Brain Size and Morphology of the Brood-Parasitic and Cerophagous Honeyguides (Aves: Piciformes)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Honeyguides (Indicatoridae, Piciformes) are unique among birds in several respects. All subsist primarily on wax, are obligatory brood parasites and one species engages in 'guiding' behavior in which it leads human honey hunters to bees' nests. This unique life history has likely shaped the evolution of their brain size and morphology. Here, we test that hypothesis using comparative data on relative brain and brain region size of honeyguides and their relatives: woodpeckers, barbets and toucans. Honeyguides have significantly smaller relative brain volumes than all other piciform taxa. Volumetric measurements of the brain indicate that honeyguides have a significantly larger cerebellum and hippocampal formation (HF) than woodpeckers, the sister clade of the honeyguides, although the HF enlargement was not significant across all of our analyses. Cluster analyses also revealed that the overall composition of the brain and telencephalon differs greatly between honeyguides and woodpeckers. The relatively smaller brains of the honeyguides may be a consequence of brood parasitism and cerophagy ('wax eating'), both of which place energetic constraints on brain development and maintenance. The inconclusive results of our analyses of relative HF volume highlight some of the problems associated with comparative studies of the HF that require further study.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".