New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Small-Brained Birds More Likely to Get Shot

Using taxidermy data, biologists determined that gun-killed birds have smaller brains than birds that died in other ways. Christopher Intagliata reports.

PhotoDisc/Getty Images (MARS)

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

The old expression “bird brain,” referring to a small or inadequate brain size—it’s not all that accurate. Take crows, for example, and other corvids, like jays and magpies. “Many corvids have relatively large brains for their body size, and can do amazing things.” Anders Møller, an evolutionary biologist at the French National Science Research Council. “So this ‘bird brain’ expression is a little bit simplified.” Some birds are so intelligent that they’re informally referred to as “primates with feathers.”

But even among the smartest bird species, there’s still natural variation in brain size. Which is a big deal—when it comes to being hunted. Møller worked with a taxidermy shop in Denmark, which had data on nearly 4000 birds brought in to be stuffed since 1960. A lot of the birds were just found dead—hit a window or wire—and people picked them up. But 300 of the specimens had been hunted. 

So Møller’s team then compared the brain sizes of birds that got shot to those that didn’t. They controlled for the birds’ age, sex, body size, and species. And they found that the hunted specimens’ brains were actually five percent smaller, on average, than the brains of birds that died by other means. “The surprising thing is that, if you make a similar kind of analysis of liver or heart size, there is absolutely no difference there. So this is specific to the brain.” The results are in the journal Biology Letters. [Anders Pape Møller and Johannes Erritzøe, Brain size and the risk of getting shot


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


The researchers assume that individuals with larger brains had what they called “superior escape ability.” That is, they were better at not getting shot.

As game season begins, Møller has this observation for hunters: “When you are sitting at the dinner table and eating the duck that you managed to shoot, with all likelihood it’s one with a disproportionately small brain.” Most certainly food for thought. 

—Christopher Intagliata

[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe