Carnivore olfactory bulb size allometry phylogeny and ecology

Olfactory bulb size was measured in 146 species of Carnivora in order to examine whether recently observed functional patterns for overall brain size were similar for component parts of the brain. Comparative measures were analysed in relation to various allometric characters (body, brain and skull size), phylogeny, behaviour and ecology. Olfactory bulbs are significantly and positively correlated with all allometric variables, but indices of skull size correlate slightly more closely than other variables. This probably relates to functional aspects of skull size, facial proportions, and anterior elements of the brain. Phylogenetic associations were examined by two comparative methods: the method of independent contrasts and phylogenetic autoregression. Both revealed similar phylogenetic correlation at generic and familial levels. Using calculated values from either method, relative olfactory bulb size only correlates with zonation among seven behavioural and ecological variables; aquatic otters have smaller bulb sizes than carnivores of other zonal types. This agrees with discussion about the diminution of olfactory communication in aquatic environments. Also, olfactory bulb size correlates with home range size, which is consistent with a recent model on the use of olfaction for foraging in designated home ranges. Generally, comparative differences in olfactory bulb size in carnivores do not associate with functional variables found in other comparative studies. Nevertheless, future analyses of specific brain components in mammals may be more useful than overall brain size for testing evolutionary hypotheses of mammalian brain size.

[1]  K. P. Bhatnagar,et al.  Comparison of brain structure volumes in Insectivora and Primates. III. Main olfactory bulb (MOB). , 1983, Journal fur Hirnforschung.

[2]  M. Hofman Energy Metabolism, Brain Size and Longevity in Mammals , 1983, The Quarterly Review of Biology.

[3]  L. Radinsky Evolution of skull shape in carnivores: 2. Additional modern carnivores , 1981 .

[4]  H. Stephan,et al.  Brains of Soricidae II. Volume comparison of brain components , 1984 .

[5]  J. Bower,et al.  Olfactory cortex: model circuit for study of associative memory? , 1989, Trends in Neurosciences.

[6]  J. Felsenstein Phylogenies and the Comparative Method , 1985, The American Naturalist.

[7]  C. Ruff,et al.  Canine tooth strength and killing behaviour in large carnivores , 1987 .

[8]  M. Pagel,et al.  Recent Developments in the Analysis of Comparative Data , 1988, The Quarterly Review of Biology.

[9]  L. Radinsky Some Cautionary Notes on Making Inferences about Relative Brain Size , 1982 .

[10]  J. L. Gittleman Carnivore Life History Patterns: Allometric, Phylogenetic, and Ecological Associations , 1986, The American Naturalist.

[11]  M. Pagel,et al.  The Taxon-Level Problem in the Evolution of Mammalian Brain Size: Facts and Artifacts , 1988, The American Naturalist.

[12]  S. Healy,et al.  Hippocampal specialization of food-storing birds. , 1989, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[13]  L. Radinsky A new approach to mammalian cranial analysis, illustrated by examples of prosimian primates , 1968, Journal of morphology.

[14]  L. Radinsky Basicranial axis length v. skull length in analysis of carnivore skull shape , 1984 .

[15]  J. Eisenberg,et al.  RELATIVE BRAIN SIZE AND FEEDING STRATEGIES IN THE CHIROPTERA , 1978, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[16]  K. P. Bhatnagar,et al.  Number of mitral cells and the bulb volume in the aging human olfactory bulb: A quantitative morphological study , 1987, The Anatomical record.

[17]  J. L. Gittleman Carnivore brain size, behavioral ecology and phylogeny , 1986 .

[18]  T. Guilford,et al.  OLFACTORY‐BULB SIZE AND NOCTURNALITY IN BIRDS , 1990, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[19]  P. Harvey On rethinking allometry. , 1982, Journal of theoretical biology.

[20]  D. Sherry,et al.  The hippocampal complex of food-storing birds. , 1989, Brain, behavior and evolution.

[21]  R. Apfelbach,et al.  Olfactory deprivation enhances normal spine loss in the olfactory bulb of developing ferrets , 1985, Neuroscience Letters.

[22]  M. Pagel,et al.  Comparative methods for examining adaptation depend on evolutionary models. , 1989, Folia primatologica; international journal of primatology.

[23]  Simon Benhamou,et al.  An olfactory orientation model for mammals' movements in their home ranges , 1989 .

[24]  T. Clutton‐Brock,et al.  Brain size and ecology in small mammals and primates. , 1980, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[25]  R. Martin,et al.  Relative brain size and basal metabolic rate in terrestrial vertebrates , 1981, Nature.

[26]  Mark Kot,et al.  Adaptation: Statistics and a Null Model for Estimating Phylogenetic Effects , 1990 .

[27]  L. Radinsky Evolution of skull shape in carnivores: 1. Representative modern carnivores , 1981 .