PMCCPMCCPMCC

Search tips
Search criteria 

Advanced

 
Logo of nihpaAbout Author manuscriptsSubmit a manuscriptNIH Public Access; Author Manuscript; Accepted for publication in peer reviewed journal;
 
Ann N Y Acad Sci. Author manuscript; available in PMC Jul 23, 2008.
Published in final edited form as:
PMCID: PMC2481519
NIHMSID: NIHMS57603
Songbirds and the Revised Avian Brain Nomenclature
ANTON REINER,a DAVID J. PERKEL,b CLAUDIO V. MELLO,c and ERICH D. JARVISd
a Department of Anatomy and Neurobiology, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, Tennessee 38163, USA
b Departments of Biology and Otolaryngology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98195-6515, USA
c Neurological Sciences Institute, Oregon Health and Science University, Beaverton, Oregon 97006-3499, USA
d Department of Neurobiology, Duke University Medical Center, Box 3209, Durham, North Carolina 27710, USA
Address for correspondence: Anton Reiner, Department of Anatomy and Neurobiology, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, Tennessee 38163, USA. Voice: 901-448-; fax: 901-448-7193. areiner/at/utmem.edu; <http://cns.utmem.edu/faculty/Reiner/Reiner_cv.html>
It has become increasingly clear that the standard nomenclature for many telencephalic and related brainstem structures of the avian brain is based on flawed once-held assumptions of homology to mammalian brain structures, greatly hindering functional comparisons between avian and mammalian brains. This has become especially problematic for those researchers studying the neurobiology of birdsong, the largest single group within the avian neuroscience community. To deal with the many communication problems this has caused among researchers specializing in different vertebrate classes, the Avian Brain Nomenclature Forum, held at Duke University from July 18–20, 2002, set out to develop a new terminology for the avian telencephalon and some allied brainstem cell groups. In one major step, the erroneous conception that the avian telencephalon consists mainly of a hypertrophied basal ganglia has been purged from the telencephalic terminology, and the actual parts of the basal ganglia and its brainstem afferent cell groups have been given new names to reflect their now-evident homologies. The telencephalic regions that were incorrectly named to reflect presumed homology to mammalian basal ganglia have been renamed as parts of the pallium. The prefixes used for the new names for the pallial subdivisions have retained most established abbreviations, in an effort to maintain continuity with the pre-existing nomenclature. Here we present a brief synopsis of the inaccuracies in the old nomenclature, a summary of the nomenclature changes, and details of changes for specific songbird vocal and auditory nuclei. We believe this new terminology will promote more accurate understanding of the broader neurobiological implications of song control mechanisms and facilitate the productive exchange of information between researchers studying avian and mammalian systems.
Keywords: archistriatum, paleostriatum, hyperstriatum, paleocortex, archicortex, neocortex, cerebrum, pallium, striatum, pallidum, arcopallium, nidopallium, hyperpallium
The advent of improved techniques for cutting and staining brain tissue resulted in a wealth of new knowledge on brain structure in various vertebrate species at the turn of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century.1 Based on his interpretation of such material, Ludwig Edinger formulated a theory of cerebral evolution24 that, as further developed by his colleague C.U. Ariëns-Kappers5,6 and subsequently refined and widely promulgated in Ariëns-Kappers and colleagues,7 became the dominant view, and led to an avian telencephalic nomenclature that has continued to be used into the early years of the 21st century (Fig. 1A). According to this view, birds and mammals inherited from their fish ancestors, via the fish to amphibian to reptile lineage, an old basal ganglia structure that was called the paleostriatum (old striatum; corresponding largely to the globus pallidus of mammals), and a newer structure from their reptilian ancestors that Ariëns-Kappers called the neostriatum (new striatum; including most of the caudate and putamen in mammals). Reptiles were thought to have elaborated the paleostriatum further into two distinct parts, one Ariëns-Kappers called the paleostriatum primitivum (comparable to a primitive mammalian globus pallidus) and another part he called the paleostriatum augmentatum (i.e., an augmentation of globus pallidus), and both subdivisions were assumed to have been passed onto birds. Similarly, the neostriatum was also thought to have become enlarged in birds and to have given rise to a novel overlying territory that Edinger and colleagues3 and Ariëns-Kappers5,6 called the hyperstriatum, in the belief that it was entirely “striatal” in nature and a hypertrophy of the neostriatum. Thus by this view, the avian telencephalon was thought to consist nearly entirely of an enlarged basal ganglia (i.e., what are now commonly called caudate, putamen, and globus pallidus in mammals; Fig. 1A). Finally, mammals, birds, and reptiles were also thought to have inherited an additional subcortical structure that Edinger and Ariëns-Kappers called the archistriatum (in the belief that it was also part of the basal ganglia) from their amphibian ancestors. This brain region in mammals is now called the amygdala, and it is no longer commonly regarded as part of the basal ganglia.
FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
(A) Classical view of avian and mammalian brain relationships according to the historical nomenclature. Although past authors had differing opinions as to which brain regions are part of the pallium versus subpallium, the images are color-coded according (more ...)
In contrast to the basal ganglia expansion thought to characterize birds, mammals were thought to have expanded the upper, outer part of the telencephalon (the pallium) into a six-layered cortex from a small dorsal cortical region present in the reptile ancestors of mammals.26,8 The novel cortical region in mammals was referred to asneocortex, to distinguish it from the presumed older cortices represented by the olfactory cortex (which they called paleocortex) and hippocampus (which they called archicortex). Ariëns-Kappers and colleagues7 slightly modified the position of Ariëns-Kappers’ earlier works by concluding that a small upper part of the hyperstriatum (largely corresponding to what we now call the Wulst) provided birds with a meager pallial territory comparable to mammalian neocortex. Nonetheless, the view espoused by Ariëns-Kappers and colleagues7 and by other influential authors912 was that the avian telencephalon consisted mainly of greatly expanded basal ganglia. Except for a dissenting minority,1315 this accretionary theory of vertebrate brain evolution became the prevailing view for the first two-thirds of the 20th century. This led to the predominant use of the terms neostriatum, archistriatum, and hyperstriatum to refer to the major sectors of the avian telencephalon above the so-called paleostriatum. The Ariëns-Kappers terminology for the avian telencephalon was, thus, already the most commonly used at the time that Karten and Hodos constructed the first stereotaxic atlas of an avian brain.16 Although they were aware of possible inaccuracies in this nomenclature, they felt compelled to adopt it because it was entrenched. As a consequence, the Ariëns-Kappers terminology became the standard telencephalic nomenclature for the avian telencephalon.
As neurobiologists have gained deeper insights into the evolution, development, and function of avian and mammalian brains, it has become clear that the accretionary theory of vertebrate telencephalic evolution is incorrect.1,1719 Being flawed, the homologies implied by the classical nomenclature have greatly hindered communication between avian and mammalian brain specialists by perpetuating the view that the telencephalon in birds differs qualitatively in structure and function from that in mammals. In particular, the presumed necessity of neocortex for adaptive behavior and higher order cognition12 and the presumed absence of neocortex in birds have continued to make many believe that birds are incapable of such behavioral abilities. Since the basal ganglia were thought to control instinctive motor behavior and the avian telencephalon was thought to be largely a hypertrophied basal ganglia, all complex behavior in birds had widely been thought to be instinctive.4,12 As a result of the misconceptions abetted by the Ariëns-Kappers–based terminology, the relevance of the many findings on the avian brain to understanding the functioning of the mammalian brain has been obscured. It is now, however, evident that birds are not uniformly impoverished in their adaptive learning skills. Songbirds, parrots, and hummingbirds show vocal learning abilities not paralleled by any mammals other than humans and cetaceans.2025 Crows, members of the oscine songbird family, show the ability to make and use tools,26,27 and parrots are capable of learning to communicate with human words and show cognitive skills otherwise evident only in apes and cetaceans among nonhuman species.23 In parallel with the growing awareness of avian behavioral sophistication, it has become clear that the neural substrate for such behavior is not a hypertrophied basal ganglia but the same general brain region used for such tasks as in mammals (i.e., the pallium), albeit without the laminar morphology characteristic of mammalian neocortex, in combination with a basal ganglia region of the same general size as in mammals.25,2835
While research on all avian species was affected by the outdated terminology for the avian telencephalon, the confusion was especially acute for those studying songbirds, for two major reasons. First, researchers on song control mechanisms now constitute the largest single group within the avian brain research community. Secondly, several major cell groups involved in song perception, learning, or production are located within the part of the brain that in birds has been called the neostriatum. These findings have been habitually misinterpreted by researchers on the mammalian brain, for whom the term “neostriatum” refers to part of the basal ganglia, as pertaining to the functioning of the basal ganglia. This has been the case regardless of the efforts of songbird researchers to provide disclaimers about the use of the term “neostriatum” in birds. A revision in terminology thus is of particular importance for those studying the neural basis of song control.
To address the problems inherent to the old terminology, formal efforts to revise avian brain nomenclature were begun in 1997 by a small group of avian brain specialists, who then sought to involve a more broadly representative group of researchers than had participated in two previous attempts to standardize avian neuroanatomical terms.36,37 This process culminated in an open Avian Brain Nomenclature Forum, held July 18–20, 2002 at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, at which an international and multidisciplinary group of neuroscientists adopted a new terminology by consensus. This chapter presents a summary of the decisions made by the Forum, the basic rationale for the revision or retention of existing names (Fig. 1B), and the recommendations relevant to birdsong vocal and auditory nuclei (Fig. 2 and Table 1). In the new terminology, the Forum was attentive to the impact of a drastic change in names of pallial structures on continuity in the literature on song control and to the benefits accruing from a more homology-accurate nomenclature than has existed. A full account of the mechanics of the Forum, a description of all structures whose names have been changed, detailed discussions of the evidence, an explanation of the significance of the new nomenclature for understanding vertebrate brain evolution, and a summary of the implications for understanding brain mechanisms of cognition in birds are available3840 and a collection of satellite papers is in preparation.4147
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 2
Vocal and auditory pathways of the songbird brain within the context of the new avian brain nomenclature. Only the most prominent and/or most studied projections are indicated. For the vocal pathways (A), black arrows show connections of the components (more ...)
TABLE 1
TABLE 1
New terminology relevant to songbird vocal and auditory areas
Several detailed reviews18,4851 address the theoretical issues surrounding the identification of homologous forebrain structures between birds and mammals. It is valuable for the current chapter to define what is meant by homology, and equally importantly, what is not meant. As commonly used in biology, structures in two or more species are considered to be homologous if they are thought to derive from the same antecedent structure in their common ancestor.48 Major difficulties arise, however, in identifying homologous brain structures because brain, being a soft tissue, does not fossilize in sufficient detail to make it possible to use the fossil record to trace the natural history of given brain structures. The only remaining approach that can be taken is comparing a variety of features of the structures in question in extant species, including embryological origin, location within the adult brain, afferent and efferent connections, and neurochemical phenotype. In the simplest case, if candidate avian and mammalian homologues (to use sample groups of present interest) arise from the same developmental primordium and have similar adult features and if a similar structure is found in extant reptiles, then a convincing case can be made that the stem amniote common ancestor had an equivalent structure. If, on the other hand, the structures are dissimilar in birds and mammals and/or a comparable structure is not evident in living reptiles, then the compared structures in birds and mammals cannot be said to be demonstrably homologous. It also cannot be automatically said with authority, however, that two morphologically dissimilar structures in birds and mammals are not homologous, since homologous structures can evolve different morphologies.48 Nonetheless, if the dissimilarities are numerous and living reptiles clearly lack a structure resembling either the compared structure in mammals or the compared structure in birds, then the conclusion that the compared structures in birds and mammals are not homologous is the most likely interpretation.
