[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: EQ (was RE: Tyrannosaur age-population distributions)
Quoting Michael Mortimer <email@example.com>:
We could also compare the cerebral percentage of the endocast, which is
MUCH higher in modern birds than in Tyrannosaurus (though the latter's
is higher than in carnosaurs).
It would seem to me that putting a human brain in a tyrannosaur's head
(you'd have to make a lot of extra room for it) would result in an
animal with a much lower EQ, and lower cerebral volume percentage,
than a human being - despite identicle brains.
Brain *complexity* is probably a better measure of 'intelligence'
(however you choose to define the word) than overall size (or relative
size). Is there a way of inferring the complexity of a brain from
endocasts? Could a more complex folded cortex leave any indications of
its nature on the roof of the brain case (assuming dinosaurs HAD much
of a cortex - even the brainiest of birds have much smaller cortices
than mammals of equivalent EQ)? Or would the size and number of blood
vessels entering the brain case be a better indicator of brain
complexity (I'm assuming more complex brains need more nurishment).
While I'm asking questions; would there be an upper size limit for
brain volume for terrestrial animals, above which there is little
improvement in function? Certainly eyeballs seem to exhibit such a
limit. Could a sauropod with a brain the size of a hadrosaur (a random
comparison, for instance) have the same level of 'braininess' despite
a much lower EQ?
GIS / Archaeologist http://heretichides.soffiles.com
Melbourne, Australia http://www.geocities.com/dannsdinosaurs