Ah. Turns out my numbers are based on packing density, while the study you cite is based on counting neurons. (I'm assuming here counting is the better choice :

Ah. Turns out my numbers are based on packing density, while the study you cite is based on counting neurons. (I'm assuming here counting is the better choice :) The main point remains either way - equating numbers of neurons with "smart" is a really odd definition of "smart". (I mean, most definitions of "smart" in animal studies are bonkers - the most common one is "is obedient")