Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T23:30:27.305Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Author's Response: Developmental structure in brain evolution

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 October 2001

Barbara L. Finlay
Affiliation:
Departments of Psychology and Neurobiology and Behavior, Uris Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853 blf2@cornell.edurbd1@cornell.edunn12@cornell.edu www.psych.cornell.edu/psychology/finlay/finlaylab.html www.psych.cornell.edu/darlington/index.html
Richard B. Darlington
Affiliation:
Departments of Psychology and Neurobiology and Behavior, Uris Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853 blf2@cornell.edurbd1@cornell.edunn12@cornell.edu www.psych.cornell.edu/psychology/finlay/finlaylab.html www.psych.cornell.edu/darlington/index.html
Nicholas Nicastro
Affiliation:
Departments of Psychology and Neurobiology and Behavior, Uris Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853 blf2@cornell.edurbd1@cornell.edunn12@cornell.edu www.psych.cornell.edu/psychology/finlay/finlaylab.html www.psych.cornell.edu/darlington/index.html

Abstract

First, we clarify the central nature of our argument: our attempt is to apportion variation in brain size between developmental constraint, system-specific change, and “mosaic” change, underlining the unexpectedly large role of developmental constraint, but making no case for exclusivity. We consider the special cases of unusual hypertrophy of single structures in single species, regressive nervous systems, and the unusually variable cerebellum raised by the commentators. We defend the description of the cortex (or any developmentally-constrained structure) as a potential spandrel, and weigh the implications of the spandrel concept for the course of human evolution. The empirical and statistical objections raised in the commentary of Barton are discussed at length. Finally, we catalogue and comment on the suggestions of new ways to study brain evolution, and new aspects of brain evolution to study.

Type
Author's Response
Copyright
© 2001 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)