Actually, I think mainly we use the word "comparable" differently. :-)
I think allometry shows some very useful empirical relationships. But there are a bunch of reasons I wouldn't put strong weight on allometric hypotheses that aren't also strongly grounded in some other aspect of biology. Some are mathematical, some are methodological. The arboreal correlation strikes me as something that might be better explained as a lineage effect, for instance. When you look at the earlier literature, it's not far removed from playing with log-log graph paper.
As for cortexes, the capybara is gyrencephalic, just like the anteater and the hyena (but unlike the guinea pig or even the porcupine, which are smooth-brained). I don't have data on the degree though.
I'd love to see more behavioral studies on all three species. I've never read a modern (i.e. post-Skinnerian) study that showed an animal was duller than researchers thought, though of course there's publication bias.
no subject
I think allometry shows some very useful empirical relationships. But there are a bunch of reasons I wouldn't put strong weight on allometric hypotheses that aren't also strongly grounded in some other aspect of biology. Some are mathematical, some are methodological. The arboreal correlation strikes me as something that might be better explained as a lineage effect, for instance. When you look at the earlier literature, it's not far removed from playing with log-log graph paper.
As for cortexes, the capybara is gyrencephalic, just like the anteater and the hyena (but unlike the guinea pig or even the porcupine, which are smooth-brained). I don't have data on the degree though.
I'd love to see more behavioral studies on all three species. I've never read a modern (i.e. post-Skinnerian) study that showed an animal was duller than researchers thought, though of course there's publication bias.