Ted Bullock writes an excellent little paper on the evolution of the brain [1] and the amazing lack of difference between brains of various animals. EEG traces vary in amplitude and little else. Of course there is no human neuron - ours come from the same shelf as most other animals - if we were computers they would probably all have the same replacement part number (my observation is that there is more diversity of neuron types within any given brain than between the brains of various species, even phyla).
"The outstanding differences between humans and other animals in behaviour - the diversity of dances, the fuss over food preparation, the mess over morals, compulsion to creativity, interest in introspection and passion for the past make me believe, as a physiologist, that we should find differences in brain dynamics - at some level, between the human brain and that of taxa with less complex behavior. All the more when we learn how conserved is the brain anatomy, the cellular physiology and the molecular mechanisms."
But I have been reading through the mating and hierarchical rituals of various animals as well as the mane of the lion, the stotting of gazelles and the tail of the peacock. If you can show that you can survive with these handicaps then you must be an extremely fit individual and chances are you won't even be challenged.[2]
What is the mane of the researcher? How does one show that one is not to be challenged - that it won't be worth your effort? Ted shows us:-
"I made a stab some time ago to estimate the numbers of kinds of neurons, not just on morphology, cytology, and kinds of processes or on transmitters, modulators, chemical öreceptors, cytochemistry, molecular inhabitants, immunological criteria and so on - but on all of these and their permutations. Very importantly, one must add their dynamic personality traits - tendency to spontaneity, to bursting, to fast or slow adaptation or both in sequence, to facilitation or its opposite, to regular or irregular firing and each of some forty-odd additional integrative dimensions that show a distribution from high to low, characteristic for types of neurons (Arouz and Gray 1999, arlow 1996, Barrio and Buño 1990, 1991, Buo and Barrio 1990, Baar1983, Bennett 1968, Bernander et al. 1991, Boorman et al. 1994, Borst et al. 1995, Braitenberg 1980, Bullock 1946, 1947, 1948, 1951,a b, 1952, 1957, 1958, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1970. 1976, 1977a, b, 1979, 1981a,b, 1984, 1986, 2000b, Bullock and Terzuolo 1957, Bullock and Turner1950, Burrows 1975, 1978, Buzsaki and Kandel 1998, Carlson 1968, Chernetski 1964, Debanne et al. 1997, Delmas et al. 1997, Ehret 1988, Elston et al. 1999, Engel et al, 1992, Fain, 1981, Gerstner et al. 1997, Goda and Stevens 1998, Gold and Bear 1994, Graf and Meyer 1978, Gray 1993, Hagiwara and Bullock 1955, Hernández et al. 1999, Horridge 1968, Juusola et al. 1996,.Kennedy 1968, Lev-Ram et al 2002, Libet 1988, Lisman 1997, Mann-Metzer and Yarom 1999, Makram et al. 1998, Maynard 1953a,b, Montague 1995,Newman and Hartline 1981, Otani and Bullock 1957, 1959, Perkel and Bullock, 1968, Petersen et al. 1998, Rao et al. 1969, Reinoso-Suarez and Ajmone-Marsan 1984, Richmond et al. 1987, Schmielau 1980, Segundo 1986, Segundo et al. 1963, 1986, Sejnowski 1997, Serrrato et al. 1996, Siegler 1984, Stanford and Hartline 1984, Suga and Yajima 1988, Swenarchuk and Atwood 1975, Tauc 1960, Terzuolo and Bullock 1956, 1957, Vibert et al. 1985, Vizi and Làbos 1991, Watanabe and Bullock 1960, Watanabe et al. 2002, Weckström et al. 1992, Whittington et al. 1992, Wiese et al. 1976, Wilson and Talbot11963, Wu et al. 1998, Zoli et al. 1999, Zucker 1989)."
Yes, with that many references (more than two thirds of the paragraph), the entire reference list could have been held in a single reference number eg [3]
Ted mentions "the diversity of dances, the fuss over food preparation, the mess over morals" as if we are above it and then goes on to do a little dance himself. Is this how he moved up the pecking order? Little wonder there is less than the expected differences between brains - only the form of the dominant male's comb, mane, crest, horn or reference list has changed.
Kind Regards, Robert Karl Stonjek.
PS Actually, Ted wasn't making any defendable point in the paragraph mentioned :)
[1] Have brain dynamics evolved? Should we look for unique dynamics in the sapient species? Theodore Holmes Bullock http://cogprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/archive/00002665/01/Evol_brain_dynamics.htm [2] 'The Handicap Principle: missing piece of Darwin's puzzle" by Amotz and Avishag Zahavi [3] my reference list for the paragraph mentioned...
© Robert Karl Stonjek 2003