|
|
Kudo, H., & Dunbar, R. I. M. (2001). Neocortex size and social network size in primates. Anim. Behav., 62(4), 711–722.
Abstract: Primates use social grooming to service coalitions and it has been suggested that these directly affect the fitness of their members by allowing them to reduce the intrinsic costs associated with living in large groups. We tested two hypotheses about the size of grooming cliques that derive from this suggestion: (1) that grooming clique size should correlate with relative neocortex size and (2) that the size of grooming cliques should be proportional to the size of the groups they have to support. Both predictions were confirmed, although we show that, in respect of neocortex size, there are as many as four statistically distinct grades within the primates (including humans). Analysis of the patterns of grooming among males and females suggested that large primate social groups often consist of a set of smaller female subgroups (in some cases, matrilinearly based coalitions) that are linked by individual males. This may be because males insert themselves into the interstices between weakly bonded female subgroups rather than because they actually hold these subunits together.
|
|
|
|
Dunbar, R. I. M. (2009). The social brain hypothesis and its implications for social evolution. Annals of Human Biology, 36(5), 562–572.
Abstract: The social brain hypothesis was proposed as an explanation for the fact that primates have unusually large brains for body size compared to all other vertebrates: Primates evolved large brains to manage their unusually complex social systems. Although this proposal has been generalized to all vertebrate taxa as an explanation for brain evolution, recent analyses suggest that the social brain hypothesis takes a very different form in other mammals and birds than it does in anthropoid primates. In primates, there is a quantitative relationship between brain size and social group size (group size is a monotonic function of brain size), presumably because the cognitive demands of sociality place a constraint on the number of individuals that can be maintained in a coherent group. In other mammals and birds, the relationship is a qualitative one: Large brains are associated with categorical differences in mating system, with species that have pairbonded mating systems having the largest brains. It seems that anthropoid primates may have generalized the bonding processes that characterize monogamous pairbonds to other non-reproductive relationships (?friendships?), thereby giving rise to the quantitative relationship between group size and brain size that we find in this taxon. This raises issues about why bonded relationships are cognitively so demanding (and, indeed, raises questions about what a bonded relationship actually is), and when and why primates undertook this change in social style.
|
|
|
|
Dunbar, R. I. M., & Shultz, S. (2007). Evolution in the Social Brain. Science, 317(5843), 1344–1347.
Abstract: The evolution of unusually large brains in some groups of animals, notably primates, has long been a puzzle. Although early explanations tended to emphasize the brain's role in sensory or technical competence (foraging skills, innovations, and way-finding), the balance of evidence now clearly favors the suggestion that it was the computational demands of living in large, complex societies that selected for large brains. However, recent analyses suggest that it may have been the particular demands of the more intense forms of pairbonding that was the critical factor that triggered this evolutionary development. This may explain why primate sociality seems to be so different from that found in most other birds and mammals: Primate sociality is based on bonded relationships of a kind that are found only in pairbonds in other taxa.
|
|
