, 1979).…”

Section: Cranial Capacitymentioning

confidence: 92%

Flores hominid: New species or microcephalic dwarf?

et al. 2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The proposed new hominid ''Homo floresiensis'' is based on specimens from cave deposits on the Indonesian island Flores. The primary evidence, dated at $ 18,000 y, is a skull and partial skeleton of a very small but dentally adult individual (LB1). Incomplete specimens are attributed to eight additional individuals. Stone tools at the site are also attributed to H. floresiensis. The discoverers interpreted H. floresiensis as an insular dwarf derived from Homo erectus, but others see LB1 as a small-bodied microcephalic Homo sapiens. Study of virtual endocasts, including LB1 and a European microcephalic, purportedly excluded microcephaly, but reconsideration reveals several problems. The cranial capacity of LB1 ($ 400 cc) is smaller than in any other known hominid < 3.5 Ma and is far too small to derive from Homo erectus by normal dwarfing. By contrast, some associated tools were generated with a prepared-core technique previously unknown for H. erectus, including bladelets otherwise associated exclusively with H. sapiens. The single European microcephalic skull used in comparing virtual endocasts was particularly unsuitable. The specimen was a cast, not the original skull (traced to Stuttgart), from a 10-year-old child with massive pathology. Moreover, the calotte does not fit well with the rest of the cast, probably being a later addition of unknown history. Consideration of various forms of human microcephaly and of two adult specimens indicates that LB1 could well be a microcephalic Homo sapiens. This is the most likely explanation for the incongruous association of a small-brained recent hominid with advanced stone tools.

show abstract

Section: Cranial Capacitymentioning

confidence: 92%

Flores hominid: New species or microcephalic dwarf?

et al. 2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Therefore, we reviewed the original literature on primate basal metabolic rates (BMR) and found data for 30 primate species from adult, post-absorptive, non-reproductive, resting or sleeping individuals in their thermoneutral zone. Gestation and lactation lengths for 27 of these species were taken primarily from the compilation of Martin (2007) Because data on neonatal brain size are scarce and the relationship between neonatal ECV and adult female ECV does not differ significantly from isometry (reduced major axis regression slope = 1.011, 95% confidence interval 0.953-1.072, r 2 = 0.984, N=22, data from Harvey, 1990, andSacher andStaffeldt, 1974, see also Martin, 1981), we used Primate endocranial volumes 12 adult female brain size as a proxy for neonatal brain size. First, we tested for a positive correlation between BMR and brain size in primates.…”

Section: Statistical Analysesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The scaling relationship between brain size and body mass in primates (and mammals generally) has also been a major topic of debate, in part because the influence of body mass must be considered in comparative analyses of brain evolution (e.g. Jerison, 1973;Martin, 1981;Hofman, 1989;Allman, 1999). However, a thorough understanding of brain-body allometry is impeded by numerous factors (reviewed in Deacon, 1990), including grade differences between primate clades.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Endocranial volumes of primate species: scaling analyses using a comprehensive and reliable data set

Isler

Kirk

Miller

et al. 2008

Journal of Human Evolution

272

289

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We present a compilation of endocranial volumes (ECV) for 176 non-human primate species, based on individual data collected from 3813 museum specimens, at least 88% being wild-caught. In combination with body mass data from wild individuals, strong correlations between endocranial volume and body mass within taxonomic groups were found. Errors attributable to different techniques for measuring cranial capacity were negligible and unbiased. The overall slopes for regressions of log ECV on log body mass in primates are 0.773 for least-squares regression and 0.793 for reduced major axis regression. The leastsquares slope is reduced to 0.565 when independent contrasts are substituted for species means (branch lengths from molecular studies). A common slope of 0.646 is obtained with logged species means when grade shifts between major groups are taken into account using ANCOVA. In addition to providing a comprehensive and reliable database for comparative analyses of primate brain size, we show that the scaling relationship between brain mass and ECV does not differ significantly from isometry in primates. We also demonstrate that ECV does not differ substantially between captive and wild samples of the same species. ECV may be a more reliable indicator of brain size than brain mass, because considerably larger samples can be collected to better represent the full range of intraspecific variation. We also provide support for the maternal energy hypothesis by showing that BMR and gestation period are both positively correlated with brain size in primates, after controlling for the influence of body mass and potential effects of phylogenetic relatedness.

show abstract

“…Barton (2000) suggests that integrative areas that are traditionally considered non-visual receive visual input and would be aVected by the evolutionary enhancement of supporting, lower-level structures. Although the enhancement of the visual system may have primed the way for enlargement of not only primary sensory, but also higher integrative areas, the brain is energetically expensive (Armstrong 1983;Hofman 1983;Martin 1981). Therefore, without shifts in the environment favoring the ability to construct complex representations, it is unlikely that the genes necessary for this ability would spread through a population and persist.…”

Section: An Evolutionary Scenariomentioning

confidence: 99%

A socioecological perspective on primate cognition, past and present

Cunningham

Janson

2007

Anim Cogn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The papers in this special issue examine the relationship between social and ecological cognition in primates. We refer to the intersection of these two domains as socioecological cognition. Examples of socioecological cognition include socially learned predator alarm calls and socially sensitive foraging decisions. In this review we consider how primate cognition may have been shaped by the interaction of social and ecological inXuences in their evolutionary history. The ability to remember distant, out-of-sight locations is an ancient one, shared by many mammals and widespread among primates. It seems some monkeys and apes have evolved the ability to form more complex representations of resources, integrating "what-where-how much" information. This ability allowed anthropoids to live in larger, more cohesive groups by minimizing competition for limited resources between group members. As group size increased, however, competition for resources also increased, selecting for enhanced social skills. Enhanced social skills in turn made a more sophisticated relationship to the environment possible. The interaction of social and ecological inXuences created a spiraling eVect in the evolution of primate intelligence. In contrast, lemurs may not have evolved the ability to form complex representations which would allow them to consider the size and location of resources. This lack in lemur ecological cognition may restrict the size of frugivorous lemur social groups, thereby limiting the complexity of lemur social life. In this special issue, we have brought together two review papers, Wve Weld studies, and one laboratory study to investigate the interaction of social and ecological factors in relation to foraging. Our goal is to stimulate research that considers social and ecological factors acting together on cognitive evolution, rather than in isolation. Cross fertilization of experimental and observational studies from captivity and the Weld is important for increasing our understanding of this relationship.

show abstract

Relative brain size and basal metabolic rate in terrestrial vertebrates

Cited by 671 publications

References 22 publications

Flores hominid: New species or microcephalic dwarf?

Flores hominid: New species or microcephalic dwarf?

Endocranial volumes of primate species: scaling analyses using a comprehensive and reliable data set

A socioecological perspective on primate cognition, past and present

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About