English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Neuroscience has a diversity problem. Or rather, in addition to the diversity problems that plague academia at large [Hurtado et al., 2010; Shaw, and Stanton, 2012], neuroscience has its own diversity problem. Up until the end of the twentieth century, the number of animal species with which neuroscience research was conducted gradually dwindled until the vast majority of neuroscience used just a handful of species [Manger et al., 2008]. Among “higher” vertebrates (amniotes), house mice (Mus musculus), Norway rats (Rattus norvegicus), and humans (Homo sapiens) were the study systems of choice for answering whatever burning question was keeping any particular neuroscientist awake at night. The common marmoset (Callithrix jacchus) and rhesus macaque (Macaca mulatta) earn honourable mentions, but hardly broaden the phylogenetic breadth of model organisms in neuroscience. These 5 species fall into just 2 Orders (rodents and primates) and the same Class (mammals), leaving the vast majority of the amniote tree of life (phylogeny) unrepresented. Having tens of thousands of scientists all working on the same model organism does have its advantages. The level of sophistication and precision with which we can manipulate and measure the nervous systems of mice at various levels (e.g., genetic, epigenetic, chemical, cellular, electrophysiological, etc. all the way up to behavioural and social) would have been impossible to achieve had we all been working on different species. Continuing to delve deep and learn absolutely everything we can about the nervous systems of model organisms is essential both for basic neuroscience and to improve the health and wellbeing of human society. However, if we limit our scope to model species, I think we may miss most of the picture. From talking to prominent neuroscientists and based on my reading of the literature, I believe that the 21st century may be starting to see a reversal of this trend by increasing species diversity in neuroscience, particularly amongst mammals and birds. By broadening our scope within mammals, neuroscience can ask more sophisticated questions that directly build upon what is known in model rodents and primates. By branching into birds, we can learn how the nervous system can achieve the same outcomes using different neural structures and processes, and thus teach us about the universal laws underlying functions that hold great interest for humans, such as vocal learning. There are 3 major clades of amniotes: birds, mammals, and squamates (lizards and snakes).1 Unlike the former 2 clades, squamates do not seem to be experiencing the same renewed interest, despite the work of a few talented investigators worldwide. In 1978, Paul MacLean introduced an edited volume on the behaviour and neurology of lizards by saying “those who are familiar

The Secret Caverns of the Dragon’s Brain: Current and Potential Contributions of Lizards to Evolutionary Neuroscience