The most common measure of intelligence in animals, brain size relative to body size, may not be as dependent on evolutionary selection on the brain as previously thought, according to a new analysis by scientists.
Brain size relative to body size has been used by generations of scientists to predict an animal's intelligence. For example, although the human brain is not the largest in the animal kingdom in terms of volume or mass, it is exceptionally large considering our moderate body mass.
Now, a study by a team of scientists at UCL, the University of Konstanz, and the Max Planck Institute of Ornithology has found that the relationship between the two traits is driven by different evolutionary mechanisms in different animals.
Crucially, researchers have found that the most significant factor in determining relative brain size is often evolutionary pressure on body size, and not brain size. For example, the evolutionary history of bats reveals they decreased body size much faster than brain size, leading to an increase in relative brain size. As a result, small bats were able to evolve improved flying manoeuvrability while maintaining the brainpower to handle foraging in cluttered environments.
This shows that relative brain size can not be used unequivocally as evidence of selection for intelligence. The study is published today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Dr Jeroen Smaers (UCL Anthropology and UCL Genetics, Evolution & Environment), lead author of the study said: "When using brain size relative to body size as a measure of intelligence, the assumption has always been that this measure is primarily driven by changes in brain size. It now appears that the relationship between changes in brain and body size in animals is more complex than has long been assumed.
"Changes in body size often occur independently of changes in brain size and vice versa. Moreover, the nature of these independent changes in brain and body size, are different in different groups of animals."
Researchers at UCL gathered data on brain and body mass for hundreds of modern and extinct bats, carnivorans, and primates. They then charted brain and body size evolution over time for each species. Across millions of years, most animals increased body size faster than brain size, with the exception of bats.
In primate lineages decreases in brain size marginally outpaced those in body size. Carnivoran evolution has taken yet a different course, with changes generally more strongly associated with body size rather than selection on brain size and cognition.
Given such differences, the authors believe that the predominant interpretation of relative brain size as the consequence of selection on intelligence inherently masks the often more significant influence of selection on body size.
University College London: http://www.ucl.ac.uk
This press release was posted to serve as a topic for discussion. Please comment below. We try our best to only post press releases that are associated with peer reviewed scientific literature. Critical discussions of the research are appreciated. If you need help finding a link to the original article, please contact us on twitter or via e-mail.
Pigs ‘edited’ with a warthog gene to resist African swine fever could help spawn GM animal farms in the UK
Mouse House to make naturalist biopic, six years after box-office failure of Creation, starring Paul Bettany
International team spends 10 years making inroads into treatment of bacterium which kills up to half of those it infects
You may not know it, but you probably have some Neanderthal in you. For people around the world, except sub-Saharan Africans, about 1 to 3 percent of their DNA comes from Neanderthals, our close cousins who disappeared roughly 39,000 years ago.
Research at Yale plotted what happened in the brains of two scientists as they held a conversation
From medicines to jet fuel, we have so many reasons to celebrate the microbes we live with every day
Genome sequencing indicates Kennewick Man is Native American, reopening the bitter battle over whether he should be reburied or studied
In the article on the discovery of dinosaurs (They’re back, Review, 6 June) you state: “In Sussex, a local doctor uncovered fragmentary remains of what appeared to be two more species of colossal extinct land reptiles.” You grossly underplay the contribution of Lewes-born Gideon Mantell, geologist and palaeontologist, author and diarist, friend to princes and international scholars as well as local doctor. Mantell not only discovered (aided by his wife) the first remains of the iguanodon in 1824 but named it – as it resembled the tooth of an iguana. This was the first known land dinosaur, Mary Anning having identified the first sea-living dinosaur.Mantell went on to put together more pieces of the jigsaw with extra fossil discoveries. In contrast to Richard Owen, whose models form the basis for the Crystal Palace dinosaurs, Mantell stated correctly that iguanodon would have walked on their back legs, using their forearms to fight or gather food. He did, however, attribute the thumb spike to a nose horn though later corrected this assumption. The Natural History Museum has a display on Gideon and his wife Mary’s contribution as well as the large “Mantell-piece” of Iguanodon fossils that he had on show in his museum in Brighton. He sold it, along with many more priceless items, to the British Museum in 1838. Gideon Mantell’s reputation deserves better than your throwaway remark. Debby MatthewsLewes, East Sussex Continue reading...
Unique triangular hairs help keep Saharan silver ants cool at 70°C by manipulating the physics of light
Most animals wouldn't confront a fearsome predator like a lion. But through sophisticated group work, hyenas launch successful raids