But how does it smell? An investigation of olfactory bulb size among living and fossil primates and other euarchontoglirans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Primates are often considered to have a poor sense of smell. While all studies identify small olfactory bulbs (OB; the region of the brain responsible for processing scent) among haplorhines, whether or not strepsirrhines also possess small OBs is less clear, as is the evolutionary backdrop from which these patterns emerged. Here, we examine the relative size of the olfactory bulbs in cranial endocasts of living and fossil primates and their kin (Euarchontoglires [Primates, Dermoptera, Scandentia, Rodentia, Lagomorpha]), testing previous hypotheses. Regression analyses of OB volume and mass relative to endocranial volume (ECV) and body mass (BM), and ANOVAS of residuals, were performed on a dataset of 181 extant and 41 extinct species. Analyses show clear differences in the relative size of the OBs, with haplorhines possessing distinctly smaller OBs relative to all other clades. Pairwise tests indicate haplorhine OBs are significantly smaller than those of all other clades, including strepsirrhines; when the haplorhines are removed from analyses, strepsirrhines are significantly smaller than all other clades. This suggests that a reduction in OB size occurred at the crown primate node, a pattern also seen in ancestral state reconstruction (ASR) analyses. The ASR analyses suggest multiple iterations of olfactory bulb size decrease occurred in Haplorhini, reflecting large amounts of parallelism. These results likely differ from previous studies due to the inclusion of additional fossils and more appropriate outgroups based on up-to-date phylogenetic hypotheses.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".