Encephalization of Australian and New Guinean MarsupialsAshwell K.W.S.
Department of Anatomy, School of Medical Sciences, The University of NSW, Sydney, N.S.W., Australia
Do you have an account?
- Rent for 48h to view
- Buy Cloud Access for unlimited viewing via different devices
- Synchronizing in the ReadCube Cloud
- Printing and saving restrictions apply
Rental: USD 8.50
Cloud: USD 20.00
Article / Publication Details
Encephalization of Australian marsupials was analyzed using the endocranial volume (ECV) of 52 species of Dasyuromorphia and Notoryctemorphia, 14 species of Peramelemorphia and 116 species of Diprotodontia from Australia and New Guinea and compared with 16 species of Ameridelphian marsupials and 3 species of native and recently introduced Australian eutherian carnivores (dingo, feral cat and feral fox). Linear regression analysis of the relationship between ECV and body weight for marsupials revealed that allometric parameters for these groups are different from those previously derived for samples of (mainly eutherian) mammals, with higher slopes for Dasyuromorphia and Diprotodontia and lower slopes for Ameridelphians and Peramelemorphia. Absolute ECV for small Australian and New Guinea marsupial carnivores (Antechinus and Sminthopsis) were found to be comparable to eutherians of similar body weight, but large marsupial carnivores such as the Tasmanian devil and thylacine had substantially smaller ECVs than eutherian carnivores of similar body weight. Similarly, members of some superfamilies within Diprotodontia (Burramyoidea, Petauroidea, Tarsipedoidea) had ECVs comparable to prosimians, whereas bandicoots, bilbies and many macropods were found to be poorly encephalized. When both encephalization quotient (EQ) and residuals from regression analysis were used to compare relative ECV of extinct/threatened species with common species there were no significant differences for any of the orders of Australian marsupials, suggesting that encephalization is not a major factor in the current extinction crisis for Australian marsupials. Similarly there were no consistent differences in relative ECV between marsupials from New Guinea and associated islands compared to Australia or between arid and non-arid Australian regions for any of the marsupial orders. The results indicate that marsupials are not uniformly poorly encephalized and that small marsupial carnivores and some members of Diprotodontia are of comparable encephalization to eutherians of similar body weight. In particular, honey possums and some gliders show an encephalization level comparable to prosimians, perhaps reflecting convergence in adaptation to similar arboreal niches.
© 2008 S. Karger AG, Basel
Birney EC, Monjeau JA (2003) Latitudinal variation in South American marsupial biology. In: Predators with Pouches. The biology of carnivorous marsupials (Jones M, Dickman C, Archer M, eds), pp 297–331. Collingwood: CSIRO Publishing.
- Byers JA (1999) The distribution of play behaviour among Australian marsupials. J Zool (Lond) 247:349–356.
Corbett LK (1995) The Dingo in Australia and Asia. Sydney: The University of New South Wales Press.
- Deaner RO, Isler K, Burkart J, van Schaik C (2007) Overall brain size, and not encephalization quotient, best predicts cognitive ability across non-human primates. Brain Behav Evol 70:115–124.
van Dongen PAM (1998) Brain size in vertebrates. In: The Central Nervous System of Vertebrates (Nieuwenhuys R, Ten Donkelaar HJ, Nicholson C, eds), pp 2099–2134. Berlin: Springer.
Flannery TF (1994) The Future Eaters. Sydney: Reed Books.
Flannery TF (1995) Mammals of New Guinea. Sydney: Reed Books.
- Haight JR, Murray PF (1981) The cranial endocast of the early Miocene marsupial, Wynyardia bassiana: an assessment of taxonomic relationships based upon comparisons with recent forms. Brain Behav Evol 19:17–36.
Haight JR, Nelson JE (1987) A brain that doesn’t fit its skull: a comparative study of the brain and endocranium of the koala Phascolarctos cinereus (Marsupialia: Phascolarctidae). In: Possums and Opossums: Studies in evolution (Archer M, ed), pp 331–352. Sydney: Surrey Beatty and Sons.
Hume ID (1999) Marsupial Nutrition. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.
- Iwaniuk AN, Nelson JE (2002) Can endocranial volume be used as an estimate of brain size in birds? Can J Zool 80:16–23.
Johnson C (2006) Australia’s Mammal Extinctions. A 50,000 year history. Port Melbourne: Cambridge.
Jones FW (1923–1925) The Mammals of South Australia. Adelaide: South Australian Government Printer.
- Marino L (1998) A comparison of encephalization between odontocete cetaceans and anthropoid primates. Brain Behav Evol 51:230–238.
- Marino L (1999) Brain growth in the harbor porpoise and Pacific white-sided dolphin. J Mammal 80:1353–1360.
- Marino L (2006) Absolute brain size: did we throw the baby out with the bathwater. Proc Natl Acad Sci 103:13606–13611.
- Myers TJ (2001) Prediction of marsupial body mass. Aust J Zool 49:99–118.
Paddle R (2000) The Last Tasmanian Tiger. The History and Extinction of the Thylacine. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.
- Pagel MD, Harvey PH (1989) Taxonomic differences in the scaling of brain on body weight among mammals. Science 244:1589–1593.
- Prange HD, Anderson JF, Rahn H (1979) Scaling of skeletal mass to body mass in birds and mammals. Am Nat 113:103–122.
Stewart TD (1947) Hrdlicka’s Practical Anthropometry. 3rd edition. Philadelphia PA: Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology.
Strahan R (1995) The Mammals of Australia. Sydney: Reed Books.
Striedter GF (2005) Principles of Brain Evolution. Sunderland MA: Sinauer Associates.
Tyndale-Biscoe H (2005) Life of Marsupials. Sydney: CSIRO Publishing.
Article / Publication Details
Copyright / Drug Dosage / DisclaimerCopyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.