Chemical Transfer of a Dummy Reaction, Released in Young Mouthbreeding Fish (Tilapia Nilotica) During the “Critical Period”, from Imprinted Donors into Unimprinted Recipients After the “Critical Period”

  • Hans Peter Zippel
  • Cornelis Langescheid


The “linking behavior” to the dummy, shown by young fish during the “critical period”, appears to be transferable to unimprinted animals after the “critical period” by injection of brain extracts from imprinted donors. On the other hand, control recipients injected with extracts from unimprinted donors show no such orientation to the model. Following injection the behavior of the recipients was comparable with that of imprinted animals at an equivalent age. However, the high level of “linking behavior” manifested by the donor animals at the time of decapitation could not be transferred.


Critical Period Testing Chamber Brain Extract Evans Blue Young Fish 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bauer, J.: Vergleichende Untersuchungen zum Kontaktverhalten verschiedener Arten der Gattung Tilapia (Cichlidae, Pisces). Z. Tierpsychol. 25, 22–70 (1968).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Breder, C. M.: An experimental study of the reproductive habits and life history of the cichlid fish Aequidens latifrons (Steindachner). Zoologica, N.Y. 18, 1–42 (1934).Google Scholar
  3. Brestowsky, M.: Vergleichende Untersuchungen zur Elternbindung von Tilapia-Jungfischen (Cichlidae, Pisces). Z. Tierpsychol. 25, 761–828 (1968).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dyal, J. A.: Transfer of behavioral bias: reality and specifity. In: Chemical Transfer of Learned Information (E. J. Fjerdingstad, ed.), pp. 219–263, North-Holland Publ. Comp., Amsterdam (1971).Google Scholar
  5. Dyal, J. A., and A. M. Golub: Attempt to modify a genetically controlled response via injections of brain RNA. In: Chemical Transfer of Learned Information (E. J. Fjerdingstad, ed.), pp. 257, North-Holland Publ. Comp., Amsterdam (1971).Google Scholar
  6. Lagerspetz, K. Y. H.: Transfer of the conditioned darklight preference and activity level by brain extracts. In: Chemical Transfer of Learned Information (E. J. Fjerdingstad, ed.), pp. 257, North-Holland Publ. Comp., Amsterdam (1971).Google Scholar
  7. Langescheid, C. B.: Vergleichende Untersuchungen Liber die angeborene Größenunterscheidung bei Tilapia nilotica und Hemihaplochromis multicolor (Pisces, Cichlidae). Experientia 24, 963–964 (1968).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Peters, H. M.: Experimentelle Untersuchungen über die Brut-pflege von Haplochromis multicolor, einem maulbrütenden Knochenfisch. Z. Tierpsychol. 1, 201–218 (1937).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Peters, H. M.: über einige Verhaltensweisen bei Cichliden und deren Grundlage. Bull. Inst, oceanogr. Monako N° special 1 D, 15–33 (1963a).Google Scholar
  10. Peters, H. M., and M. Brestowsky: Artbastarde in der Gattung Tilapia (Cichlidae, Teleostei) und ihr Verhalten. Experientia 17, 261–265 (1961).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Reinis, S., and D. R. Mobbs: Some applications of “memory transfer” in the study of learning. In: Molecular Approaches to Learning and Memory (W. L. Byrne, ed.), pp. 189–193, 29, Academic Press, New York (1970).Google Scholar
  12. Ungar, R.: Molecular coding of information in the nervous system. Die Naturwissenschaften, Heft 3, 85–91 (1972).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1973

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hans Peter Zippel
    • 1
  • Cornelis Langescheid
    • 1
  1. 1.Physiologisches Institut Lehrstuhl II der Universität34 GöttingenGermany

Personalised recommendations