Terms, such as “analogous,” “functionally analogous,” or “functionally homologous” have also been used in comparing brain structures. The first two terms mean the same and refer to a circumstance in which structures in different species perform the same function (e.g., bird wings and insect wings), even if they are morphologically different and have evolved independently.48,5254 “Analogous” would be the appropriate word to use in this context, and some authors consider the term only to refer to structures of the same function that are independently evolved.48,52 Note that bat wings and bird wings are analogous as wings but not homologous, since the wings subserve flight in both but the wingedness of the forelimbs was independently evolved. Nonetheless, the forelimbs of bats and birds are homologous as forelimbs, since both inherited their forelimbs from their stem amniote common ancestor. The term “functionally analogous” is redundant with the term “analogous,” the latter already implying a functional comparison. The term “functionally homologous” can be ambiguous, meant either as a synonym for analogous (which would be an incorrect use of the word homologous) or to suggest a common origin of a function in two or more species from a function in the common ancestor. The latter misapplies a term commonly used to refer to common ancestry of a morphological entity, i.e., “homologous,” to a functional context. The complexities of trying to identify homology at the functional level have been discussed by others.53,5557
Two uses of the term homology by the nomenclature revision effort are one-to-one homology and field homology. In most instances, the term homology is applied to specific structures, such as the humerus of a mouse and the humerus of a chicken. Since they are both derived from the humerus of the stem amniote common ancestor, the humerus of a mouse and chicken would be said to show discrete, or one-to-one, homology.48,58 This type of homology (which is the type most commonly implied by use of the word) is the type that the Forum required to rename a structure in avian brain with the term used for its mammalian homologue. A second type of homology is field homology. This term, when applied to brain, refers to a circumstance in which homologous parts of developing brain give rise to a set of adult brain structures in two or more species.59 The adult brain structures would be said to be field homologues, even if the sets included different nuclei in different species.57,59 This type of homology was of relevance to the efforts of the Forum to rename the subdivisions of the pallial sector of the avian telencephalon. The Forum required for all of its decisions that evidence for one-to-one or field homology be ample, including for the former multiple types of morphological data and the presence of a comparable structure in living reptiles. Since adoption of each new name for birds required 80% approval from the Forum attendees, any acceptance of a homology-based name was, in effect, based on at least 80% agreement on the homology. In cases in which there was not enough evidence to convince 80% or more of the participants of the existence of homology, new names were chosen that differed from those for any specific mammalian brain structure, but retained similarity to the outdated avian terms in abbreviation, syllabication, and/or phonetics.
The decisions of the Forum on the renaming of the cell groups in the avian telencephalon were based on current evidence showing that birds, as do mammals, possess a complex forebrain that contains a well-developed upper sector called the pallium and a smaller ventral sector called the subpallium. Pallium means mantle and the term refers to the upper part of the developing telencephalon and its adult derivatives.51,60 In mammals, the embryonic pallium gives rise to the neocortex, hippocampal complex, piriform cortex, olfactory bulbs, claustrum, and part of the amygdala, while the embryonic subpallium gives rise to the basal ganglia and several additional basal telencephalic cell groups, including part of the amygdala.51,60 The Forum concluded that developmental, topological, neurochemical, cellular, connectional, and functional data strongly support the conclusion that approximately the dorsal three-fourths of the avian telencephalon is pallial and in adults includes what has been termed the hyperstriatum, neostriatum, ectostriatum, and archistriatum (as defined by Karten and Hodos16), as well as nucleus basalis, hippocampus, piriform cortex, and olfactory bulb.28,31,49,50,6062 It is thus inappropriate that the root “-striatum” be present in the names of any of these structures. In contrast to the mammalian pallium, the avian pallium does not have a cortical organization, but rather is organized into a largely continuous field of nuclei.28,31,63 Although these nuclei have similar connectivity and functional properties to those of the mammalian cortex, amygdala, and possibly the claustrum, their histological appearance is more like that of the basal ganglia, explaining, in part, the erroneous conclusions of many early comparative neuroanatomists.
In renaming avian pallial structures, the Forum confronted the issue of whether sufficient data were available to conclude safely and unequivocally that the structures that have been called the archistriatum, neostriatum, and hyperstriatum in birds possess one-to-one homologies with specific structures in adult mammals.18,28,31,50,51,60,62,6467 The Forum decided that the evidence was insufficient to conclusively identify one-to-one mammalian homologues for most pallial structures in birds. While it was agreed that the new names for these structures should include the word or root “pallium,” several issues needed to be considered in renaming the pallial structures that possessed “-striatum” as a root word in their outdated name. One major issue was the extent to which choosing new names that allowed retention of existing abbreviations was desirable and could be achieved with esthetically pleasing new terms. Alternatively, the possibility had to be considered that a simple and new descriptive terminology that did not retain established abbreviations might be desirable by making the structures of the avian brain easier to learn and more broadly accessible to neuroscientists. In the end, new terms were selected that allowed abbreviations to be retained for the most intensely studied structures of the avian pallium, to provide easy linkage and clear continuity between the old and new terminologies. The accepted homologies of the avian and mammalian hippocampi, piriform cortices, and olfactory bulbs were not disputed, and it was agreed that there was no need to change the name for these regions.
The Forum further concluded that developmental, topological, neurochemical, cellular, connectional, and functional data strongly support the conclusion that the ventral one-fourth of the avian telencephalon is subpallial, and that the subpallial region lateral to the telencephalic ventricle in birds and reptiles contains homologues of the mammalian basal ganglia, while the subpallial region medial to the lateral ventricle in birds and reptiles contains homologues of the mammalian septum.60,62,63,6875 The region lateral to the telencephalic ventricle in birds includes what had been termed the paleostriatum primitivum, the paleostriatum augmentatum, and the lobus parolfactorius. Other subpallial cell groups in birds include the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis, the basal nucleus of Meynert, and the subpallial amygdala. For many subpallial structures, the Forum concluded that there was sufficient evidence to infer one-to-one homologies with mammals. In these instances, the Forum adopted for birds the same name as used for the homologous subpallial structure in mammals. The gain in communication and the already established familiarity of each new avian term, because of their prior use in mammals, were thought to far outweigh disadvantages inherent to abandoning the old names and abbreviations.
The Forum also focused attention on several brainstem cell groups connected with the subpallium or the song control system, for which the homology implied by the name was clearly incorrect, or at best obscure, and for which the true homologue had been amply demonstrated. Below we describe in detail the brainstem, subpallial, and pallial revisions that are relevant to the songbird vocal and auditory nuclei.
Nucleus Intermedius (IM) → Hypoglossal Nucleus (nXII)
In the Karten and Hodos atlas16 of the pigeon brain, a population of motoneurons located ventral to the dorsal motor nucleus of the vagus nerve and the nucleus intercalatus at levels straddling the obex was named the nucleus intermedius, following the practice of Ariëns-Kappers and colleagues.7 A yet more ventral and somewhat larger population of motoneurons abutting the lateral edge of the medial longitudinal fasciculus was identified as the hypoglossal nucleus. While Ariëns-Kappers and colleagues7 did suspect that IM innervates lingual and syringeal muscles via bifurcating branches of the twelfth nerve, this has now been demonstrated unambiguously in birds by more recent experimental studies of the innervation of the tongue, trachea and syrinx.7684 The IM of Karten and Hodos16 was thus subsequently renamed the hypoglossal nucleus, or alternatively the 12th cranial nerve nucleus by Nottebohm,77 and the Forum formally adopted this renaming. Because many investigators had already been using the correct name for this nucleus since 1976, there is no widespread need for investigators to change their customary usage for nXII in birds.
Nucleus Nervi Hypoglossi (nXII) → Supraspinal Nucleus (SSp)
Numerous retrograde labeling studies have demonstrated that the cell group identified by Karten and Hodos16 as the hypoglossal nucleus actually innervates upper neck musculature (e.g., Mm. complexus, biventer cervicis, splenius capitis, and rectus capitis).79,80,8587 This nucleus was thus subsequently renamed supraspinalis,78,79,88 and the Forum also formally adopted this renaming. It is important to reiterate that most work referring to the hypoglossal nucleus in songbirds has referred to the correct structure, so no change in the customary usage to supraspinalis is needed.
Area Ventralis ofTsai (AVT) → Ventral Tegmental Area (VTA)
The cell group named area ventralis of Tsai in the Karten and Hodos pigeon brain atlas is known to be homologous to the mammalian ventral tegmental area, which was also once commonly called the ventral tegmental area of Tsai89 and is now also known as the A10 dopaminergic cell group.9092 As in mammals, this midbrain-diencephalic cell group sends a massive dopaminergic projection to the basal ganglia, mainly to the medial and ventral part of the region that had been called the lobus parolfactorius (LPO),91,9396 including to the song nucleus Area X.93 To eliminate the eponym “Tsai” (since eponyms are no longer employed according to standard international rules of anatomical nomenclature)37 and to emphasize the homology with mammals, the Forum renamed the avian area ventralis of Tsai to the ventral tegmental area, with the acceptable alternative name of the A10 dopaminergic cell group.
Nucleus Tegmenti Pedunculopontinus Pars Compacta (TPc) → Substantia Nigra Pars Compacta (SNc)
This cell field, laterally adjacent and continuous with VTA, contains a large population of dopaminergic neurons that send a massive dopaminergic innervation to the dorsal striatal part of the avian basal ganglia (the regions that have been called lobus parolfactorius and paleostriatum augmentatum, the latter including the auditory area PC)90,91,94,9699 and therefore is accepted as homologous to the substantia nigra pars compacta of other vertebrates.71,72,75,92 The name applied to this region, however, incorrectly suggested homology with the pedunculopontine tegmental nucleus of mammals, located in rhombomere 1, which is characterized by cholinergic neurons, but no dopaminergic neurons.92,100 Moreover, the actual avian pedunculopontine tegmental nucleus (PPT) homologue, which contains cholinergic neurons, has been identified in rhombomere 1 of pigeons. 100 To rectify these misnomers and avoid confusion, the Forum renamed what had been called the nucleus tegmenti pedunculopontinus pars compacta (TPc) in birds to the substantia nigra pars compacta (SNc), or the alternative name, the A9 dopaminergic cell group. While the dopaminergic field of neurons in the avian A9 is not as compact as it is in rodents or as pigmented as it is in humans, the A9 varies in its degree of compactness and blackness (i.e., pigmentedness) even among mammals. For this reason, and because of the gain in using a homology-based term for avian A9, the Forum decided that the descriptive inaccuracies of the terms “compacta” and “nigra” in the avian name for A9 were far outweighed by the benefits obtained in adopting the commonly used term SNc as the name for this structure.
Anterior Nucleus of the Ansa Lenticularis (ALa) → Subthalamic Nucleus (STN)
The avian anterior nucleus of the ansa lenticularis is an inconspicuous cell group located in and along the medial edge of the ansa lenticularis (a fiber bundle interconnecting the basal ganglia with various brainstem cell groups) at rostral diencephalic levels.68 Based upon its function, the neurochemistry of its inputs and outputs, its developmental profile, its position in the diencephalon, and its apparent presence in reptiles, the ALa is homologous to the subthalamic nucleus (STN) of mammals.75,101 The Forum therefore renamed the avian ALa as the subthalamic nucleus. It remains to be determined whether the song nucleus Area X of the basal ganglia is connected with the avian STN.
