Hi all,
In principle, I would prefer an entirely consistent nomenclature scheme, whether using neutral terms or based on our current understanding of homology issues (I hope some such proposal will turn up for considerationŠ). In practice, it may be impossible to please everyone and be internally consistent, or to eliminate reference to older nomenclature schemes.So, here are a few suggested amendments to David and Georg's proposal, also based on the comments from Laura and Erich.
If one uses capital letters to refer to major brain regions, that should be done for all regions for consistency. Some of the abbreviations would have a meaning (implying homology as currently understood, when possible) and others not (in those cases reflecting an attempt to preserve previous abbreviations).
Region P (Pallidum)
Region SL (Lateral striatum)
Region SM (Medial striatum)
Region W (synonyms: Wulst, Dorsal Pallium)
Region W1 or WD (dorsal Wulst)
Region W2 or WI (intermediate Wulst)
Region W3 or WV (ventral Wulst)
Region H
Region N
Region A
Some explanations:
1) Wulst: If one accepts to lump the former HD, HI, HA and HIS under the Wulst, these should be treated as separate (sub?)regions (separated by lamina, as pointed out by Erich), rather than as functional areas or nuclei. I agree with Laura that we have a natural tendency to inquire about the meaning of abbreviations, so using W would help to eliminate the "hyperstriatal" connotation. However, I find it awkward to preserve the second part of the older abbreviations, when some of the topography implied would be incorrect (for instance, HD should now be the ventral most part of the Wulst, rather than the dorsal part of the hyperstriatum). One solution is to rename these structures to indicate the correct topography within the Wulst, or use some other scheme such as numbering the various subregions within the Wulst.
I do not have a problem with the word Wulst, although the implication of a "protuberance" in the dorsomedial telencephalon is not really accurate for all avian species. Whether or not we accept the proposed change to region W, I strongly feel that the second letter in these regions' names should be changed.
2) I suggest dropping the V from region HV, to eliminate the implication of it being the ventral part of the hyperstriatum.
3) I like Erich's suggestion of somehow distinguishing primary thalamo-recipient zones in the telencephalon from other areas or nuclei, as these may be distinct subdomains within region N that share hodological and some molecular characteristics. Calling them fields might be a good idea.
4) In the proposed scheme, Nucleus Interface should be called Nucleus If (I couldn't resist).
5) As long as the correspondences are clearly indicated in a well-organized published table (such as the one proposed), we should not be too worried about changing the names of general regions in the avian brain with respect to continuity in the literature. Maybe such a rupture is actually desirable, to indicate that we have finally gathered enough evidence to conclude that the old nomenclature was incorrect. I think the capital letter system proposed, with some modifications, might be very effective and not too difficult to remember (only 10 regions...,). We may end up keeping the letters H, N and A just for a lack of better ones. In contrast, it will probably be wise to keep the nomenclature of individual nuclei or speciic areas (such as song nuclei) as unchanged as possible, to help avoid confusion among avian brain researchers.
Claudio
--
Claudio V. Mello, MD, PhD
Neurological Sciences Institute (NSI)
Oregon Health Sciences University (OHSU)
505 NW 185th Avenue
Beaverton, OR
97006-3499
(503) 418-2650 Office
(503) 418-2651 Lab
(503) 418-2501 FAX
melloc@nims.ohsu.edu