Table 3 |
||||
|
Evolution of brain size during the evolution of H. floresiensis under two phylogenetic scenarios1. |
||||
|
Ancestor |
H. floresiensis body mass (kg) |
Ratio of change in log(absolute brain mass) & log(body mass)2 |
Change in log(brain mass) |
Change in log(relative brain mass) |
|
|
||||
|
Argue Tree 1 |
16 |
0.400* |
-0.171* |
0.121* |
|
24 |
0.639* |
-0.171* |
0.012* |
|
|
32 |
1.116 |
-0.171* |
-0.066 |
|
|
Argue Tree 2 |
16 |
0.428* |
-0.173* |
0.104* |
|
24 |
0.709* |
-0.173* |
-0.006* |
|
|
32 |
1.336 |
-0.173* |
-0.084 |
|
|
Both trees |
16 |
0.418* |
-0.176* |
0.110* |
|
24 |
0.679* |
-0.176* |
-0.001* |
|
|
32 |
1.225 |
-0.176* |
-0.076 |
|
|
|
||||
|
1 These are the two most parsimonious topologies obtained by Argue et al. [43] and are shown in Figure 1 b (tree 1) & c (tree 2) 2 computed as: [(brain descendant - brain ancestor)/(body descendant-body ancestor)] * indicates a result which falls within the range of decreases in brain size for Primates estimated in this study. |
||||
|
Montgomery et al. BMC Biology 2010 8:9 doi:10.1186/1741-7007-8-9 |
||||