🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <45394@netnews.upenn.edu> rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu (Mickey Rowe) writes:
>
>>I am curious to know if the methods of ethologists have attained any level
>>of credibility in recent scientific works pertaining to biology.  Note that
>>I am not referring to anthropomorphism, but ethology.  
>

[...]

>
>As for some of the original ethologists, Tinbergen and Lorentz (sp?)
>are considered very highly (quasi-gods :).  Some of their students
>(e.g. Walter Heilegenberg of electric fish fame--I believe he's one of
>the editors of the Journal of Comparative Physiology) are *quite*
>highly respected.
>
>
>Mickey Rowe    (rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu)

I have to second that: neuroethology is, in many ways the field
that represents the end goal of neuroscience.  Understanding the
brain means understanding how it accepts inputs (i.e., sensory
stimuli) and processes them in such a way as to modify the
animal's behavior effectively, so the animal can continue to
survive.

P.S. I think it's spelled Lorenz, but I'm not sure.

Happy trails!

Tristan "how'd you guess I'm a neurobiologist?" Davies


e-mail: tbd@neuro.duke.edu
Department of Neurobiology, Duke University Medical Center

"grblb blabt unt mipt speeb!! oot piffoo blaboo..." -- Opus