0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Avian telencephalon and cerebellum volumes can be accurately estimated from digital brain endocasts

      research-article
      1 , , 2 , 2 , 1 , 2 , 1
      Biology Letters
      The Royal Society
      endocast, comparative neuroanatomy, telencephalon, cerebellum, birds, vertebrate brain

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          For studies of the evolution of vertebrate brain anatomy and potentially associated behaviours, reconstructions of digital brain endocasts from computed tomography scans have revolutionized our capacity to collect neuroanatomical data. However, measurements from digital endocasts must be validated as reflecting actual brain anatomy, which is difficult because the collection of soft tissue information through histology is laborious and time-consuming. In birds, the reliability of digital endocast measurements as volume proxies for the two largest brain regions—the telencephalon and cerebellum—remains to be validated despite their use as proxies, e.g. of cognitive performance or flight ability. We here use the largest dataset of histology and digital endocasts to date, including 136 species from 25 avian orders, to compare digital endocast surface area measurements with actual brain volumes of the telencephalon, cerebellum and whole-brain endocast. Using linear and phylogenetically informed regression analyses, we demonstrate that endocast surfaces are strongly correlated with their brain volume counterparts for both absolute and relative size. This provides empirical support for using endocast-derived cerebellar and telencephalic surface areas in existing and future studies of living and extinct birds, with potential to expand to the dinosaur—bird transition in the future.

          Related collections

          Most cited references107

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          A comprehensive phylogeny of birds (Aves) using targeted next-generation DNA sequencing.

          Although reconstruction of the phylogeny of living birds has progressed tremendously in the last decade, the evolutionary history of Neoaves--a clade that encompasses nearly all living bird species--remains the greatest unresolved challenge in dinosaur systematics. Here we investigate avian phylogeny with an unprecedented scale of data: >390,000 bases of genomic sequence data from each of 198 species of living birds, representing all major avian lineages, and two crocodilian outgroups. Sequence data were collected using anchored hybrid enrichment, yielding 259 nuclear loci with an average length of 1,523 bases for a total data set of over 7.8 × 10(7) bases. Bayesian and maximum likelihood analyses yielded highly supported and nearly identical phylogenetic trees for all major avian lineages. Five major clades form successive sister groups to the rest of Neoaves: (1) a clade including nightjars, other caprimulgiforms, swifts, and hummingbirds; (2) a clade uniting cuckoos, bustards, and turacos with pigeons, mesites, and sandgrouse; (3) cranes and their relatives; (4) a comprehensive waterbird clade, including all diving, wading, and shorebirds; and (5) a comprehensive landbird clade with the enigmatic hoatzin (Opisthocomus hoazin) as the sister group to the rest. Neither of the two main, recently proposed Neoavian clades--Columbea and Passerea--were supported as monophyletic. The results of our divergence time analyses are congruent with the palaeontological record, supporting a major radiation of crown birds in the wake of the Cretaceous-Palaeogene (K-Pg) mass extinction.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Phylogenetic approaches in comparative physiology.

            Over the past two decades, comparative biological analyses have undergone profound changes with the incorporation of rigorous evolutionary perspectives and phylogenetic information. This change followed in large part from the realization that traditional methods of statistical analysis tacitly assumed independence of all observations, when in fact biological groups such as species are differentially related to each other according to their evolutionary history. New phylogenetically based analytical methods were then rapidly developed, incorporated into ;the comparative method', and applied to many physiological, biochemical, morphological and behavioral investigations. We now review the rationale for including phylogenetic information in comparative studies and briefly discuss three methods for doing this (independent contrasts, generalized least-squares models, and Monte Carlo computer simulations). We discuss when and how to use phylogenetic information in comparative studies and provide several examples in which it has been helpful, or even crucial, to a comparative analysis. We also consider some difficulties with phylogenetically based statistical methods, and of comparative approaches in general, both practical and theoretical. It is our personal opinion that the incorporation of phylogeny information into comparative studies has been highly beneficial, not only because it can improve the reliability of statistical inferences, but also because it continually emphasizes the potential importance of past evolutionary history in determining current form and function.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Feeding innovations and forebrain size in birds

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: ValidationRole: VisualizationRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review and editing
                Role: Data curationRole: MethodologyRole: Writing – review and editing
                Role: Data curationRole: MethodologyRole: Writing – review and editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: SupervisionRole: Writing – review and editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: Funding acquisitionRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Project administrationRole: ResourcesRole: SoftwareRole: SupervisionRole: ValidationRole: VisualizationRole: Writing – review and editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Formal analysisRole: Funding acquisitionRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Project administrationRole: ResourcesRole: SoftwareRole: SupervisionRole: ValidationRole: VisualizationRole: Writing – review and editing
                Journal
                Biol Lett
                Biol Lett
                rsbl
                roybiolett
                Biology Letters
                The Royal Society
                1744-9561
                1744-957X
                January 2025
                January 22, 2025
                January 22, 2025
                : 21
                : 1
                : 20240596
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ]College of Science and Engineering, Flinders University; , Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
                [ 2 ]Department of Neuroscience, University of Lethbridge; , Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada
                Author notes

                Electronic supplementary material is available online at https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.c.7601386.

                [ † ]

                Andrew N. Iwaniuk and Vera Weisbecker are joint senior authors.

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4033-6217
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3656-732X
                https://orcid.org/0009-0006-8138-3905
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9958-0265
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9273-3655
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2370-4046
                Article
                rsbl20240596
                10.1098/rsbl.2024.0596
                11750377
                39837487
                135182b1-a2a2-4e9f-afc0-d2e83e41a98c
                © 2025 The Author(s).

                Published by the Royal Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/, which permits unrestricted use, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : October 16, 2024
                : November 29, 2024
                : December 15, 2024
                Funding
                Funded by: Australian Research Council, FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000923;
                Award ID: Future Fellowship grant no. FT180100634 to V.W.
                Categories
                1001
                1001
                1001
                1001
                70
                144
                133
                14
                Evolutionary Biology
                Research Articles

                Life sciences
                endocast,comparative neuroanatomy,telencephalon,cerebellum,birds,vertebrate brain
                Life sciences
                endocast, comparative neuroanatomy, telencephalon, cerebellum, birds, vertebrate brain

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Smart Citations
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content348

                Most referenced authors840