The basal ganglia in mammals forms within a ventral part of the developing telencephalon called the subpallium. The subpallium, which contains the septal nuclei and several other nuclei in addition to those of the basal ganglia, is notably distinct from the overlying telencephalic region called the pallium in its neurochemistry, in the genes that regulate its development,102,103 and in its connectivity.75 Developmental, topological, neurochemical, cellular, connectional, and functional data now strongly support the conclusion that the subpallial region lateral to the telencephalic ventricle in birds and reptiles contains homologues of the mammalian basal ganglia, while the subpallial region medial to the lateral ventricle in birds and reptiles contains the homologue of the mammalian septum.60,62,63,6875
Embryological and developmental molecular studies in both birds and mammals show that the developing avian and mammalian subpallium consists of two separate radially oriented histogenetic zones, a dorsally situated zone that in mammals corresponds to the lateral ganglionic eminence and a ventrally situated zone that in mammals corresponds to the medial ganglionic eminence.60,104,105,157 Among the derivatives of the lateral ganglionic eminence are the various striatal cell groups, which in mammals make up the dorsal striatum (i.e., the caudate and putamen), the ventral striatum (nucleus accumbens and olfactory tubercle), and the lateral septum. Among the derivatives of the medial ganglionic eminence are the various pallidal cell groups, which in mammals make up the dorsal pallidum (or globus pallidus), the ventral pallidum, and the medial septum. The Forum thus sought to rename the various parts of the avian subpallium so as to more accurately reflect their homologues in mammals. The revisions to the subdivisions that contain vocal and auditory regions are as follows.
Lobus Parolfactorius (LPO), Excluding Its Rostral Ventromedial Part → Medial Striatum (MSt)
Neurochemical, hodological, and developmental evidence indicate that the LPO has striatal traits. The neurochemical and hodological evidence includes a prominent dopaminergic input from the substantia nigra pars compacta and ventral tegmental area, an enrichment in dopamine receptors, a projection back to the SNc/A9 and VTA cell groups, an acetylcholine-rich and cholinesterase-rich neuropil, an enrichment in GABAergic neurons that either contain SP/DYN or enkephalin, and a glutamate receptor pattern very similar to that of the mammalian striatum. 65,72,75,91,9395,106111 Developmental evidence includes the finding that the major part of LPO develops from apart of the telencephalic neuroepithelium that expresses the transcription factors Dlx1 and Dlx2, but not the transcription factor Nkx2.1, as does the mammalian lateral ganglionic eminence.60,62 For these and additional reasons summarized by Reiner and colleagues,75 the Forum replaced the arcane name lobus parolfactorius (meaning lobe next to the olfactory bulb) with the term medial striatum (Fig. 1A,B).
While we recommend that LPO now be called medial striatum in birds, it is also important to note that we do not mean to imply one-to-one homology to the medial part of the mammalian striatum, i.e., the caudate nucleus, and the available evidence seems to be against such a homology. Principal among the reasons against such a notion is that although the avian medial striatum projects predominantly to the substantia nigra, it does not appear to target the pallidal part of the basal ganglia68,112,113 By contrast, the caudate nucleus in mammals contains both striatonigral and striato-pallidal projection neurons.75,106,114,115 A second argument against this notion is that the medial striatum in at least some avian species contains pallidal neurons, while such a trait has not been demonstrated for mammalian caudate. These pallidal neurons were first discovered in the specialized song nucleus called Area X within songbird MSt.116118 Although the majority of Area X cell types resemble those typical of mammalian striatum in physiology, dendritic morphology, and neurotransmitter features,108,110,117,118 this sparse but important cell type appears to be pallidal in its aspiny morphology, its probable input from spiny striatal neurons, its GABAergic, inhibitory projection to the thalamus, its neurochemistry, and its physiological features.110,113,117119 Compelling evidence now exists showing that the lateral part of MSt outside of Area X and the lateral part of MSt of avian species lacking an AreaX also contains pallidal-type neurons.118121 Consistent with these observations, developmental studies have suggested that ventrolateral parts of the chicken medial striatum abutting the pallidum may ontogenetically be a pallidal territory that is heavily invaded by striatal cells during development and thereby becomes predominantly striatal in its cell type composition.60,122 If further study shows such striatal-pallidal neuron mixing in medial striatum to be a general avian trait absent from mammals, it might be advisable to recognize some unique striato-pallidal subdivision within medial striatum and attach to it a suitable name. The Forum concluded, however, that sufficient data were not yet available on the location of this region, on the prevalence of striatal and pallidal cell mixing as an avian trait, and on its absence from mammals. It was also clear to the Forum that what has been called LPO has predominantly striatal cellular traits,75,91 and so it is appropriate for now to simply rename LPO as the medial striatum, and emphasize the evidence against one-to-one homology with mammalian caudate.
Paleostriatum Augmentation (PA) → Lateral Striatum (LSt)
Similar lines of evidence demonstrate that PA also has striatal traits and together with MSt makes up the avian dorsal striatum. These traits in PA include a prominent dopaminergic input from the substantia nigra pars compacta, an enrichment in dopamine receptors, an acetylcholine-rich and cholinesterase-rich neuropil, an enrichment in GABAergic neurons that either contain SP/DYN or enkephalin, projections to the paleostriatum primitivum (now to be called the globus pallidus), and a glutamate receptor pattern very similar to that of the mammalian striatum.28,60,65,72,75,91,9395,106,107,109,111,121 Additionally, the PA develops from the Dlx1/2-rich and Nkx2.1-poor neuroepithelial zone corresponding to the mammalian lateral ganglionic eminence.60,62 For these reasons, and additional ones summarized by Reiner and colleagues,75 the Forum replaced the name paleostriatum augmentatum with the term lateral striatum (Fig. 1A,B). Similar to LPO, this change is attended by the qualification that there is no compelling evidence that the lateral striatum of birds is homologous in a one-to-one manner with the lateral part of the mammalian striatum, namely the putamen. Principal among the reasons against such a notion is that avian lateral striatum projects predominantly to the pallidal part of the basal ganglia and very little to the substantia nigra.68,73,123125 By contrast, the putamen in mammals contains both striatonigral and striato-pallidal projection neurons.75,106,114,115
Area X → Area X
While Area X of songbirds resides within the avian medial striatum,29,113 its own name is unaffected by the change of the name of LPO to medial striatum. Thus, the Forum recommended that Area X retain its name (Fig. 2A). A change to nucleus X was proposed, to reflect the clear boundaries of this structure; after discussion, the Forum took no position on whether Area X should be called nucleus X.
Caudal Paleostriatum (PC) → Caudal Striatum (CSt)
The Forum did not discuss renaming of the PC, an auditory region of the caudal lateral striatum. This region possibly receives auditory input from the thalamus and pallium,126,127 and it shows audition-related gene expression and electrophysiological activity.25,128,129 Here, we suggest renaming the caudal paleostriatum (PC) to the caudal part of the lateral striatum or more simply the caudal striatum (Fig. 2B). We have not included the letter L for lateral, to simplify the abbreviation.
Ventromedial Rostral LPO → Nucleus Accumbens (Ac)
Although there are no known auditory or vocal regions within the avian nucleus accumbens, a revision to the location of nucleus accumbens relative to LPO, and thus to Area X within MSt is of relevance. In the Karten and Hodos atlas,16 nucleus accumbens was identified as a small bulge at the ventral tip of the lateral ventricle extending several millimeters rostral from the level of the anterior commissure. However, based on compelling evidence,130 the Forum concluded that this region instead is homologous to the lateral part of the mammalian bed nucleus of the stria terminalis (BNST). The Forum further concluded that the region surrounding the tip of the lateral ventricle, at the ventromedial margin of the rostral pole of what has been called LPO in birds possesses the same topographic, hodological, and neurochemical traits as the nucleus accumbens of mammals.106,124,131138 This includes for both birds and mammals preferential reciprocal connections with the ventral tegmental area, afferent input from limbic pallial regions (such as the hippocampal complex, amygdala, and cingulate cortex, as well as from frontal pallium), and the frequent co-localization of substance P and enkephalin in spiny projection neurons. By contrast, much of the remainder of what has been called LPO in birds and caudatoputamen in mammals is reciprocally connected with the substantia nigra pars compacta, receives pallial input from somatosensory and somatomotor areas of the pallium, and shows little co-localization of SP and enkephalin in spiny striatal projection neurons.63,106, 112,123125,131,132,135137,139 Moreover, a topographically, hodologically, and neurochemically similar cell group has been identified as nucleus accumbens in turtles, lizards, and snakes.71,106,132,140143 For these reasons, the Forum recognized and recommended that the rostral ventromedial part of the former LPO of birds be called nucleus accumbens and that the term medial striatum be only used to refer to the remainder of LPO. As in mammals, however, a precise cytoarchitectonic border between the dorsal striatum and nucleus accumbens is not evident, and a neurochemical criterion by which to unambiguously distinguish the two fields has not been identified. Additionally, while the nucleus accumbens of mammals possesses core and shell subdivisions, comparable subdivisions of nucleus accumbens in birds have not been conclusively identified.135,136
Paleostriatum Primitivum (PP) → Globus Pallidus (GP)
Although there are no described auditory or vocal nuclei within avian pallidal regions, it is important to be acquainted with the renaming of pallidal subdivisions within the context of subpallial nomenclature revisions. Diverse lines of evidence indicate that the avian PP is derived from the avian equivalent of the medial ganglionic eminence and has traits comparable to those of the dorsal pallidum (globus pallidus) in mammals.60,63,68,74,75,91,122,131,144149 In both birds and mammals, the projection neurons of these regions possess large cell bodies and smooth dendrites, derive from an Nkx2.1-expressing neuroepithelium, and give rise to the motor output projections of the basal ganglia. In birds and mammals, these neurons are also GABAergic, contain the neuropeptide LANT6, receive inputs with a woolly fiber morphology from either SP/DYN-containing or ENK-containing striatal neurons, receive a prominent glutamatergic input from the subthalamic nucleus, and share similar electrophysiological properties.75,101,121,150 Thus, the Forum renamed the avian paleostriatum primitivum as the globus pallidus (Fig. 1A,B). This term is appropriate for descriptive reasons, as the avian GP and its mammalian counterpart are pale. Nonetheless, there are some differences between avian GP and mammalian GP. Avian GP neurons, for example, migrate farther laterally than do mammalian pallidal neurons, with the result that avian GP is more laterally situated than adult mammalian GP.60,122 The GP in mammals is separated into two segments, the internal and external, with distinct connectivity and neurochemistry, whereas in birds the neuronal types of the two segments are intermingled.75 The avian globus pallidus as a cell field is also not as globular in shape as the comparable cell field is in mammals, but different mammalian species show variation in the shape of the GP as well. Thus, the Forum concluded that despite any differences, the advantages in the use of the homology-based term globus pallidus as the new name for PP in birds outweighed any slightly misleading implications as to its shape or organization.
