|
|
Pérez-Barbería, F. J., Shultz, S., Dunbar, R. I. M., & Janis, C. (2007). Evidence For Coevolution Of Sociality And Relative Brain Size In Three Orders Of Mammals. Evolution, 61(12), 2811–2821.
Abstract: Abstract
As the brain is responsible for managing an individual's behavioral response to its environment, we should expect that large relative brain size is an evolutionary response to cognitively challenging behaviors. The “social brain hypothesis” argues that maintaining group cohesion is cognitively demanding as individuals living in groups need to be able to resolve conflicts that impact on their ability to meet resource requirements. If sociality does impose cognitive demands, we expect changes in relative brain size and sociality to be coupled over evolutionary time. In this study, we analyze data on sociality and relative brain size for 206 species of ungulates, carnivores, and primates and provide, for the first time, evidence that changes in sociality and relative brain size are closely correlated over evolutionary time for all three mammalian orders. This suggests a process of coevolution and provides support for the social brain theory. However, differences between taxonomic orders in the stability of the transition between small-brained/nonsocial and large-brained/social imply that, although sociality is cognitively demanding, sociality and relative brain size can become decoupled in some cases. Carnivores seem to have been especially prone to this.
|
|
|
|
Janis, C. (2007). An Evolutionary History of Browsing and Grazing Ungulates. In The Ecology of Browsing and Grazing (pp. 21–45).
Abstract: Browsing (i.e., eating woody and non-woody dicotyledonous plants) and grazing (i.e., eating grass) are distinctively different types of feeding behaviour among ungulates today. Ungulates with different diets have different morphologies (both craniodental ones and in aspects of the digestive system) and physiologies, although some of these differences are merely related to body size, as grazers are usually larger than browsers. There is also a difference in the foraging behaviour in terms of the relationship between resource abundance and intake rate, which is linear in browsers but asymptotic in grazers. The spatial distribution of the food resource is also different for the different types of herbage, browse being more patchily distributed than grass, and thus browsers and grazers are likely to have a very different perception of food resources in any given ecosystem (see Gordon 2003, for review).
|
|
