arr a 3. Significance of Gross Brain Size log k + a log P (32) intaDbis sa tinear equation in tog £7 and log P with a flope'a: Log k isthe MnfEFEpt and has the value log £ at log P = 0. The index of cephali as defined by Dubois was, therefore, the value of hy for a pi vidual é with brain ang body sizes Ey If Dubois sdf the index of cep! and a 3000-g body, Ne could graph the point (25, 3000) on lo draw a line of {f6pe"O.56 through the point, and read the intercept at P 1.0 G.c., at log P = 0) on the ordinate, He would find it to be 0.28. A lion with a 225-g brain and a 150-kg body would also have an index of cephal zation of 0.28. (Dubois actually defined his value of a to produce such an equality because he believed cats and lions to be equally “cephalized.”) In short, lions and eats lie on the same line. Recognizing that Dubois’ approach to evaluating « was ad hoe, von Bonin (1937) undertook the more objective approach of fitting a single straight line to the logarithms of brain and body weights of a relatively large, though haphazard, sample of mammals, following a regression ana ysis. A graphic presentation of data on over 100 mammals did look like a scatter plot and served to justify the procedure. With this procedure he found that a = 4, approximately, which agreed with Snell's (1891) theo- retically determined value, (This results in an index of cephalization of 0.14 for the cat and 0.08 for the lion.) I was able to confirm the slope of 4 (Jeri- son, 1955, 1961) on other data (using a least squares curve-fitting method somewhat more suitable to such data) by performing a functional analysis (rather than regression analysis) in which errors of measurement are as- sumed in both brain and body measures. My work with the index began with the question of its reliability, and 1 asked first whether k, was really independent of body weight. To my surprise GJerison, 1955) I found that the von Bonin index, when applied to primates, was negatively correlated with body weight, and although the relationship was curvilinear, it was extremely orderly. I now realize that what I found could have been predicted from data then in the literature. Sholl (1948) had reported a much flatter slope for data among species of macaque monkeys (a = 0.18) than cither the Dubois value (« = 0.56) or the von Bonin value (a = 0.66). From other reports, such as Lapique (1907), it was well known that related species within a genus had flatter slopes than those resulting from fits to more disparate groups. My situation was effec- tively as diagrammed in Fig. 3.1, in which a series of brain:body “points,” or “data,” aligned along a line with a fat slope such as ce = h, are fited by equations, such as Eq, (3.2), with «= 3. ‘The result of such an erroneous choice of eis that points from lighter species will have higher values of ky fp ticular indi- in Eq. (3.2) and with c= 0.56.