Ventral Paleostriatum (VP) → Ventral Pallidum (VP)
A group of GABAergic neurons within the medial forebrain bundle (MFP; also called the fasciculus prosencephali medialis, FPM) has been demonstrated in birds. This cell group has also been called the ventral paleostriatum.151 It has the cellular neurochemistry, receives the ventral striatal inputs (including from nucleus accumbens), and has the outputs characteristic of the ventral pallidum of mammals.106,135,144146 Its glutamate receptor expression profile is identical to that of GP of both birds and mammals.65 In addition, in both mammals and birds, the neurons of this region arise from the same Nkx2.1-expressing histogenetic subpallial neuroepithelium as the GP.60 A comparable cell group is present in turtles, crocodilians, and lizards.69,140,141,145,152,153 The Forum thus renamed this cell group as the avian ventral pallidum (Table 1). The word ventral is used because it provides the VP with a positional term that distinguishes it from its more dorsal somatic counterpart, the GP, which has also alternatively been termed the dorsal pallidum. Note that the ventral pallidum in birds overlaps a field of cholinergic neurons that spans the medial and lateral forebrain bundles. These cholinergic neurons send diffuse projections into the pallium, including the pallial song control nuclei.154,155 Since the ventral pallidum in mammals also overlaps a similar field of cholinergic neurons with projections to the pallium,156 the Forum recommended these neurons in birds be given a name similar to those in mammals, the basal magnocellular cholinergic nucleus (NBM).
The structures constituting the pallium in adult birds and mammals derive from a large histogenetic zone located dorsal to the subpallium and distinguishable from the subpallium in the developmentally regulated genes it expresses.60,157 Owing to the flawed identification of brain regions by Edinger and his followers, the major pallial sectors of the lateral telencephalic wall in birds have the incorrect root word “-striatum” in their names (hyperstriatum, neostriatum, ectostriatum, archistriatum), and in some cases possess prefixes with questionable evolutionary implications (e.g., “neo-” and “archi-”). The perceived need to correct these errors was the main driving force behind the Forum. The reasoning used by the Forum in selecting the new names is briefly reviewed below (Fig. 1B), followed by specific recommendations of the Forum for vocal and auditory areas (Fig. 2; Table 1).
Rationale for New Names for Hyperstriatum, Neostriatum, Ectostriatum, and Archistriatum
Hyperstriatum
In revising the terminology for the hyperstriatum, a guiding consideration was that the hyperstriatum ventrale (HV) should have a name distinct from that for the hyperstriatal subdivisions composing the Wulst [i.e., the hyperstriatum accessorium, (HA), the hyperstriatum intercalatus superior (HIS), and the hyperstriatum dorsale (HD) in the outdated nomenclature]. It has been apparent for some time, from developmental, hodological, neurochemical, and functional studies, that HV and the Wulst are distinct telencephalic subdivisions. 15,50,65,111,158164 After consideration of various possibilities, the Forum decided to replace the term “hyperstriatum” in HA, HIS, and HD with hyperpallium, replacing the secondary terms of accessorium with apicale, intercalatus superior with intercalatum, and dorsale with densocellulare, and replacing HV with mesopallium (Fig. 1A,B; Table 1). Since the prefix “hyper-” refers to an enlarged entity, “hyper-” in hyperpallium was considered acceptable, as the Wulst is an enlarged (bulging) structure at the upper aspect of the pallium. In addition, “hyper” possesses the merits that it is a commonly employed neuroanatomical term, already having been used in the names for the subregions of the Wulst, and it offers easy linking of the new term to the old, with abbreviations retained. “Meso-” as a prefix is descriptive of the location of this region (the former hyperstriatum ventrale) between the hyperpallium and the subdivision below it (the former neostriatum). Of course, the use of mesopallium as a replacement for hyperstriatum ventrale means that abbreviations for this region must change. The Forum did not consider this a serious disadvantage, since relatively few subregions have been named in the literature on the mesopallium.
Neostriatum and Ectostriatum
In revising the terminology for the neostriatum, a guiding principle was to devise a suitable and acceptable prefix that is descriptive of the region and that maintains abbreviations with the past literature. The Forum decided that the prefix “nido-,” derived from the Latin word for nest (nidus) met these requirements, resulting in the new term nidopallium as a replacement for neostriatum (Fig. 1A,B). The prefix “nido-” is apt for the neostriatum, since it is the pallial structure in which the overlying pallial structures are nested. Moreover, the prefix “nido-” offers an aural link to the existing prefix for this region (i.e., “neo-”), and allows abbreviation retention. In revising the term ectostriatum, the Forum noted that the term ectostriatum, broken into its prefix and root word, means “outside the striatum.” as the striatum is now recognized in birds, and is therefore semantically appropriate. Thus, ectostriatum could have been retained without any erroneous denotation. Nonetheless, the term ectostriatum was linked to the set of incorrect names for the avian pallium by the root word “-striatum”, and could be misconstrued as being part of the striatum. For this reason, the name for the ectostriatum was changed to the entopallium, which means “within (ento-) the pallium”. This new term also retains existing abbreviations for this region and possesses an aural linkage to the term ectostriatum.
Archistriatum
In revising the terminology for the archistriatum, a number of issues had to be considered. These included defining the boundaries of the archistriatum, as different reports had set different boundaries,16,165 and coming to consensus on any homologies between the avian archistriatum (or its parts) with cell groups of the mammalian telencephalon. The avian archistriatum has been thought to be, at least in part, homologous to the mammalian amygdala,3,4,7,60,64,165 a structure that itself is now known to possess both pallial and subpallial portions.103 In revising the terminology for the avian archistriatum, the relationship of its subfields (including nucleus taeniae, also known as the taenia) to the pallial and subpallial parts of the mammalian amygdala needed to be addressed. Based on neurochemical and developmental data, the Forum concluded that the evidence overwhelmingly indicates that all parts of the avian archistriatum, i.e., structures with archistriatum in their names in the pigeon and chicken brain atlases,16,151 are pallial.65,66,167 As part of the discussion on the pallial versus subpallial nature of the archistriatum, the Forum concluded that the taenia has typically been regarded as a part of the archistriatal complex, although this was not reflected in its name,165,168170 but that much or all of it is subpallial. 104,170,171 Thus, the conclusion that the structures with archistriatum in their name, as their limits have been traditionally defined (excluding the taenia), are entirely pallial, made it appropriate that the new name for the archistriatum and its subdivisions have “-pallium” as part of the name.
Given the desirability of retaining existing abbreviations for the archistriatum, the Forum considered a number of possible prefixes beginning with the letter “A”. “Archi-” was ruled out because of its questionable evolutionary implications. Consideration was given to the idea that “amygdalo-” be used, based on the interpretation that all of the archistriatum was amygdaloid in developmental origin and homologous as a field to all or part of the amygdala in mammals.60,64 The Forum concluded that while the evidence for an amygdaloid nature of the taeniae and the posterior archistriatum was supported by hodological, developmental, neurochemical, and behavioral evidence,60,123,135,165,170,172 the anterior, the intermediate, and at least parts of the medial archistriatum appeared to have largely somatic features, making them unlike the amygdala.65,123,165,166,173,174 While it was further acknowledged that perhaps these regions were homologous to some parts of the mammalian amygdala and had evolved divergently in birds, the Forum concluded that this had not been demonstrated unequivocally. In addition, even if such an evolutionary relationship were established, the concern was expressed that it would be misleading and inappropriate to attach a name with viscerolimbic functional implications (i.e., the term “amygdala”) to a field with somatic functional traits.175177 In the end, the Forum decided that only the posterior archistriatum and taenia warranted the designation of amygdala (PoA and TnA, Fig. 1B). For the remaining parts of the archistriatum, the Forum decided to replace archistriatum with the term arcopallium, with the prefix “arco-” referring to the arched contour of the upper boundary of the field (Fig. 1B). This choice does not foreclose the future option of replacing “arco-” with “amygdalo-” for specific arcopallial subdivisions if the evidence for this homology becomes more convincing. The subpallial region inferior to the globus pallidus was renamed the subpallial amygdala (SpA, Fig. 1B).
Vocal and Auditory Regions of the Mesopallium
Nucleus Avalanche (Av) → Nucleus Avalanche (Av)
This is a little-studied vocal nucleus in the old named HV that receives a projection from HVC178 (Fig. 2A) and shows vocalization-associated gene expression.179 A similar mesopallial nucleus has been identified by vocalization-associated gene expression in budgerigars and hummingbirds.25,34 Because the name given to this nucleus in songbirds did not have hyperstriatum ventrale in it, no name change is necessary.
Oval Nucleus of the Hyperstriatum Ventrale (HVo) → Oval Nucleus of the Mesopallium (MO)
First described in parrots,32,33 a similarly positioned, oval-shaped nucleus in the anterior part of songbird HV that shows vocalization-associated gene expression has been noted.180 With the renaming of the HV, the Forum recommended renaming this nucleus to the oval nucleus of the mesopallium (MO, Fig. 2A). Here the abbreviation for “oval” is capitalized, as the Forum decided to capitalize the letters representing the main words of each name, with only subordinate letters or words in lowercase.
Caudal Medial Hyperstriatum Ventrale (CMHV) → Caudal Medial Mesopallium (CMM)
The caudal medial HV is a distinct region that is part of the telencephalic auditory pathway and that shows auditory-induced gene expression and neural activity 25,127129,181185 with the renaming of the HV, this region becomes the caudal medial mesopallium (CMM, Table 1). CMM also has a lateral auditory counterpart that was called the caudal lateral hyperstriatum ventrale (CLHV).127 This becomes the caudal lateral mesopallium (CLM, Fig. 2B).
Vocal and Auditory Regions of the Nidopallium
HVC (Higher Vocal Center) or HVc → HVC
This nucleus was the first identified part of the telencephalic song control circuit.29 It was thought to occupy the caudal-most part of the hyperstriatum ventrale, and was thus named the hyperstriatum ventrale, pars caudale, and abbreviated HVc. Subsequent work, however, recognized that this region is in actuality located within the pallial field that had been called the neostriatum30 (Fig. 2A). To retain the abbreviation, which had already become entrenched, but eliminate the inaccurate location implied by its name, Nottebohm186 suggested calling this region the higher vocal center, and abbreviating it with all capital letters HVC. Subsequently, the concern was raised that HVC was arguably not the apex of a hierarchy of vocal centers of the brain, making the name unwarranted.187 Thus, Fortune and Margoliash188 and Brenowitz and colleagues189 recommended use of “HVc” as a letter-based proper name for the nucleus. However, the use of “high (or higher) vocal center” has persisted in published reports by some investigators, while “HVc” used as a proper name has been employed by others. In order to unify the field behind a single name, the Forum solicited feedback from the songbird research community, who overwhelmingly supported using HVC as the proper name (i.e., letter-based name only, all caps) and recommended against using HVc or any form of the term “higher vocal center.”
Lateral and Medial Magnocellular Nucleus of the Anterior Neostriatum (lMAN and mMAN) → Lateral and Medial Magnocellular Nucleus of the Anterior Nidopallium (LMAN and MMAN)
The magnocellular nucleus of the anterior neostriatum (MAN) is a vocal nucleus of the anterior telencephalon that is necessary for song learning 113,190192 and is active during singing.179,193 This nucleus has two named subdivisions, the lateral and medial (typically abbreviated IMAN and mMAN). With the renaming of the neostriatum, the name for each of these is altered by substituting nidopallium for neostriatum; the established abbreviations remain the same (Fig. 2A; Table 1). Based upon feedback from songbird researchers, the Forum recognized that using the lowercase letter “l” for the word “lateral” in the abbreviation for the lateral magnocellular nucleus of the anterior nidopallium causes confusion due to the resemblance of the lowercase letter “l” to the number “1” or to the capital letter “I.” Using all capital letters in this case (LMAN and MMAN) eliminates this confusion.
