This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
One approximation used for the intelligence of dinosaurs (as well as with other organisms) is their encephalization quotient (EQ), or brain-to-body mass ratio. This measure assumes that the animals with the greatest EQs and proportionally largest brains were the most intelligent. By this measure the most intelligent dinosaurs were small–bodied theropods ("coelurosaurs") like Troodon, with EQs of about 5.8. The dinosaurs with the smallest EQs were basal sauropodomorphs ("prosauropods"), with EQs of about 0.05. [1]
Taxon | Encephalization quotient (EQ) (after [1] and [2]) |
---|---|
Human | 7.44 [3] |
"Coelurosaurs" (small–bodied theropods such as Troodon) | 5.8 |
"Carnosaurs" (large–bodied theropods) | 1.0–1.9 |
Ornithopods | 0.85–1.5 |
Ceratopsians | 0.7–0.9 |
Stegosaurians | about 0.6 |
Ankylosaurians | about 0.55 |
Sauropods | 0.2 |
" Prosauropods" | 0.05 |
Is this accurate? This appears to suggest (when compared to the figures on the wiki EQ page) that Coelurosaurs had a higher EQ than dolphins, and many dinosaurs have higher EQs than some well-known mammals.. 94.8.21.89 ( talk) 23:57, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
The EQ was designed for mammals only, so the results won't be accurate for any other animal.
EQ is also class specific. The EQ you see for Dinosaurs is adjusted by a factor of 10. A 5.8 Theropod EQ is equal to 0.58 mammalian EQ. It isn't comparable at all. 98.208.19.245 ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:44, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
References
{{
cite book}}
: Check |isbn=
value: checksum (
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
This table screws up the entire page and I don't know what's wrong with it, so I'm moving it here. Abyssal ( talk) 23:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
"as being very intelligent for reptiles, but generally not as smart as mammals."
I have some serious qualms about this phrasing. Dinosaurs were not reptiles and were far more closely related to modern birds. The sentence makes it sound like dinosaurs were intelligent reptiles that were not as smart as mammals. That is not accurate and there's no reference to make that argument. It could be said that dinosaurs were far more intelligent than reptiles, but not as intelligent as most modern mammals. I'm editing the intro to say just that.
The Cap'n (
talk)
22:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Our minds have been poisoned by the Linnaean classification system. We just can't seem to help but draw lines between groups, but evolution doesn't work that way. Keep in mind that all life on Earth sprung from some single-celled bacterium billions of years in the past, so technically speaking that would mean we are all bacteria, and yet at the same time we are not. This kind of stuff isn't exactly black and white. -- 24.36.130.109 ( talk) 02:31, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Can someone please discuss in the article why brain:body ratio is the correct way to measure potential intelligence? What is the logic behind this? The reason why I ask and tend to doubt it is because neurons are all basically the same size in all animals. Therefore, it seems logical that intelligence is directly proportional to absolute size of the brain, not the relative size of the brain to the body. Thanks. 67.6.204.12 ( talk) 18:24, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Can someone explain what is meant by t rex being just out of the 95% confidence limits of non-avian reptiles. Also it says that troodon's cerebrum-to-brain-volume ratio was 31.5% to 63%, and Archaeopteryx had a cerebrum-to-brain-volume ratio 78%. Does this mean archaeopteryx was smarter than troodon? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sergei Debrovski ( talk • contribs) 11:35, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
I labeled the Theropod section with the Technical template. It reads like a paper from a scientific journal. I'm taking a university course on dinosaurs and I had trouble with it. It's at the Master's or PhD level, I'd say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhults7791 ( talk • contribs) 03:36, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
It is surprising that Harry Harrison's "Eden trilogy" (West of Eden, Winter in Eden, Return to Eden) is not included in the "in fiction" section. This is a significant and well-known work of fiction, in which the development of intelligence in dinosaur descendents is the central premise. According to the West of Eden article, the Yilanè were descended from mosasaurs, which may not be considered true dinosaurs, but would be close enough to fit into the category of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.221.22.71 ( talk) 16:03, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
The Sapient dinosaur list are not fictional; they're about scientific speculation. Yes the first guy was a scifi writer but he was working off the ideas on a zoologist. Serendi pod ous 17:12, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Dinosaur intelligence. Please take a moment to review my edit. 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. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
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. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:06, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
The following assertion needs a citation, and probably shouldn't be in the introductory paragraph because of its speculative nature: "Some have speculated that if the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event had not occurred, the more intelligent forms of small theropods might have eventually evolved human-like levels of intelligence."
