primates have comparatively larger brains likened to other mammals
Previous research has shown that primates have comparatively larger brains likened to other mammals. Such observations have led researchers to propose several accounts associated with the evolution of the enlarged size of the brain in the primate lineage. According to DeCasien, Williams and Higham (2017), ecological variables, such as diet and dental morphology, explain relative brain size difference in non-human primates. Milton and May (1976) told that primates have a strong relationship between body weight and home range area. Equally, dietary habits influence home range area, as folivorous primates occupy smaller areas for their body weight compared to omnivores. Information regarding adaptations of mammals based on anatomy is either from their teeth structure and bones or used the structures in behavior. As Kay wrote, living humans and Plio-Pleistocene forerunners have cheek teeth enclosed with a thin layer of enamel, while Homo have erect biped, thus terrestrial (Kay, 1984).
Researchers have also reasoned that Paranthropus have larger molars and smaller incisors than Australopithecus, which reflect the specific functional specializations. The large molars in australopithecines, according to Ungar (1988), relate to a herbivorous diet that necessitated grinding vast quantities of substantial vegetable diets. Contrastingly, australopithecines associated with an omnivorous diet that require extensive incisal preparation of meat and other foods during ingestion. Ungar (1988) further reasoned that tooth size is proportional to energy demands since the large occlusal surface tends to process more of a particular food about time. Similar evidence in primates had molar surface areas scale at around 0.75 power f body mass, an equal rate that metabolism increases with body mass (Ungar, 1998). This lab report builds on this literature to demonstrate that brain size is predicted by a diet that also determines tooth area and body mass among primate groups.
Hypotheses
- Tooth morphology does not relate the most usually chewed items, but often reflects food items that are infrequently consumed and are vital for the survival of primates.
- Dietary behavior of primates shows a positive relationship with brain size variation in primates.
- The dietary needs of the animals determine the primates variation in home range size
As Literature
In line with the first hypothesis, preliminary literature suggests that hominine diets have shown that large teeth of primates were important in processing foodstuff with relatively different mechanical properties (Ungar, 1998). To that end, the hypothesis that tooth morphology does not relate with the frequently masticated foodstuffs, yet show fallback food items are genuine. Even though there is a significant relationship between tooth area and quality of diet in primates, the cases in this correspondence disappear when the effects arise from variance in body mass are uninvolved. According to DeCasien, Williams and Higham (2017), social involvedness remains the primary driver of primate cognitive complexity. The social pressures promoted the evolution of large brain size in primates. As such, the hypothesis provides selective pressures on cognitive processing and compensates for the costs of the metabolically expensive brain by catalyzing a higher turnover of energy to digestion. The third hypothesis, Milton and May (1976), reported that difference in species in home-range sizes are likened to metabolic needs or dietary requirements of the primates. The body size of primates are positively associated with the home range area, and the specialist feeders often have more extensive home ranges compared to generalists of similar body weight.