Viagra online Cialis online Actos online


Why did evolution of a large brain happen only once (among mammals/primates?)

Larger brains have evolved a number of times. It seems that there has been a trend over several tens of millions of years of evolution of larger brains in various clades, such as carnivores and primates. There is probably a kind of arms race going on among various species in which a larger brain is an asset.

However, as you imply, a really large brain (like the extraordinarily large human brain) seems to be very rare. One of the reasons for this is that there are at least two major kinds of costs of a large brain that outweigh the benefits. One kind of cost is the energetic expense of having this large brain. Over 10% of the day to day energy demands of an adult human go to the brain. The total energy requirement of an infant can be over 60% while the brain is both a relatively large proportion of the infant’s body, and is undergoing a great deal of growth. The brain tissue is very picky about things like the temperature it requires for normal function and the kind of nutrient it needs.

The other negative, which is also a positive, is that behavior mediated by cerebral function (roughly, “thinking”) requires learning. Organisms with larger brains are not born “knowing” what to do. This is a benefit because it allows for more flexibility in behavior and it allows for kinds of behaviors that probably can’t be “programmed” genetically. The down side is that a lot of learning needs to happen, and it has to happen in the right way, or you get a dysfunctional individual.

The challenge of behavioral biologists interested in humans is to ascertain how the costs and benefits of a large brain interact with the environment of adaptation in which we see this large brain emerge over evolutionary time.

How many species of early hominid existed at any one point in time?


Sahelanthropus tchadensis, Orrorin tugenensis, Ardipithecus ramidus, Australopithecus anamensis, Australopithecus afarensis, Kenyanthropus platyops, Australopithecus africanus, Australopithecus garhi, Australopithecus aethiopicus, Australopithecus robustus, Australopithecus boisei, Homo habilis,
and Homo georgicus is a short list of species that lived from about 6.5 or so million years ago to about 1.8 million years ago. Many of them lived during the “golden age of the hominid” between about 4 and 2 million years ago. There are others not listed here that are being or have recently been proposed.

With some clades of primates, we know that the species differences are seen entirely or almost entirely in the non-skeletal parts. This suggests that this number of species is a severe underestimate of the actual numbers. We also know that many primates have moderate size or small ranges, and this list comes from only a handful of localities across the region in which hominids lived, so there must be more species living in areas not sampled by the fossil sites. And, the rate of discovery of new species has not slowed down, or at least, it is reasonable to say that we can expect that the more that we look, the more we find, for the foreseeable future.

So the prospect that several, perhaps quite a large number, of hominid species would have existed at one point in time across most of Africa and possibly west Asia, is a near certainty. You would need a guidebook to figure out what you were looking at if you went back in a time machine to this region.


How many of them interacted and what was this interaction like?

Another common feature of primates is that many social primates do get into inter-species groups. There are various advantages to this. As long as food competition is minimal, mixed species groups may form to decrease predator pressure, for instance.

My personal feeling is that there was likely a fair amount of interaction between different hominid species. One reason for this is that not long after the first appearance of chipped stone tools, we see them in the record over a fairly large area. My guess (and it is only a guess at this point) is that stone tool use is more widespread at, say, 2.2 million years ago than it could have been if it was only practiced by one species. Interaction among species would facilitate the spread of this technology. That is only a guess, of course, and there are a lot of other ways to look at the data.

What caused those that disappeared to do so?

Perhaps there was a mass extinction related to increaced drying of the environment between 2 and 1.5 million years ago. Perhaps the rise of Homo erectus led to all of the others being outcompeted (or eaten for food!?) I find it interesting that relatively little is written about this. This may be in part because the time period we need to understand has fewer well dated deposits with fossil than we would like to address such questions.

If you like it, share it! These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Netvouz
  • Slashdot
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati

6 Responses to “Marta’s (good) questions, … continued”  

  1. 1 Matt Jones

    Nice article, I think (not that that means much) that a lot of the evolution of brain size is to do with social interaction. Once we ‘came down from the trees’ ‘we’ could form more complex societies which facilitated social interaction.

    - Social interaction is a huge driving force. It creates the need for more efficient comminication skills and also causes that community to be more competetive amoungsts themselves, almost creating an internal arms race which just speeds up the process even more. (if that makes sence?

    Theres ovbiously a lot more to it than that but it plays an importat part.

    Keep up the great blog,

    Matt Jones

  2. 2 Greg

    You are probably on the right track, Matt. But when we “cam down from the trees” we maintained a chimp-like brain size for about 5.5 million years. So the tree part is not really key. Social interactions is, however, what we DO with our brain. Supposedly.

  3. 3 Jenna

    Do you mean to suggest that certain hominids ate one another? If so, it would be interesting to see, if we could, what distinguished a certain hominid as dominant and, even more, what made the other hominids inferior enough to be viewed as food.

  4. 4 Greg

    I don’t want to make too strong of an argument one way or another. One of the problems we have is that sites of the relevant time period are somewhat rare and hard to date. The hominids that wer around at, ay 2.5 - 2.0 million years ago have very vague estimates for last appearance. One of the problems here is that the extensive East African record kind of runs out of volcanic deposits after 2.0 million years ago (there are some but fewer).

    At some point, though, we have only H. erectus (using the term broadly to encompass Africa and Asia). Do we have motive and opportunity?

  5. 5 cmf

    What are a few of the sites that have evidence of one or more hominid AND stone tools present? Aren’t there some in east africa where some speculation involves two or more hom’s, and one appears to have cutting abrasions to the bonz?

  6. 6 Greg

    Olduvai has several sites like this. At Koobi fora, the hominids are all down by the lake and the stone tools are away from the lake, but the geography is close enough that one can make some guesses.

Leave a Reply