How could intelligence be balanced with a large muzzle?
My species of caniform-like creature has a relatively long muzzle because of its strong sense of smell. I would like to know how to give it a long muzzle with its large brain size. Members of this species primarily communicate with each other through certain electromagnetic waves, bodily scent, and occasional sound such as clapping or yelping. This species has relatively poor eyesight with red-green colorblindness. They are bipedal and have opposable digits on their forelimbs.
As well as being scientifically inclined at the level of modern day humans (of course with technology catering to its own forms of sensory input), members of the species would be able to understand many human concepts, form cultures, and create complex, intelligent concepts of their own. To put it bluntly, this species has 'intelligence' on par with humans.
More to the issue of the muzzles; this species does not hunt with a powerful bite because of tool use. It does have a mesocarnivorous diet with the appropriate dentition, so if anything about the diet would influence musculature, please indicate so. Regardless, I would expect it to require more muscles to support its snout. Neck muscles would already be highly developed because of the horn-like antennae on this creature.
Assuming the musculature of the mouth is much like that of existing carnivorans, for the most part, I am wondering:
- If the muzzle is at all plausible with a large brain
- If the muscles of the snout just be too heavy or large for the head
- If any 'space saving' adaptations such as putting brain tissue in the spinal area would work
- If the head would be too ridiculously large to support at all
I hope this is clear enough.
This post was sourced from https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/q/119431. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0.
1 answer
A plausible reason for the negative correlation between anthropoid muzzle size and brain size is quite simple, the higher the intelligence, particularly if high enough to cook, the less need there is for large teeth, chewing muscles, or heavy support in the skull. When teeth stop being your primary weapon (offensive or defensive), and no longer have to crack hard shells or masticate on raw vegetables, when tools and fire replace those functions, the evolutionary need for heavy jaws, a powerful bite, and large teeth is much reduced.
And evolution is efficient in the long run; use it or lose it.
I will present a counter-example, another mammal with very high intelligence, with apparent consciousness, tool use, cooperation and a rather large muzzle: Bottlenose dolphins. There are numerous experiments suggesting they have an abstract language (more than specific nouns or verbs, a descriptive language that allows them to describe procedures or objects they haven't seen before to another dolphin). I think there is no debate they are highly intelligent, provably inventive to solve problems, which to our knowledge requires self-awareness in a biological intelligence. (Solutions can be found by computers by simulating millions or billions of trials and errors, but no biological intelligence works that way, certainly not humans or mammals).
Elephants are likewise highly intelligent, problem solvers with self-awareness; and the elephant's trunk is an extended version of a nose.
There is also strong scientific doubt about correlations between brain size and intelligence. The vast majority of brain size is most strongly correlated with body-size, much less so intelligence. Large bodies have more nerve endings for both sensory functions and muscle command, and for processing the larger number of incoming signals. Due to accidents, gunshot wounds, cancers, strokes, etc, some unfortunate humans have lost nearly half their brain mass, and still recovered to be walking, talking professionals with above average IQ.
Large brains do not correlate with IQ; the average human brain is 3 pounds, and the average elephant brain is 4x bigger, at 12 pounds. And although elephants make and use tools and have a complex social life, if they were 4x as intelligent as humans, or 1x as intelligent, they would not be an endangered species and like the first homo sapiens would carry sharp weapons against predators.
You should consider relative brain mass (as a percentage of the rest of their body mass), not total brain mass; and as humans (both injured and whole) prove, there can be a factor of two or three even in that relative figure.
I think a large muzzle and intelligence are evolutionary compatible.
It is a large mistake, IMO, to short-change evolution and consider only the single human path toward intelligence, self-awareness and abstract thinking.
Evolution will find a way to solve any problems. That said, your creatures should not have features just because you think they'd be cool, you need a plausible reason a large muscular muzzle is NOT discarded over millions of years, it must have a plausible survival value that cannot be replaced by brain power -- and nearly all muscular functions can be. Compared to other creatures we dominate (including others like us, chimps and gorillas) we are weak, poorly sighted, slow, absent natural weaponry like teeth and claws, with seriously deficient hearing and olfactory senses, all in large part because abstract reasoning easily trumps all those tools, and we have declined from the "size and senses matter" body plans to our current state because we don't really need all that muscle. That is not a one-example rule, dogs have done the same, they may be descended from wolves but most domesticated dogs could not keep up with wild wolves in hunting or battle even if born to the life; they evolved away from that because they don't need it.
Simply needing a long snout to preserve the olfactory sense is not enough; it doesn't explain the need for a muscular jaw, large teeth or heavy jawbones. The elephant has a fine sense of smell without a bone in its nose, many fish have superb olfactory senses in very small packages, as do short-snout and very small dogs.
I won't propose any solutions, that is your creative job, but if there is a good plausible evolutionary reason to have both of these features together, I would presume that evolution would find a way.
0 comment threads
0 comment threads