When The Guardian gets hold of research from your university – you know it’s a big deal. Here’s a little excerpt
Male bats with larger testicles but smaller brains stand a greater chance of having offspring than their smaller testicled, bigger brained rivals.
But if you want a real audience, you want it to appear in The Mirror
Scientists at Syracuse University, New York, found the link after studying 334 bat species.
They wrote: “Because relatively large brains are metabolically costly to develop and maintain, changes in brain size may be accompanied by compensatory changes in other tissues.
Or maybe The Times
In the study, a team led by Scott Pitnick of Syracuse University, in New York State, looked at testicle and brain size in 334 different species of bat. They found that testicle size increased markedly in species with particularly promiscuous females, and that the animals’ brains were smaller to match.
I have some very talented colleagues here at Syracuse, and Scott is certainly one if them. However, it is equally fascinating how interested my home country’s media is in any story involving testicles.
December 9th, 2005 at 1:57 am
Bollocks!
December 9th, 2005 at 5:21 am
Anyone remember that bit of pseudoscience (?) that went through the media earlier this year, that claimed that men did science because of excess testosterone, with the hope of impressing women and somehow improving their chances of reproducing?
December 9th, 2005 at 11:35 am
Another account of the British fascination with bats and balls…
December 9th, 2005 at 7:33 pm
Cf: Fragile-X syndrome in human males.
December 12th, 2005 at 8:35 pm
You forgot the Economist.
December 14th, 2005 at 2:35 pm
“Sex” sells, as they say. It worked here.
But is it more biological or cultural?
both of course, but would the biological instinct still have us reading reports on sex if there was a preexisting excess in its supply?