Relative Brain Size Is Not Correlated with Display Complexity in Manakins: A Reanalysis of Lindsay et al. (2015)

Gutiérrez-Ibáñez, Cristián; Iwaniuk, Andrew N.; Wylie, Douglas R.

doi:10.1159/000446312

Cited by 4 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…material at www.karger.com/doi/10.1159/000446341), we discovered that both body weight and absolute brain weight are positively related to display complexity, findings which are in keeping with the concluding statements made by Gutierrez-Ibanez et al [2016]. This unexpected relationship between courtship complexity and body weight is intriguing in light of the muscularly demanding, acrobatic nature of courtship display in manakins [Day et al, 2007;Fusani et al, 2007a, b;Schlinger et al, 2008a, b;Fuxjager et al, 2015;Lindsay et al, 2015].…”

Section: Courtship Complexity Is Related To Brain Weight and Body Weightsupporting

confidence: 83%

“…This unexpected relationship between courtship complexity and body weight is intriguing in light of the muscularly demanding, acrobatic nature of courtship display in manakins [Day et al, 2007;Fusani et al, 2007a, b;Schlinger et al, 2008a, b;Fuxjager et al, 2015;Lindsay et al, 2015]. Gutierrez-Ibanez et al [2016] show that there is a positive relationship between absolute courtship complexity and both brain weight and body weight. Based on lambda (λ) values of 0 or 1, respectively, they judge brain weight as tentatively significant (p = 0.023 or 0.085).…”

Section: Courtship Complexity Is Related To Brain Weight and Body Weightmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…However, trait λs are not related to λs for a regression of these traits, as λ from the regression relates to residual errors of the regression [Symonds and Blomberg, 2014]. Thus, data on trait λs cannot be used to make assumptions about regression λs, as Gutierrez-Ibanez et al [2016] imply. While we acknowledge that traits examined in ecology often show a phylogenetic signal (60% of traits in Freckleton et al [2002]), this is hardly a reason to assume a phylogenetic signal for traits in our data set.…”

Section: Courtship Complexity Is Related To Brain Weight and Body Weightmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Thus, in relation to our data set , the statistical arguments and alternatives proposed by Gutierrez-Ibanez et al [2016] are rendered moot; their methods do not provide a useful model of relative brain size in relationship to courtship complexity in manakins. The commentary highlights the difficulty in interpreting biological relationships between size-corrected morphological variables and a dependent variable in the many Day/Lindsay Brain Behav Evol 2016;87:227-231 DOI: 10.1159/000446341 228 data sets similar to ours where all the variables (e.g.…”

mentioning

confidence: 94%

“…Focusing their commentary on statistical issues, Gutierrez-Ibanez et al [2016] neglect the truly interesting finding that both body weight and brain weight are positively associated with the complexity of courtship display in manakins, and overlook the fact that the strength of these variable interactions clearly contraindicate both residual analyses and GLM [Newman, 1993;Garcia-Berthou, 2001;Engqvist, 2005;McCoy et al, 2006;Dormann et al, 2013]. Thus, in relation to our data set , the statistical arguments and alternatives proposed by Gutierrez-Ibanez et al [2016] are rendered moot; their methods do not provide a useful model of relative brain size in relationship to courtship complexity in manakins.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Associations between Manakin Display Complexity and Both Body and Brain Size Challenge Assumptions of Allometric Correction: A Response to Gutierrez-Ibanez et al. (2016)

Day

Lindsay²

2016

Brain Behav Evol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Courtship Complexity Is Related To Brain Weight and Body Weightsupporting

confidence: 83%

Section: Courtship Complexity Is Related To Brain Weight and Body Weightmentioning

confidence: 95%

Section: Courtship Complexity Is Related To Brain Weight and Body Weightmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 94%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Associations between Manakin Display Complexity and Both Body and Brain Size Challenge Assumptions of Allometric Correction: A Response to Gutierrez-Ibanez et al. (2016)

Day

Lindsay²

2016

Brain Behav Evol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Causation, not collinearity: Identifying sources of bias when modelling the evolution of brain size and other allometric traits

Walmsley

Morrissey

2022

Evolution Letters

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many biological traits covary with body size, resulting in an allometric relationship. Identifying the evolutionary drivers of these traits is complicated by possible relationships between a candidate selective agent and body size itself, motivating the widespread use of multiple regression analysis. However, the possibility that multiple regression may generate misleading estimates when predictor variables are correlated has recently received much attention. Here, we argue that a primary source of such bias is the failure to account for the complex causal structures underlying brains, bodies, and agents. When brains and bodies are expected to evolve in a correlated manner over and above the effects of specific agents of selection, neither simple nor multiple regression will identify the true causal effect of an agent on brain size. This problem results from the inclusion of a predictor variable in a regression analysis that is (in part) a consequence of the response variable. We demonstrate these biases with examples and derive estimators to identify causal relationships when traits evolve as a function of an existing allometry. Model mis-specification relative to plausible causal structures, not collinearity, requires further consideration as an important source of bias in comparative analyses.

show abstract

Brain size and neuron numbers drive differences in yawn duration across mammals and birds

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent studies indicate that yawning evolved as a brain cooling mechanism. Given that larger brains have greater thermolytic needs and brain temperature is determined in part by heat production from neuronal activity, it was hypothesized that animals with larger brains and more neurons would yawn longer to produce comparable cooling effects. To test this, we performed the largest study on yawning ever conducted, analyzing 1291 yawns from 101 species (55 mammals; 46 birds). Phylogenetically controlled analyses revealed robust positive correlations between yawn duration and (1) brain mass, (2) total neuron number, and (3) cortical/pallial neuron number in both mammals and birds, which cannot be attributed solely to allometric scaling rules. These relationships were similar across clades, though mammals exhibited considerably longer yawns than birds of comparable brain and body mass. These findings provide further evidence suggesting that yawning is a thermoregulatory adaptation that has been conserved across amniote evolution.

show abstract

Relative Brain Size Is Not Correlated with Display Complexity in Manakins: A Reanalysis of Lindsay et al. (2015)

Cited by 4 publications

References 45 publications

Associations between Manakin Display Complexity and Both Body and Brain Size Challenge Assumptions of Allometric Correction: A Response to Gutierrez-Ibanez et al. (2016)

Associations between Manakin Display Complexity and Both Body and Brain Size Challenge Assumptions of Allometric Correction: A Response to Gutierrez-Ibanez et al. (2016)

Causation, not collinearity: Identifying sources of bias when modelling the evolution of brain size and other allometric traits

Brain size and neuron numbers drive differences in yawn duration across mammals and birds

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About