Nucleus Interface (NIf) → Nucleus Interface of the Nidopallium (NIf)
The nucleus interface (NIf) is a telencephalic constituent of the song control circuit that projects to HVC178 (Fig. 2A), and shows singing-associated neural activity and gene expression.180,194 While this nucleus is located in what has been called the neostriatum, the word neostriatum does not appear in the established name for NIf. To emphasize its location, the Forum adopted the official name nucleus interface of the nidopallium (or its Latin equivalent), and its abbreviation remains the same (Table 1).
Caudal Medial Neostriatum (NCM) → Caudal Medial Nidopallium (NCM)
The caudal medial neostriatum is a large and well-studied region of the avian auditory circuit, subjacent to the caudal medial mesopallium (CMM). It shows specialized auditory processing properties in response to species-specific sounds.128,195199 With the renaming of the neostriatum, the name is altered to caudal medial nidopallium (NCM), and the established abbreviation remains the same (Fig. 2B; Table 1).
HVC (or HVc) Shelf → HVC Shelf
The HVC shelf is an auditory region continuous with NCM dorsally, and is located immediately ventral to HVC126,128,174 (Fig. 2B). Because the word neostriatum is not in the name, there is no change. However, due to the Forum recommendation that HVC serve as a proper name, it is similarly recommended that the HVC part of the term “HVC shelf” be a letter-based proper name.
Field L → Field L
The nidopallial region containing the primary auditory thalamo-recipient zone was not recognized as a distinct region in the Karten and Hodos atlas16 and was not assigned a name. However, the experimental work of Karten200 established that this zone largely coincided with the cytoarchitectonic region named Field L by Rose,13 and this name subsequently became entrenched in the literature on this region.126,127,181,183,201203 Given its identification as Field L in a large number of studies, and given that the term has no erroneous evolutionary implications, the existing name was retained. The Forum recognized, however, that an inconsistency exists in the literature in the extent of the territory to which the term Field L is applied. In many studies, Field L is taken to mean the region in the caudal medial neostriatum (now nidopallium) defined by Rose13 and identified by Karten200 as receiving a prominent input from nucleus ovoidalis (Ov, Fig. 2B). The work of Scheich and colleagues183,204,205 led to the recognition that the auditory field in the caudal medial nidopallium was actually larger than the ovoidalis-recipient Field L alone. Thus, the main ovoidalis thalamo-recipient zone was named L2, and the regions immediately adjacent to L2, which receive L2 input as well as a smaller amount of thalamic input from the ovoidalis shell region, were named L1 and L3 (Fig. 2B). As a consequence of the presence of subfields, the term “Field L” has come to have two different definitions in the recent literature, one in which it refers to L2 alone and one in which it refers to L1, L2, and L3 together. Similar problems exist for what the Forum has renamed the entopallium,161,206209 and for the nucleus basalis (renamed nucleus basorostralis by the Forum).78,210212 The Forum concluded that it would be desirable to develop a uniform and consistent terminology for core and shell subdivisions of these three sensory fields in the nidopallium, and will make recommendations in a separate publication devoted to this issue.46
Vocal and Auditory Regions of the Arcopallium
Robust Nucleus of the Archistriatum (RA) → Robust Nucleus of the Arcopallium (RA)
The robust nucleus of the arcopallium (RA) is a specialized nucleus within the intermediate archistriatum of songbirds, required for and active during the production of learned song.29,177,179,213 With the renaming of the archistriatum, the name for this nucleus becomes the robust nucleus of the arcopallium (RA), and the existing abbreviation is retained (Fig. 2A).
Cup of the Robust Nucleus of the Archistriatum (RA cup) → Cup of the Robust Nucleus of the Arcopallium (RA cup)
The RA cup is a region within the songbird auditory pathway located immediately rostroventral to the vocal nucleus RA126,128,174,180 (Fig. 2B). A similar region has been found in the intermediate arcopallium of other vocal learning birds, as well as in vocal non-learning birds.25,34,181 In pigeons, this region has been called the ventromedial nucleus of the intermediate archistriatum (AIVM).181 With the new nomenclature, archistriatum in these names is replaced by arcopallium, and the existing abbreviations are retained (Table 1).
The understanding of avian brain organization and function has advanced enormously in the past one hundred years.3,57,12,13,18,28,31,38,40,60,75 The facts that have emerged have shown the existing terminology for the avian telencephalon and many brainstem cell groups related to it to be erroneous. These errors perpetuated misconceptions about birds and the avian brain. The Avian Brain Nomenclature Forum was the culmination of a growing awareness of how these errors have affected the understanding of the avian brain and of the communication problems caused by the faulty and outdated terminology. The Forum thus sought to devise a new terminology that is free of errors and promotes accurate understanding of avian brain organization and evolution. The Forum was scrupulous in its renaming efforts to use names implying homology only when it was confident that the names would not later prove to be in error. We believe the nomenclature we have devised can serve the field well, and we thus urge all avian brain researchers, birdsong neurobiologists included, to adopt the new nomenclature. Further information and avian brain images depicting this new nomenclature are available in our related papers39,40,167 and on the Avian Brain Nomenclature Exchange website (<http://avianbrain.org>).
Acknowledgments
In addition to the authors of this chapter, the Forum participants included Laura L. Bruce, Ann B. Butler, András Csillag, Wayne Kuenzel, Loreta Medina, George Paxinos, Toru Shimizu, Georg Striedter, Martin Wild as the core committee, and Gregory F. Ball, Sarah Durand, Onur Güntürkün, Diane Lee, Alice Powers, Stephanie A. White, Gerald Hough, Lubica Kubikova, Tom V. Smulders, Kazuhiro Wada, Jennifer Dugas-Ford, Scott Husband, Keiko Yamamoto, Jing Yu, and Connie Siang as other faculty and student participants. Preparation for the Forum, the Forum itself, and the dissemination of the conclusions are supported by grants from the National Science Foundation (IBN-0110894) and the National Institutes of Health (1R13-MH-64400-01). We thank Drs. Carol van Hartesveldt and Christopher Platt of National Science Foundation and Israel Lederhendler of National Institute of Mental Health for their support in securing funding and for their encouragement of the Forum enterprise.
1. Northcutt RG. Changing views of brain evolution. Brain Res Bull. 2001;55:663–674. [PubMed]
2. Edinger L. In: The Anatomy of the Central Nervous System of Man and of Vertebrates in General: 1896 Fifth German edition, English published 1899. Hall WS, Holland PL, Carlton EP, translators. F.A. Davis Company; Philadelphia: 1885.
3. Edinger L, Wallenberg A, Holmes GM. Untersuchungen fiber die vergleichende Anatomie des Gehirns. Das Vorderhirn der Vögel Abhandlungen der Senckenbergischen naturforschenden Gesellschaft. 1903;20:343–426.
4. Edinger L. The relations of comparative anatomy to comparative psychology. Comp Neurol Psychol. 1908;18:437–457.
5. Ariëns-Kappers C. The ontogenetic development of the corpus striatum in birds and a comparison with mammals and man. Proc Kon Akad v Wetens te Amsterdam. 1922;26:135–158.
6. Ariëns-Kappers C. Three lectures on neurobiotaxis and other subjects delivered at the University of Copenhagen. Leven and Munksgaard; Copenhagen: 1928.
7. Ariëns-Kappers CU, Huber CG, Crosby EC. Comparative Anatomy of the Nervous System of Vertebrates, Including Man. Reprinted 1960. Hafher; New York: 1936.
8. Ariëns-Kappers C. The phylogenesis of the paleo-cortex and archi-cortex compared with the evolution of the visual neo-cortex. Arch Neurol Psychiat. 1909;4:161–173.
9. Johnston JB. Further contributions to the study of the evolution of the forebrain. J Comp Neurol. 1923;35:337–481.
10. Craigie EH. The cell structure of the cerebral hemisphere of the humming bird. J Comp Neurol. 1932;56:135–168.
11. Herrick CJ. The Brain of the Tiger Salamander. The University of Chicago Press; Chicago, IL: 1948.
12. Herrick CJ. The Evolution of Human Nature. University of Texas Press; Austin, TX: 1956.
13. Rose M. Uber die cytoarchitektonische gliederung des vorderhirns der vogel. J f Psychol Neurol. 1914;21(suppl 1):278–352.
14. Kuhlenbeck H. The ontogenetic development and phylogenetic significance of the cortex telencephali in the chick. J Comp Neurol. 1938;69:273–301.
15. Källén B. On the nuclear differentiation during the embryogenesis in the avian forebrain and some notes on the amniote strio-amygdaloid complex. Avata Anat (Basel) 1953;17:72–84. [PubMed]
16. Karten HJ, Hodos W. A Stereotaxic Atlas of the Brain of the Pigeon (Columba livia) Johns Hopkins University Press; Baltimore: 1967.
17. Parent A. The brain in evolution and involution. Biochem Cell Biol. 1997;75:651–667. [PubMed]
18. Striedter GF. The telencephalon of tetrapods in evolution. Brain Behav Evol. 1997;49:179–213. [PubMed]
19. Swanson LW. Cerebral hemisphere regulation of motivated behavior. Brain Res. 2000;886:113–164. [PubMed]
20. Thorpe WH. The learning abilities of birds. Ibis. 1951;93:1–52. 252–296.
21. Marler P. Birdsong and speech development: could there be parallels? Am Sci. 1970;58:669–673. [PubMed]
22. Baptista LF, Schuchmann KL. Song learning in the anna hummingbird (Calypte anna) Ethology. 1990;84:15–26.
23. Pepperberg IM. In search of King Solomon’s ring: cognitive and communicative studies of grey parrots (Psittacus erithacus) Brain Behav Evol. 2002;59:54–67. [PubMed]
24. Hile AG, Plummer TK, Striedter GF. Male vocal imitation produces call convergence during pair bonding in budgerigars, Melopsittacus undulatus. Anim Behav. 2000;59:1209–1218. [PubMed]
25. Jarvis ED, et al. Behaviourally driven gene expression reveals song nuclei in hummingbird brain. Nature. 2000;406:628–632. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
26. Weir AA, Chappell J, Kacelnik A. Shaping of hooks in New Caledonian crows. Science. 2002;297:981. [PubMed]
27. Hunt GR, Gray RD. Diversification and cumulative evolution in New Caledonian crow tool manufacture. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2003;270:867–874. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
28. Karten HJ. The organization of the avian telencephalon and some speculations on the phylogeny of the amniote telencephalon. In: Pertras J, editor. Comparative and Evolutionary Aspects of the Vertebrate Central Nervous System. Vol. 167. 1969. pp. 164–179.
