ArticlePloS one2021
The pattern of brain-size change in the early evolution of cetaceans.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cetacean evolution through the lens of ecospace modeling and disparity analyses.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Pre- and Postnatal Ontogeny of Brain Size in Beluga and Bowhead Whales.Brain, behavior and evolution · 2026Article
- The olfactory bulb endocast as a proxy for mammalian olfaction.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
- Morphology of the glymphatic and meningeal lymphatic structures of the bottlenose dolphin.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Of mice and men: Dendritic architecture differentiates human from mouse neuronal networks.iScience · 2025Article
- The better to eat you with: morphological disparity and enamel ultrastructure in odontocetes.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- A diminutive new basilosaurid whale reveals the trajectory of the cetacean life histories during the Eocene.Communications biology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Most authors have identified two rapid increases in relative brain size (encephalization quotient, EQ) in cetacean evolution: first at the origin of the modern suborders (odontocetes and mysticetes) around the Eocene-Oligocene transition, and a second at the origin of the delphinoid odontocetes during the middle Miocene. We explore how methods used to estimate brain and body mass alter this perceived timing and rate of cetacean EQ evolution. We provide new data on modern mammals (mysticetes, odontocetes, and terrestrial artiodactyls) and show that brain mass and endocranial volume scale allometrically, and that endocranial volume is not a direct proxy for brain mass. We demonstrate that inconsistencies in the methods used to estimate body size across the Eocene-Oligocene boundary have caused a spurious pattern in earlier relative brain size studies. Instead, we employ a single method, using occipital condyle width as a skeletal proxy for body mass using a new dataset of extant cetaceans, to clarify this pattern. We suggest that cetacean relative brain size is most accurately portrayed using EQs based on the scaling coefficients as observed in the closely related terrestrial artiodactyls. Finally, we include additional data for an Eocene whale, raising the sample size of Eocene archaeocetes to seven. Our analysis of fossil cetacean EQ is different from previous works which had shown that a sudden increase in EQ coincided with the origin of odontocetes at the Eocene-Oligocene boundary. Instead, our data show that brain size increased at the origin of basilosaurids, 5 million years before the Eocene-Oligocene transition, and we do not observe a significant increase in relative brain size at the origin of odontocetes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.