Unfortunately I don't have the means to change the figure atm Ben1982 (talk) 14:08, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply] Also, the diagram seems to include only male humans "man", with "woman" not shown anywhere.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4898:D8:1004:E111:8355:1972:8529 (talk) 19:20, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] This contradiction has been ignored for over 2 years.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Perlscrypt (talk • contribs) 20:28, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply] Placed a stub and some basic articles to research.
:-) Kim Bruning 22:36, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC) Encephalisation Quotient is not the same as brain to body mass ratio, and the current arrangement is not acceptable.
This is false: the ratio is dissimilar (and generally considered irrelevant), it is the EQ that is similar, and relevant, and discussed with interest on the talk page.
These pages can then reference this one, which should be retitled something like 'relative brain size' (or encephalization, but I think it's worth keeping the existing article with that name).
The discovery that the brain-size increases with the surface-area of an animal is great and all, but I remember reading in an Issue of Natural History from the 1980s an article by Stephen Jay Gould where he noted encephalization quotient is good and all, but he observed that animals with small brains for the size of their bodies have brains with about the same size as their spinal cords.
24.16.15.81 22:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] The article may have been flagged as needing cleanup because it has been suggested that: For a full list of possible problems see Wikipedia:Manual of Style.
71.139.16.99 (talk) 04:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply] Actually, jumping spiders have (by far) the highest brain/mass ratio of any invertebrates, and in maze-type intelligence tests, can outperform most primates.
Here's a blog entry about them: http://scienceblogs.com/zooillogix/2007/08/hilariouslooking_fish_uses_chi.php Gary 00:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] The various "citation needed" are irrelevant - I have found plenty.
I think the best course of action is to state clearly that the issue is heavily criticized and to remove the numerous "citation needed" marks.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.66.112.5 (talk) 13:30, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply] The section on Criticism argues without having a good argument.
--Lyrical Jesse James (talk) 09:41, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply] I feel the article needs a big tidy-up.
The table of "Simple brain-to body ratio" doesn't say which measurement is used and omits several of the species mentioned in the text (dolphins, shrews, etc).
--Tryptofish (talk) 23:40, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply] Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified one external link on Brain-to-body mass ratio.
If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot.
No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below.
(Or the diagram I linked to is incorrect... Or the 'relatively close relationship' doesn't matter as much...) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.237.240.236 (talk) 10:04, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a potential replacement in the article "Developmental mechanisms of cerebral cortex expansion and folding: evolving towards human uniqueness" published in 2015 in the journal, The Biochemist.
Feoffer (talk) 06:01, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply] There are at least two formatting problems in the new section on Metabolism that I have just added to the Wikipedia page of Brain-to-body mass ratio with three references.
Hopefully the third reference is OK. Adams1peace (talk) 06:56, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply] A human brain is 1330cc (male) - 1190cc (female) while body mass is 90kg.