29. Nottebohm F, Stokes TM, Leonard CM. Central control of song in the canary, Serinus canarius. J Comp Neurol. 1976;165:457–486. [PubMed]
30. Paton JA, Manogue KR, Nottebohm F. Bilateral organization of the vocal control pathway in the budgerigar, Melopsittacus undulatus. J Neurosci. 1981;1:1279–1288. [PubMed]
31. Karten HJ. Homology and evolutionary origins of the “neocortex.” Brain Behav Evol. 1991;38:264–272. [PubMed]
32. Striedter GF. The vocal control pathways in budgerigars differ from those in songbirds. J Comp Neurol. 1994;343:35–56. [PubMed]
33. Durand SE, et al. Vocal control pathways through the anterior forebrain of a parrot (Melopsittacus undulatus) J Comp Neurol. 1997;377:179–206. [PubMed]
34. Jarvis ED, Mello CV. Molecular mapping of brain areas involved in parrot vocal communication. J Comp Neurol. 2000;419:1–31. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
35. Gahr M. Neural song control system of hummingbirds: comparison to swifts, vocal learning (songbirds) and nonlearning (suboscines) passerines, and vocal learning (budgerigars) and nonlearning (dove, owl, gull, quail, chicken) nonpasserines. J Comp Neurol. 2000;426:182–196. [PubMed]
36. Baumel JJ. Nomina Anatomica Avium: An Annotated Anatomical Dictionary of Birds. Academic Press; London, New York: 1979.
37. Baumel JJ. Handbook of Avian Anatomy: Aomina anatomica avium. Nuttall Ornithological Club; Cambridge, MA: 1993.
38. Reiner A, et al. Revised nomenclature for avian telencephalon and some related brainstem nuclei. J Comp Neurol. 2004 In press. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
39. Reiner A, et al. The Avian Brain Nomenclature Forum: A New Century in Comparative Neuroanatomy. J Comp Neurol. 2004 In press. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
40. Jarvis ED, et al. A paradigm shift in understanding the organization, evolution and function of the avian brain. Submitted for publication.
41. Wild M, Medina L, Reiner A. Homologies for some avian and mammalian brain-stem cell groups. Brain Behav Evol. Manuscript in preparation.
42. Jarvis ED, et al. The Avian Brain Nomenclature Forum: a new century in comparative neuroanatomy II. Brain Behav Evol. Manuscript in preparation.
43. Kuenzel W, et al. The avian basal ganglia and other subpallial cell groups. Brain Behav Evol. Manuscript in preparation.
44. Bruce L, et al. The avian arcopallium and amygdala. Brain Behav Evol. Manuscript in preparation.
45. Medina L, et al. The new avian brain nomenclature in the context of telencephalic homology among amniotes. Brain Behav Evol. Manuscript in preparation.
46. Jarvis ED, et al. The avian nidopallium and mesopallium. Brain Behav Evol. Manuscript in preparation.
47. Shimizu TV, et al. The avian hyperpallium. Brain Behav Evol. Manuscript in preparation.
48. Campbell CB, Hodos W. The concept of homology and the evolution of the nervous system. Brain Behav Evol. 1970;3:353–367. [PubMed]
49. Butler AB. The evolution of the dorsal pallium in the telencephalon of amniotes: cladistic analysis and a new hypothesis. Brain Res Brain Res Rev. 1994;19:66–101. [PubMed]
50. Medina L, Reiner A. Do birds possess homologues of mammalian primary visual, somatosensory and motor cortices? Trends Neurosci. 2000;23:1–12. [PubMed]
51. Reiner AJ. A hypothesis as to the organization of cerebral cortex in the common amniote ancestor of modern reptiles and mammals. Novartis Found Symp. 2000;228:83–102. discussion 102–113. [PubMed]
52. Carcraft J. Comments on homology and analogy. Syst Zool. 1967;16:356–359.
53. Lauder GV. Homology, analogy, and the evolution of behavior. In: Nitecki MH, Kitchell JA, editors. Evolution of Animal Behavior. Oxford University Press; NY: 1986. pp. 9–40.
54. Schmitt M. The homology concept—still alive. In: Briedbach O, Kutsch W, editors. The Nervous System of Invertebrates: An Evolutionary and Comparative Approach. Birkhauser Verlag; Basel, Switzerland: 1995. pp. 425–438.
55. Hodos W. The comparative study of brain–behavior relationships. In: Goodman IJ, Schein MW, editors. Birds: Brain and Behavior. Academic Press; NY: 1974. pp. 15–25.
56. Hodos W. The concept of homology and the evolution of behavior. In: Masterton RB, Hodos W, Jerison H, editors. Evolution, Brain and Behavior: Persistent Problems. L. Erlbaum Associates; Hillsdale, NJ: 1976. pp. 153–167.
57. Striedter GF, Northcutt RG. Biological hierarchies and the concept of homology. Brain Behav Evol. 1991;38:177–189. [PubMed]
58. Smith H. Biological similarities and homologies. System Zool. 1967;16:101–102.
59. Puelles L, Medina L. Field homology as a way to reconcile genetic and developmental variability with adult homology. Brain Res Bull. 2002;57:243–255. [PubMed]
60. Puelles L, et al. Pallial and subpallial derivatives in the embryonic chick and mouse telencephalon, traced by the expression of the genes Dlx-2, Emx-1, Nkx-2.1, Pax-6, and Tbr-1. J Comp Neurol. 2000;424:409–438. [PubMed]
61. Güntürkün O. The functional organization of the avian visual system. In: Andrew RJ, editor. Neural and Behavioral Plasticity. Oxford University Press; Oxford: 1991. pp. 92–105.
62. Smith-Fernandez AS, et al. Expression of the Emx-1 and Dlx-1 homeobox genes define three molecularly distinct domains in the telencephalon of mouse, chick, turtle and frog embryos: implications for the evolution of telencephalic subdivisions in amniotes. Development. 1998;125:2099–2111. [PubMed]
63. Reiner A, Brauth SE, Karten HJ. Evolution of the amniote basal ganglia. Trends Neurosci. 1984;7:320–325.
64. Bruce LL, Neary TJ. The limbic system of tretopods: a comparative analysis of cortical and amygdalar populations. Brain Behav Evol. 1995;46:224–234. [PubMed]
65. Wada K, Sakaguchi H, Jarvis E. Brain evolution revealed through glutamate receptor expression profiles. Soc Neurosci. 2001;27:1425.
66. Molnar Z, Butler AB. Neuronal changes during forebrain evolution in amniotes: an evolutionary developmental perspective. Prog Brain Res. 2002;136:21–38. [PubMed]
67. Butler AB, Molnar Z, Manger PR. Apparent absence of claustrum in monotremes: implications for forebrain evolution in amniotes. Brain Behav Evol. 2002;60:230–240. [PubMed]
68. Karten HJ, Dubbeldam JL. The organization and projections of the paleostriatal complex in the pigeon (Columba livia) J Comp Neurol. 1973;148:61–90. [PubMed]
69. Brauth SE, Kitt CA. The paleostriatal system of Caiman crocodilus. J Comp Neurol. 1980;189:437–465. [PubMed]
70. Brauth SE, et al. The substance P-containing striatotegmental path in reptiles: an immunohistochemical study. J Comp Neurol. 1983;219:305–327. [PubMed]
71. Smeets WJAJ. Catecholamines in the CNS of reptiles: structure and functional considerations. In: Smeets WJAJ, editor. Phylogeny and Development of Catecholamine Systems in the CNS of Vertebrates. Cambridge University Press; Cambridge, England: 1994. pp. 103–133.
72. Medina L, Reiner A. Neurotransmitter organization and connectivity of the basal ganglia in vertebrates: implications for the evolution of basal ganglia. Brain Behav Evol. 1995;46:235–258. [PubMed]
73. Medina L, Veenman CL, Reiner A. Evidence for a possible avian dorsal thalamic region comparable to the mammalian ventral anterior, ventral lateral, and oral ventroposterolateral nuclei. J Comp Neurol. 1997;384:86–108. [PubMed]
74. Medina L, Reiner A. The efferent projections of the dorsal and ventral pallidal parts of the pigeon basal ganglia, studied with biotinylated dextran amine. Neuroscience. 1997;81:773–802. [PubMed]
75. Reiner A, Medina L, Veenman CL. Structural and functional evolution of the basal ganglia in vertebrates. Brain Res Brain Res Rev. 1998;28:235–285. [PubMed]
76. Hillebrand A. Experimental and descriptive study of the hypoglossal nerve nucleus in the turkey and the goose (in Romanian) Lucrari Stiintifice Seria C. 1971;XIV:45–55.
77. Nottebohm F. Vocal tract and brain: a search for evolutionary bottlenecks. Ann NY Acad Sci. 1976;280:643–649. [PubMed]
78. Wild JM, Zeigler HP. Central representation and somatotopic organization of the jaw muscles within the facial and trigeminal nuclei of the pigeon (Columba livia) J Comp Neurol. 1980;192:175–201. [PubMed]
79. Wild JM. Identification and localization of the motor nuclei and sensory projections of the glossopharyngeal, vagus, and hypoglossal nerves of the cockatoo (Cacatua roseicapilla), Cacatuidae. J Comp Neurol. 1981;203:351–377. [PubMed]
80. Eden AR, Correia MJ. An autoradiographic and HRP study of vestibulocollic pathways in the pigeon. J Comp Neurol. 1982;211:432–440. [PubMed]
81. Youngren OM, Phillips RE. Location and distribution of tracheosyringeal motorneuron somata in the fowl. J Comp Neurol. 1983;213:86–93. [PubMed]
82. Vicario DS, Nottebohm F. Organization of the zebra finch song control system: I. Representation of syringeal muscles in the hypoglossal nucleus. J Comp Neurol. 1988;271:346–354. [PubMed]
83. Wild JM. Peripheral and central terminations of hypoglossal afferents innervating lingual tactile mechanoreceptor complexes in Fringillidae. J Comp Neurol. 1990;298:157–171. [PubMed]
84. Dubbeldam JL, Bout RG. The identification of the motor nuclei innervating the tongue muscles in the mallard (Anas platyrhynchos); an HRP study. Neurosci Lett. 1990;119:223–227. [PubMed]
85. Watanabe T, Ohmori Y. Location of motoneurons supplying upper neck muscles in the chicken studied by means of horseradish peroxidase. J Comp Neurol. 1988;270:271–278. [PubMed]
86. Horster W, Franchini A, Daniel S. Organization of neck muscle motoneurons in the cervical spinal cord of the pigeon. Neuroreport. 1990;1:93–96. [PubMed]
87. Ziljstra C, Dubbeldam JL. Organization of the motor innervation of craniocervical muscles in the mallard, Anas platyrhynchos. J Hirnforsch. 1994;35:425–440. [PubMed]
88. Hillebrand A. An experimental study concerning the accessory nerve in the chicken and turkey. Anatomischer Anzeiger. 1975;137:296–302. [PubMed]
89. Crosby EC, Humphrey T, Lauer EW. Correlative Anatomy of the Nervous System. Macmillan; New York: 1962.
90. Bailhache T, Balthazart J. The catecholaminergic system of the quailbrain: immunocytochemical studies of dopamine beta-hydroxylase and tyrosinehydroxylase. J Comp Neurol. 1993;329:230–256. [PubMed]
91. Reiner A, et al. Catecholaminergic perikarya and fibers in the avian nervous system. In: Smeets WJAJ, Reiner A, editors. Phylogeny and Development of Catecholaminergic Systems in the CNS of Vertebrates. Cambridge University Press; Cambridge, England: 1994. pp. 135–181.
92. Puelles L, Medina L. Development of neurons expressing tyrosine hydroxylase and dopamine in the ckicken brain: a comparative segmental analysis. In: Smeets WJAJ, Reiner A, editors. Phylogeny and Development of Catecholaminergic Systems in the CNS of Vertebrates. Cambridge University Press; Cambridge, England: 1994. pp. 381–404.
