Abstract The cooperative breeding hypothesis (CBH) states that cooperative breeding, a social system in which group members help to rear offspring that are not their own, has important socio‐cognitive consequences. Thornton & McAuliffe (2015; henceforth T&M) critiqued this idea on both conceptual and empirical grounds, arguing that there is no reason to predict that cooperative breeding should favour the evolution of enhanced social cognition or larger brains, nor any clear evidence that it does. In response to this critique, Burkart & van Schaik (2016 henceforth B&vS) attempt to clarify the causal logic of the CBH, revisit the data and raise the possibility that the hypothesis may only apply to primates. They concede that cooperative breeding is unlikely to generate selection pressures for enhanced socio‐cognitive abilities, but argue instead that the CBH operates purely through cooperative breeding reducing social or energetic constraints. Here, we argue that this revised hypothesis is also untenable because: (1) it cannot explain why resources so released would be allocated to cognitive traits per se rather than any other fitness‐related traits, (2) key assumptions are inconsistent with available evidence and (3) ambiguity regarding the predictions leaves it unclear what evidence would be required to falsify it. Ultimately, the absence of any compelling evidence that cooperative breeding is associated with elevated cognitive ability or large brains (indeed data suggest the opposite is true in non‐human primates) also casts doubt on the capacity of the CBH to explain variation in cognitive traits.

中文翻译：

---

合作育种假说的基本问题。回复 Burkart & van Schaik

摘要 合作育种假说 (CBH) 指出，合作育种是一种社会系统，其中群体成员帮助抚养不属于自己的后代，具有重要的社会认知后果。Thornton & McAuliffe（2015 年；此后为 T&M）从概念和经验两方面批评了这一想法，认为没有理由预测合作育种应该有利于增强社会认知或更大大脑的进化，也没有任何明确的证据表明它确实如此。针对这一批评，Burkart & van Schaik（2016 年以后的 B&vS）试图澄清 CBH 的因果逻辑，重新审视数据并提出该假设可能仅适用于灵长类动物的可能性。他们承认合作育种不太可能对提高社会认知能力产生选择压力，而是争辩说，CBH 纯粹通过合作育种运作，减少了社会或能量限制。在这里，我们认为这个修改后的假设也是站不住脚的，因为：（1）它无法解释为什么如此释放的资源会分配给认知特征本身而不是任何其他与健康相关的特征，（2）关键假设与现有证据不一致(3) 预测的模棱两可让人不清楚需要什么证据来伪造它。最终，缺乏任何令人​​信服的证据表明合作繁殖与认知能力提高或大脑大有关（确实数据表明非人类灵长类动物的情况正好相反）也使人们对 CBH 解释认知特征变异的能力产生怀疑。