The brain is one of the most energetically expensive organs in the vertebrate body. Consequently, the energetic requirements of encephalization are suggested to impose considerable constraints on brain size evolution. Three main hypotheses concerning how energetic constraints might affect brain evolution predict covariation between brain investment and (1) investment into other costly tissues, (2) overall metabolic rate, and (3) reproductive investment. To date, these hypotheses have mainly been tested in homeothermic animals and the existing data are inconclusive. However, there are good reasons to believe that energetic limitations might play a role in large-scale patterns of brain size evolution also in ectothermic vertebrates. Here, we test these hypotheses in a group of ectothermic vertebrates, the Lake Tanganyika cichlid fishes. After controlling for the effect of shared ancestry and confounding ecological variables, we find a negative association between brain size and gut size. Furthermore, we find that the evolution of a larger brain is accompanied by increased reproductive investment into egg size and parental care. Our results indicate that the energetic costs of encephalization may be an important general factor involved in the evolution of brain size also in ectothermic vertebrates.

Increased brain size in humans and other primates is hypothesized to confer cognitive benefits but brings costs associated with growing and maintaining energetically expensive neural tissue. Previous studies have argued that changes in either diet or levels of sociality led to shifts in brain size, but results were equivocal. Here we test these hypotheses using phylogenetic comparative methods designed to jointly account for and estimate the effects of adaptation and phylogeny. Using the largest current sample of primate brain and body sizes with observation error, complemented by newly compiled diet and sociality data, we show that both diet and sociality have influenced the evolution of brain size. Shifting from simple to more complex levels of sociality resulted in relatively larger brains, while shifting to a more folivorous diet led to relatively smaller brains. While our results support the role of sociality, they modify a range of ecological hypotheses centered on the importance of frugivory, and instead indicate that digestive costs associated with increased folivory may have resulted in relatively smaller brains. [adaptation; allometry; bayou; evolutionary trend; energetic constraints; phylogenetic comparative methods; primate brain size; Slouch; social-brain hypothesis.]

The concept of evolvability—the capacity of a population to produce and maintain evolutionarily relevant variation—has become increasingly prominent in evolutionary biology. Paleontology has a long history of investigating questions of evolvability, but paleontological thinking has tended to neglect recent discussions, because many tools used in the current evolvability literature are challenging to apply to the fossil record. The fundamental difficulty is how to disentangle whether the causes of evolutionary patterns arise from variational properties of traits or lineages rather than being due to selection and ecological success. Despite these obstacles, the fossil record offers unique and growing sources of data that capture evolutionary patterns of sustained duration and significance otherwise inaccessible to evolutionary biologists. Additionally, there exist a variety of strategic possibilities for combining prominent neontological approaches to evolvability with those from paleontology. We illustrate three of these possibilities with quantitative genetics, evolutionary developmental biology, and phylogenetic models of macroevolution. In conclusion, we provide a methodological schema that focuses on the conceptualization, measurement, and testing of hypotheses to motivate and provide guidance for future empirical and theoretical studies of evolvability in the fossil record.

The relationship between the evolutionary dynamics observed in contemporary populations (microevolution) and evolution on timescales of millions of years (macroevolution) has been a topic of considerable debate. Historically, this debate centers on inconsistencies between microevolutionary processes and macroevolutionary patterns. Here, we characterize a striking exception: emerging evidence indicates that standing variation in contemporary populations and macroevolutionary rates of phenotypic divergence are often positively correlated. This apparent consistency between micro- and macroevolution is paradoxical because it contradicts our previous understanding of phenotypic evolution and is so far unexplained. Here, we explore the prospects for bridging evolutionary timescales through an examination of this “paradox of predictability.” We begin by explaining why the divergence-variance correlation is a paradox, followed by data analysis to show that the correlation is a general phenomenon across a broad range of temporal scales, from a few generations to tens of millions of years. Then we review complementary approaches from quantitative-genetics, comparative morphology, evo-devo, and paleontology to argue that they can help to address the paradox from the shared vantage point of recent work on evolvability. In conclusion, we recommend a methodological orientation that combines different kinds of short-term and long-term data using multiple analytical frameworks in an interdisciplinary research program. Such a program will increase our general understanding about how evolution works within and across timescales.