4.2 Article

The allometry of brain size in mammals

期刊

JOURNAL OF MAMMALOGY
卷 100, 期 2, 页码 276-283

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/jmammal/gyz043

关键词

biodiversity; biological scaling; body size; cognition; comparative anatomy; comparative methods; macroecology; morphology; museum collections; neurobiology

类别

资金

  1. American Society of Mammalogists Shadle Fellowship
  2. McNair Scholars Program
  3. UNC Carolina Postdoctoral Fellowship

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Why some animals have big brains and others do not has intrigued scholars for millennia. Yet, the taxonomic scope of brain size research is limited to a few mammal lineages. Here, we present a brain size dataset compiled from the literature for 1,552 species with representation from 28 extant taxonomic orders. The brain-body size allometry across all mammals is (Brain) = -1.26 (Body)(0.75). This relationship shows strong phylogenetic signal. Thus, we conducted additional allometries using median species values for each order, family, and genus to ensure evolutionary independence. Slopes from these analyses at different taxonomic levels all approximate similar to 0.75 scaling. Why brain size scales to the 3/4 power to body size across mammals is to our knowledge unknown. Slopes within taxonomic orders, exhibiting smaller size ranges, are generally shallower than 0.75 and range from 0.24 to 0.81 with a median slope of 0.64. Published data on brain size are lacking for the majority of extant mammals (> 70% of species) with strong bias in representation from Primates, Carnivora, Perissodactyla, and Australidelphian marsupials (orders Dasyuromorphia, Diprotodontia, Peramelemorphia). Several orders are particularly underrepresented. For example, data on brain size are available for less than 20% of species in each of the following speciose lineages: Soricomorpha, Rodentia, Lagomorpha, Didelphimorphia, and Scandentia. Use of museum collections can decrease the current taxonomic bias in mammal brain size data and tests of hypothesis.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据