93. Lewis JW, et al. Evidence for a catecholaminergic projection to area X in the zebra finch. J Comp Neurol. 1981;196:347–354. [PubMed]
94. Kitt CA, Brauth SE. Telencephalic projections from midbrain and isthmal cell groups in the pigeon. II. The nigral complex. J Comp Neurol. 1986;247:92–110. [PubMed]
95. Bottjer SW. The distribution of tyrosine hydroxylase immunoreactivity in the brains of male and female zebra finches. J Neurobiol. 1993;24:51–69. [PubMed]
96. Szekely AD, et al. Connectivity of the lobus parolfactorius of the domestic chicken (Gallus domesticus): an anterograde and retrograde pathway tracing study. J Comp Neurol. 1994;348:374–393. [PubMed]
97. Karle EJ, et al. Light and electron microscopic immunohistochemical study of dopaminergic terminals in the striatal portion of the pigeon basal ganglia using antisera against tyrosine hydroxylase and dopamine. J Comp Neurol. 1996;369:109–124. [PubMed]
98. Metzger M, et al. Organization of the dopaminergic innervation of forebrain areas relevant to learning: a combined immunohistochemical/retrograde tracing study in the domestic chick. J Comp Neurol. 1996;376:1–27. [PubMed]
99. Durstewitz D, Kroner S, Güntürkün O. The dopaminergic innervation of the avian telencephalon. Prog Neurobiol. 1999;59:161–195. [PubMed]
100. Medina L, Reiner A. Distribution of choline acetyltransferase immunoreactivity in the pigeon brain. J Comp Neurol. 1994;342:497–537. [PubMed]
101. Jiao Y, et al. Identification of the anterior nucleus of the ansa lenticularis in birds as the homologue of the mammalian subthalamic nucleus. J Neurosci. 2000;20:6998–7010. [PubMed]
102. Rubenstein JL, et al. The embryonic vertebrate forebrain: the prosomeric model. Science. 1994;266:578–580. [PubMed]
103. Swanson LW, Petrovich GD. What is the amygdala? Trends Neurosci. 1998;21:323–331. [PubMed]
104. Cobos I, et al. Fate map of the avian anterior forebrain at the four-somite stage, based on the analysis of quail-chick chimeras. Dev Biol. 2001;239:46–67. [PubMed]
105. Redies C, Medina L, Puelles L. Cadherin expression by embryonic divisions and derived gray matter structures in the telencephalon of the chicken. J Comp Neurol. 2001;438:253–285. [PubMed]
106. Reiner A, Anderson KD. The patterns of neurotransmitter and neuropeptide co-occurrence among striatal projection neurons: conclusions based on recentfindings. Brain Res Brain Res Rev. 1990;15:251–265. [PubMed]
107. Casto JM, Ball GF. Characterization and localization of D1 dopamine receptors in the sexually dimorphic vocal control nucleus, area X, and the basal ganglia of European starlings. J Neurobiol. 1994;25:767–780. [PubMed]
108. Grisham W, Arnold AP. Distribution of GABA-like immunoreactivity in the song system of the zebra finch. Brain Res. 1994;651:115–122. [PubMed]
109. Soha JA, Shimizu T, Doupe AJ. Development of the catecholaminergic innervation of the song system of the male zebra finch. J Neurobiol. 1996;29:473–489. [PubMed]
110. Luo M, Perkel DJ. A GABAergic, strongly inhibitory projection to a thalamic nucleus in the zebra finch song system. J Neurosci. 1999;19:6700–6711. [PubMed]
111. Sun Z, Reiner A. Localization of dopamine D1A and D1B receptor mRNAs in the forebrain and midbrain of the domestic chick. J Chem Neuroanat. 2000;19:211–224. [PubMed]
112. Reiner A, Karten HJ, Solina AR. Substance P: localization within paleostriatal-tegmental pathways in the pigeon. Neuroscience. 1983;9:61–85. [PubMed]
113. Bottjer SW, et al. Axonal connections of a forebrain nucleus involved with vocal learning in zebra finches. J Comp Neurol. 1989;279:312–326. [PubMed]
114. Beckstead RM, Cruz CJ. Striatal axons to the globus pallidus, entopeduncular nucleus and substantia nigra come mainly from separate cell populations in cat. Neuroscience. 1986;19:147–158. [PubMed]
115. Selemon LD, Goldman-Rakic PS. Topographic intermingling of striatonigral and striatopallidal neurons in the rhesus monkey. J Comp Neurol. 1990;297:359–376. [PubMed]
116. Bottjer SW, Johnson F. Circuits, hormones, and learning: vocal behavior in songbirds. J Neurobiol. 1997;33:602–618. [PubMed]
117. Luo M, Perkel DJ. Long-range GABAergic projection in a circuit essential for vocal learning. J Comp Neurol. 1999;403:68–84. [PubMed]
118. Farries MA, Perkel DJ. Pallidum-like elements in the avian “striatum” outside of specialized vocal structures project directly to the thalamus. Soc Neuro Abs. 2002;680:618.
119. Reiner A, et al. An immunohistochemical and pathway tracing study of the striatopallidal organization of Area X in the zebra finch. J Comp Neurol. 2004 In press. [PubMed]
120. Iyengar S, Viswanathan SS, Bottjer SW. Development of topography within song control circuitry of zebra finches during the sensitive period for song learning. J Neurosci. 1999;19:6037–6057. [PubMed]
121. Farries M, Perkel DJ. Electrophysiological properties of avian basal ganglia neurons recorded in vitro. J Neurophysiol. 2000;84:2502–2513. [PubMed]
122. Cobos I, Puelles L, Martinez S. The avian telencephalic subpallium originates inhibitory neurons that invade tangentially the pallium (dorsal ventricular ridge and cortical areas) Dev Biol. 2001;239:30–45. [PubMed]
123. Veenman CL, Wild JM, Reiner A. Organization of the avian “corticostriatal” projection system: a retrograde and anterograde pathway tracing study in pigeons. J Comp Neurol. 1995;354:87–126. [PubMed]
124. Mezey S, Csillag A. Selective Striatal connections of midbrain dopaminergic nuclei in the chick (Gallus domesticus) Cell Tissue Res. 2002;308:35–46. [PubMed]
125. Anderson KD, Reiner A. Striatonigral projection neurons: a retrograde labeling study of the percentages that contain substance P or enkephalin in pigeons. J Comp Neurol. 1991;303:658–673. [PubMed]
126. Kelley DB, Nottebohm F. Projections of a telencephalic auditory nucleus-field L-in the canary. J Comp Neurol. 1979;183:455–469. [PubMed]
127. Vates GE, et al. Auditory pathways of caudal telencephalon and their relation to the song system of adult male zebra finches. J Comp Neurol. 1996;366:613–642. [PubMed]
128. Mello CV, Clayton DF. Song-induced ZENK gene expression in auditory pathways of songbird brain and its relation to the song control system. J Neurosci. 1994;14:6652–6666. [PubMed]
129. Jarvis ED, et al. A framework for integrating the songbird brain. J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol. 2002;188:961–980. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
130. Aste N, et al. Anatomical and neurochemical definition of the nucleus of the stria terminalis in Japanese quail (Coturnix japonica) J Comp Neurol. 1998;396:141–157. [PubMed]
131. Brauth SE, Ferguson JL, Kitt CA. Prosencephalic pathways related to the paleostriatum of the pigeon (Columba livia) Brain Res. 1978;147:205–221. [PubMed]
132. Anderson KD, Reiner A. Extensive co-occurrence of substance P and dynorphin in striatal projection neurons: an evolutionarily conserved feature of basal ganglia organization. J Comp Neurol. 1990;295:339–369. [PubMed]
133. Anderson KD, Reiner A. Immunohistochemical localization of DARPP-32 in striatal projection neurons and striatal interneurons: implications for the localization of D1-like dopamine receptors on different types of striatal neurons. Brain Res. 1991;568:235–243. [PubMed]
134. Veenman CL, et al. Thalamostriatal projection neurons in birds utilize LANT6 and neurotensin: a light and electron microscopic double-labeling study. J Chem Neuroanat. 1995;9:1–16. [PubMed]
135. Roberts TF, Hall WS, Brauth SE. Organization of the avian basal forebrain: chemical anatomy in the parrot (Melopsittacus undulatus) J Comp Neurol. 2002;454:383–408. [PubMed]
136. Heimer L, et al. The accumbens: beyond the core-shell dichotomy. J Neuropsychiatr Clin Neurosci. 1997;9:354–381. [PubMed]
137. Heimer L, Alheid GF, Zaborszky L. Basal ganglia. In: Paxinos G, editor. The Rat Nervous System. Academic Press; Orlando: 1985. pp. 37–86.
138. Paxinos G, Watson C. The Rat Brain in Stereotaxic Coordinates. Academic Press; San Diego, California: 1998.
139. Reiner A, et al. The distribution of enkephalinlike immunoreactivity in the telencephalon of the adult and developing domestic chicken. J Comp Neurol. 1984;228:245–262. [PubMed]
140. Russchen FT, Smeets WJ, Hoogland PV. Histochemical identification of pallidal and striatal structures in the lizard Gekko gecko: evidence for compartmentalization. J Comp Neurol. 1987;256:329–341. [PubMed]
141. Russchen FT, Jonker AJ. Efferent connections of the striatum and the nucleus accumbens in the lizard Gekko gecko. J Comp Neurol. 1988;276:61–80. [PubMed]
142. Guirado S, et al. Nucleus accumbens in the lizard Psammodromus algirus: chemoarchitecture and cortical afferent connections. J Comp Neurol. 1999;405:15–31. [PubMed]
143. Smeets WJ, Lopez JM, Gonzalez A. Immunohistochemical localization of DARPP-32 in the brain of the lizard, Gekko gecko: co-occurrence with tyrosine hydroxylase. J Comp Neurol. 2001;435:194–210. [PubMed]
144. Kitt CA, Brauth SE. Projections of the paleostriatum upon the midbrain tegmentum in the pigeon. Neuroscience. 1981;6:1551–1566. [PubMed]
145. Reiner A, Carraway RE. Immunohistochemical and biochemical studies on Lys8-Asn9-neurotensin8–13 (LANT6)-related peptides in the basal ganglia of pigeons, turtles, and hamsters. J Comp Neurol. 1987;257:453–476. [PubMed]
146. Veenman CL, Reiner A. The distribution of GABA-containing perikarya, fibers, and terminals in the forebrain and midbrain of pigeons, with particular reference to the basal ganglia and its projection targets. J Comp Neurol. 1994;339:209–250. [PubMed]
147. Marin O, Smeets WJ, Gonzalez A. Evolution of the basal ganglia in tetrapods: a new perspective based on recent studies in amphibians. Trends Neurosci. 1998;21:487–494. [PubMed]
148. Brox A, et al. Expression of the genes GAD67 and Distal-less-4 in the forebrain of Xenopus laevis confirms a common pattern in tetrapods. J Comp Neurol. 2003;461:370–393. [PubMed]
149. Gonzalez A, et al. Regional expression of the homeobox gene NKX2-1 defines pallidal and interneuronal populations in the basal ganglia of amphibians. Neuroscience. 2002;114:567–575. [PubMed]
150. Reiner A, Medina L, Haber SN. The distribution of dynorphinergic terminals in striatal target regions in comparison to the distribution of substance P-containing and enkephalinergic terminals in monkeys and humans. Neuroscience. 1999;88:775–793. [PubMed]
151. Kuenzel WJ, Masson M. A Stereotaxic Atlas of the Brain of the Chick (Gallus domesticus) The Johns Hopkins University Press; Baltimore: 1988.