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
One approximation used for the intelligence of dinosaurs (as well as with other organisms) is their encephalization quotient (EQ), or brain-to-body mass ratio. This measure assumes that the animals with the greatest EQs and proportionally largest brains were the most intelligent. By this measure the most intelligent dinosaurs were small–bodied theropods ("coelurosaurs") like Troodon, with EQs of about 5.8. The dinosaurs with the smallest EQs were basal sauropodomorphs ("prosauropods"), with EQs of about 0.05. [1]
Taxon | Encephalization quotient (EQ) (after [1] and [2]) |
---|---|
Human | 7.44 [3] |
"Coelurosaurs" (small–bodied theropods such as Troodon) | 5.8 |
"Carnosaurs" (large–bodied theropods) | 1.0–1.9 |
Ornithopods | 0.85–1.5 |
Ceratopsians | 0.7–0.9 |
Stegosaurians | about 0.6 |
Ankylosaurians | about 0.55 |
Sauropods | 0.2 |
" Prosauropods" | 0.05 |
Is this accurate? This appears to suggest (when compared to the figures on the wiki EQ page) that Coelurosaurs had a higher EQ than dolphins, and many dinosaurs have higher EQs than some well-known mammals.. 94.8.21.89 ( talk) 23:57, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
The EQ was designed for mammals only, so the results won't be accurate for any other animal.
EQ is also class specific. The EQ you see for Dinosaurs is adjusted by a factor of 10. A 5.8 Theropod EQ is equal to 0.58 mammalian EQ. It isn't comparable at all. 98.208.19.245 ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:44, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
References
{{
cite book}}
: Check |isbn=
value: checksum (
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
This table screws up the entire page and I don't know what's wrong with it, so I'm moving it here. Abyssal ( talk) 23:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
"as being very intelligent for reptiles, but generally not as smart as mammals."
I have some serious qualms about this phrasing. Dinosaurs were not reptiles and were far more closely related to modern birds. The sentence makes it sound like dinosaurs were intelligent reptiles that were not as smart as mammals. That is not accurate and there's no reference to make that argument. It could be said that dinosaurs were far more intelligent than reptiles, but not as intelligent as most modern mammals. I'm editing the intro to say just that.
The Cap'n (
talk)
22:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Our minds have been poisoned by the Linnaean classification system. We just can't seem to help but draw lines between groups, but evolution doesn't work that way. Keep in mind that all life on Earth sprung from some single-celled bacterium billions of years in the past, so technically speaking that would mean we are all bacteria, and yet at the same time we are not. This kind of stuff isn't exactly black and white. -- 24.36.130.109 ( talk) 02:31, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Can someone please discuss in the article why brain:body ratio is the correct way to measure potential intelligence? What is the logic behind this? The reason why I ask and tend to doubt it is because neurons are all basically the same size in all animals. Therefore, it seems logical that intelligence is directly proportional to absolute size of the brain, not the relative size of the brain to the body. Thanks. 67.6.204.12 ( talk) 18:24, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Can someone explain what is meant by t rex being just out of the 95% confidence limits of non-avian reptiles. Also it says that troodon's cerebrum-to-brain-volume ratio was 31.5% to 63%, and Archaeopteryx had a cerebrum-to-brain-volume ratio 78%. Does this mean archaeopteryx was smarter than troodon? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sergei Debrovski ( talk • contribs) 11:35, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
I labeled the Theropod section with the Technical template. It reads like a paper from a scientific journal. I'm taking a university course on dinosaurs and I had trouble with it. It's at the Master's or PhD level, I'd say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhults7791 ( talk • contribs) 03:36, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
It is surprising that Harry Harrison's "Eden trilogy" (West of Eden, Winter in Eden, Return to Eden) is not included in the "in fiction" section. This is a significant and well-known work of fiction, in which the development of intelligence in dinosaur descendents is the central premise. According to the West of Eden article, the Yilanè were descended from mosasaurs, which may not be considered true dinosaurs, but would be close enough to fit into the category of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.221.22.71 ( talk) 16:03, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
The Sapient dinosaur list are not fictional; they're about scientific speculation. Yes the first guy was a scifi writer but he was working off the ideas on a zoologist. Serendi pod ous 17:12, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Dinosaur intelligence. Please take a moment to review my edit. 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. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
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. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:06, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
The following assertion needs a citation, and probably shouldn't be in the introductory paragraph because of its speculative nature: "Some have speculated that if the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event had not occurred, the more intelligent forms of small theropods might have eventually evolved human-like levels of intelligence."