Four errors and a fallacy: pitfalls for the unwary in comparative brain analyses

Comparative analyses are the backbone of evolutionary analysis. However, their record in producing a consensus has not always been good. This is especially true of attempts to understand the factors responsible for the evolution of large brains, which have been embroiled in an increasingly polarised debate over the past three decades. We argue that most of these disputes arise from a number of conceptual errors and associated logical fallacies that are the result of a failure to adopt a biological systems-based approach to hypothesis-testing. We identify four principal classes of error: a failure to heed Tinbergen's Four Questions when testing biological hypotheses, misapplying Dobzhansky's Dictum when testing hypotheses of evolutionary adaptation, poorly chosen behavioural proxies for underlying hypotheses, and the use of inappropriate statistical methods. In the interests of progress, we urge a more careful and considered approach to comparative analyses, and the adoption of a broader, rather than a narrower, taxonomic perspective.

Why are there so many explanations for primate brain evolution?

The question as to why primates have evolved unusually large brains has received much attention, with many alternative proposals all supported by evidence. We review the main hypotheses, the assumptions they make and the evidence for and against them. Taking as our starting point the fact that every hypothesis has sound empirical evidence to support it, we argue that the hypotheses are best interpreted in terms of a framework of evolutionary causes (selection factors), consequences (evolutionary windows of opportunity) and constraints (usually physiological limitations requiring resolution if large brains are to evolve). Explanations for brain evolution in birds and mammals generally, and primates in particular, have to be seen against the backdrop of the challenges involved with the evolution of coordinated, cohesive, bonded social groups that require novel social behaviours for their resolution, together with the specialized cognition and neural substrates that underpin this. A crucial, but frequently overlooked, issue is that fact that the evolution of large brains required energetic, physiological and time budget constraints to be overcome. In some cases, this was reflected in the evolution of 'smart foraging' and technical intelligence, but in many cases required the evolution of behavioural competences (such as coalition formation) that required novel cognitive skills. These may all have been supported by a domain-general form of cognition that can be used in many different contexts.This article is part of the themed issue 'Physiological determinants of social behaviour in animals'.

Social cognition on the Internet: testing constraints on social network size

The social brain hypothesis (an explanation for the evolution of brain size in primates) predicts that humans typically cannot maintain more than 150 relationships at any one time. The constraint is partly cognitive (ultimately determined by some aspect of brain volume) and partly one of time. Friendships (but not necessarily kin relationships) are maintained by investing time in them, and failure to do so results in an inexorable deterioration in the quality of a relationship. The Internet, and in particular the rise of social networking sites (SNSs), raises the possibility that digital media might allow us to circumvent some or all of these constraints. This allows us to test the importance of these constraints in limiting human sociality. Although the recency of SNSs means that there have been relatively few studies, those that are available suggest that, in general, the ability to broadcast to many individuals at once, and the possibilities this provides in terms of continuously updating our understanding of network members' behaviour and thoughts, do not allow larger networks to be maintained. This may be because only relatively weak quality relationships can be maintained without face-to-face interaction.