152. Brauth SE. Enkephalin-like immunoreactivity within the telencephalon of the reptile Caiman crocodilus. Neuroscience. 1984;11:345–358. [PubMed]
153. Reiner A. The distribution of proenkephalin-derived peptides in the central nervous system of turtles. J Comp Neurol. 1987;259:65–91. [PubMed]
154. Li R, Sakaguchi H. Cholinergic innervation of the song control nuclei by the ventral paleostriatum in the zebra finch: a double-labeling study with retrograde fluorescent tracers and choline acetyltransferase immunohistochemistry. Brain Res. 1997;763:239–246. [PubMed]
155. Li R, Zuo MX, Sakaguchi H. Auditory-vocal cholinergic pathway in zebra finch brain. Neuroreport. 1999;10:165–169. [PubMed]
156. Mayo W, et al. Cortical cholinergic projections from the basal forebrain of the rat, with special reference to the prefrontal cortex innervation. Neurosci Lett. 1984;47:149–154. [PubMed]
157. Marin O, Rubenstein JL. A long, remarkable journey: tangential migration in the telencephalon. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2001;2:780–790. [PubMed]
158. Brauth SE, et al. Neurotensin binding sites in the forebrain and midbrain of the pigeon. J Comp Neurol. 1986;253:358–373. [PubMed]
159. Wachtler K, Ebinger P. The pattern of muscarinic acetylcholine receptor binding in the avian forebrain. J Hirnforsch. 1989;30:409–414. [PubMed]
160. Csillag A, et al. Quantitative autoradiographic demonstration of changes in binding to delta opioid, but not mu or kappa receptors, in chick forebrain 30 minutes after passive avoidance training. Brain Res. 1993;613:96–105. [PubMed]
161. Husband SA, Shimizu T. Efferent projections of the ectostriatum in the pigeon (Columba livia) J Comp Neurol. 1999;406:329–345. [PubMed]
162. Denisenko-Nehrbass NI, et al. Site-specific retinoic acid production in the brain of adult songbirds. Neuron. 2000;27:359–370. [PubMed]
163. Hodos W. The visual capabilities of birds. In: Zeigler H, Bischof H-J, editors. Vision, Brain, and Behavior in Birds. The MIT Press; Cambridge, MA: 1993. pp. 63–76.
164. Shimizu T, Cox K, Karten HJ. Intratelencephalic projections of the visual wulst in pigeons (Columba livia) J Comp Neurol. 1995;359:551–572. [PubMed]
165. Zeier H, Karten HJ. The archistriatum of the pigeon: organization of afferent and efferent connections. Brain Res. 1971;31:313–326. [PubMed]
166. Reiner A, Yamamoto K, Kristal BS. A multivariate statistical approach to the study of brain homology and development. Soc Neuro. 2002:Abs.87.15.
167. Sun Z, et al. The distribution and cellular localization of glutamic acid decarboxlyase (GAD65) mRNA in the forebrain and midbrain of domestic chick. Soc Neuro Abs 2003 [PubMed]
168. Thompson RR, et al. Role of the archistriatal nucleus taeniae in the sexual behavior of male Japanese quail (Coturnix japonica): a comparison of function with the medial nucleus of the amygdala in mammals. Brain Behav Evol. 1998;51:215–229. [PubMed]
169. Cheng M, et al. Nucleus taenia of the amygdala of birds: anatomical and functional studies in ring doves (Streptopelia risoria) and European starlings (Sturnus vulgaris) Brain Behav Evol. 1999;53:243–270. [PubMed]
170. Absil P, et al. Effects of lesions of nucleus taeniae on appetitive and consummatory aspects of male sexual behavior in Japanese quail. Brain Behav Evol. 2002;60:13–35. [PubMed]
171. Foidart A, et al. Estrogen receptor-beta in quail: cloning, tissue expression and neuroanatomical distribution. J Neurobiol. 1999;40:327–342. [PubMed]
172. Lanuza E, et al. Distribution of CGRP-like immunoreactivity in the chick and quail brain. J Comp Neurol. 2000;421:515–532. [PubMed]
173. Davies DC, et al. Efferent connections of the domestic chick archistriatum: a phaseolus lectin anterograde tracing study. J Comp Neurol. 1997;389:679–693. [PubMed]
174. Mello CV, et al. Descending auditory pathways in the adult male zebra finch (Taeniopygia guttata) J Comp Neurol. 1998;395:137–160. [PubMed]
175. Wild JM. Descending projections of the songbird nucleus robustus archistriatalis. J Comp Neurol. 1993;338:225–241. [PubMed]
176. Knudsen EI, Knudsen PF. Disruption of auditory spatial working memory by inactivation of the forebrain archistriatum in barn owls. Nature. 1996;383:428–431. [PubMed]
177. Margoliash D. Functional organization of forebrain pathways for song production and perception. J Neurobiol. 1997;33:671–693. [PubMed]
178. Nottebohm F, Kelley DB, Paton JA. Connections of vocal control nuclei in the canary telencephalon. J Comp Neurol. 1982;207:344–357. [PubMed]
179. Jarvis ED, Nottebohm F. Motor-driven gene expression. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1997;94:4097–4102. [PubMed]
180. Jarvis ED, et al. For whom the bird sings: context-dependent gene expression. Neuron. 1998;21:775–788. [PubMed]
181. Wild JM, Karten HJ, Frost BJ. Connections of the auditory forebrain in the pigeon (Columba livia) J Comp Neurol. 1993;337:32–62. [PubMed]
182. Gentner TQ, Margoliash D. Neuronal populations and single cells representing learned auditory objects. Nature. 2003;424:669–674. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
183. Bonke BA, Bonke D, Scheich H. Connectivity of the auditory forebrain nuclei in the guinea fowl (Numida meleagris) Cell Tissue Res. 1979;200:101–121. [PubMed]
184. Heil P, Scheich H. Functional organization of the avian auditory cortex analogue. II. Topographic distribution of latency. Brain Res. 1991;539:121–125. [PubMed]
185. Heil P, Scheich H. Functional organization of the avian auditory cortex analogue. I. Topographic representation of isointensity bandwidth. Brain Res. 1991;539:110–120. [PubMed]
186. Nottebohm F. Birdsong. In: Edelman G, editor. Encyclopedia of Neuroscience. Birkhauser Boston; Boston: 1987. pp. 133–136.
187. Margoliash D, et al. Distributed representation in the song system of oscines: evolutionary implications and functional consequences. Brain Behav Evol. 1994;44:247–264. [PubMed]
188. Fortune ES, Margoliash D. Parallel pathways converge onto HVc and adjacent neostriatum of adult male zebra finches (Taeniopygia guttata) J Comp Neurol. 1995;360:413–441. [PubMed]
189. Brenowitz EA, Margoliash D, Nordeen KW. An introduction to birdsong and the avian song system. J Neurobiol. 1997;33:495–500. [PubMed]
190. Sohrabji F, Nordeen EJ, Nordeen KW. Selective impairment of song learning following lesions of a forebrain nucleus in the juvenile zebra finch. Behav Neural Biol. 1990;53:51–63. [PubMed]
191. Scharff C, Nottebohm F. A comparative study of the behavioral deficits following lesions of various parts of the zebra finch song system: implications for vocal learning. J Neurosci. 1991;11:2896–2913. [PubMed]
192. Foster EF, Bottjer SW. Lesions of a telencephalic nucleus in male zebra finches: influences on vocal behavior in juveniles and adults. J Neurobiol. 2001;46:142–165. [PubMed]
193. Hessler NA, Doupe AJ. Singing-related neural activity in a dorsal forebrain-basal ganglia circuit of adult zebra finches. J Neurosci. 1999;19:10461–10481. [PubMed]
194. McCasland JS. Neuronal control of bird song production. J Neurosci. 1987;7:23–39. [PubMed]
195. Mello CV, Vicario DS, Clayton DF. Song presentation induces gene expression in the songbird forebrain. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1992;89:6818–6822. [PubMed]
196. Chew SJ, et al. Decrements in auditory responses to a repeated conspecific song are long-lasting and require two periods of protein synthesis in the songbird forebrain. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1995;92:3406–3410. [PubMed]
197. Ribeiro S, et al. Toward a song code: evidence for a syllabic representation in the canary brain. Neuron. 1998;21:359–371. [PubMed]
198. Stripling R, Volman SF, Clayton DF. Response modulation in the zebra finch neostriatum: relationship to nuclear gene regulation. J Neurosci. 1997;17:3883–3893. [PubMed]
199. Bolhuis JJ, et al. Localized immediate early gene expression related to the strength of song learning in socially reared zebra finches. Eur J Neurosci. 2001;13:2165–2170. [PubMed]
200. Karten JH. The ascending auditory pathway in the pigeon (Columba livia) II. Telencephalic projections of the nucleus ovoidalis thalami. Brain Res. 1968;11:134–153. [PubMed]
201. Brauth SE, McHale CM. Auditory pathways in the budgerigar. II. Intratelencephalic pathways. Brain Behav Evol. 1988;32:193–207. [PubMed]
202. Fortune ES, Margoliash D. Cytoarchitectonic organization and morphology of cells of the field L complex in male zebra finches (Taenopygia guttata) J Comp Neurol. 1992;325:388–404. [PubMed]
203. Brauth SE, et al. Auditory pathways in the budgerigar. I. Thalamo-telencephalic projections. Brain Behav Evol. 1987;30:174–199. [PubMed]
204. Muller SC, Scheich H. Functional organization of the avian auditory field L. J Comp Physiol. 1985;156:1–12.
205. Bonke BA, Scheich H, Langner G. Responsiveness of units in the auditory neostriatum of the guinea fowl (Numida meleagris) to species-specific calls and synthetics stimuli. I. Tonotopy and functional zones of Field L. J Comp Physiol. 1979;132:243–255.
206. Karten HJ, Rezvin AM. Rostral projections of the optic tectum and nucleus rotundus in the pigeon. Brain Res. 1966;3:264–276.
207. Karten HJ, Hodos W. Telencephalic projections of the nucleus rotundus in the pigeon (Columba livia) J Comp Neurol. 1970;140:35–51. [PubMed]
208. Benowitz L. Functional organization of the avian telencephalon. In: Ebbesson SOE, editor. Comparative Neurology of the Telencephalon. Plenum Publishing Corporation; 1980. pp. 389–421.
209. Nixdorf BE, Bischof HJ. Afferent connections of the ectostriatum and visual wulst in the zebra finch (Taeniopygia guttata castanotis Gould)—an HRP study. Brain Res. 1982;248:9–17. [PubMed]
210. Wild JM, Arends JJ, Zeigler HP. Telencephalic connections of the trigeminal system in the pigeon (Columba livia): a trigeminal sensorimotor circuit. J Comp Neurol. 1985;234:441–464. [PubMed]
211. Veenman CL, Gottschaldt KM. The nucleus basalis-neostriatum complex in the goose (Anser anser L.) Adv Anat Embryol Cell Biol. 1986;96:1–85. [PubMed]
212. Dubbeldam JL, Visser AM. The organization of the nucleus basalis-neostriatum complex of the mallard (Anas platyrhynchos L.) and its connections with the archistriatum and the paleostriatum complex. Neuroscience. 1987;21:487–517. [PubMed]
213. Simpson HB, Vicario DS. Brain pathways for learned and unlearned vocalizations differ in zebra finches. J Neurosci. 1990;10:1541–1556. [PubMed]