CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 797Evolution and Paleontology StudiesMorphological variations and asymmetryPrimate Behavior and Ecology

Mosaic evolution of brain structure in mammals

Open access
Barton, Robert A., Harvey, Paul H.·2000·Nature
DOI 10.1038/35016580
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The mammalian brain comprises a number of functionally distinct systems. It might therefore be expected that natural selection on particular behavioural capacities would have caused size changes selectively, in the systems mediating those capacities. It has been claimed, however, that developmental constraints limited such mosaic evolution, causing co-ordinated size change among individual brain components. Here we analyse comparative data to demonstrate that mosaic change has been an important factor in brain structure evolution. First, the neocortex shows about a fivefold difference in volume between primates and insectivores even after accounting for its scaling relationship with the rest of the brain. Second, brain structures with major anatomical and functional links evolved together independently of evolutionary change in other structures. This is true at the level of both basic brain subdivisions and more fine-grained functional systems. Hence, brain evolution in these groups involved complex relationships among individual brain components.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/35016580

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The assumption that brain size relates to number of neurons similarly across orders underlies most comparative studies to date.

    “This assumption, which was justifiable by the lack of direct estimates of the neuronal composition of the brain of different species, is so widespread that it implicitly or explicitly underlies most comparative studies to date (for example, Haug, 1987; Finlay and Darlington, 1995; Barton and Harvey, 2000; Clark et al., 2001).”

    From The human brain in numbers: a linearly scaled-up primate brain (2009) · cites this paper as Barton and Harvey, 2000

  • The relative size of individual brain structures indicates variation beyond purely size-related allometric scaling.

    “The relative size of individual brain structures indicates variation beyond purely size-related allometric scaling [3,4].”

    From Brain reorganization, not relative brain size, primarily characterizes anthropoid brain evolution (2013) · cites this paper as [4]

  • Mosaic studies have mainly focused on allometric scaling trends of particular brain structures.

    “Mosaic studies have mainly focused on allometric scaling trends of particular brain structures [4,17].”

    From Brain reorganization, not relative brain size, primarily characterizes anthropoid brain evolution (2013) · cites this paper as [4]

  • Studies of phylogenetic variation in the brain structure of mammals and birds indicate many dimensions of variation, not one or two.

    “And studies of phylogenetic variation in the brain structure of mammals and birds indicate not one or two dimensions of variation but many [21–24].”

    From Embodied cognitive evolution and the cerebellum (2012) · cites this paper as [23]

  • After taking scaling against other brain structures into account, primates have relatively large neocortices and a relatively high density of cortical neurons.

    “After taking scaling against other brain structures into account, primates have relatively large neocortices [23], and a relatively high density of cortical neurons [48].”

    From Embodied cognitive evolution and the cerebellum (2012) · cites this paper as [23]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Barton, R. A., & Harvey, P. H.
Affiliations
  • Durham University (GB)
  • University of Oxford (GB)
Corresponding author
Barton, Robert A.
ORCID
Venue
Nature
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2000-06
Volume
405
Issue
6790
Pages
1055-1058
ISSN
  • 0028-0836 (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-4687
DOI
10.1038/35016580
OpenAlex
W1669925514
Cited by
797
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 23 · 2025: 39 · 2024: 29 · 2023: 43 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 54 · 2020: 35 · 2019: 62 · 2018: 32 · 2017: 42 · 2016: 49 · 2015: 29 · 2014: 40 · 2013: 27 · 2012: 30
FWCI
19.47
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Nature (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • Durham Research Online (Durham University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Evolution and Paleontology Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Geometry and Topology › Morphological variations and asymmetry
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Primate Behavior and Ecology
Keywords
brain evolution, mosaic evolution, brain size scaling, developmental constraints, primate brain, comparative neuroanatomy
MeSH terms
Animals, Brain, Cephalometry, Biological Evolution, Mammals, Neocortex

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review