Influence of the Optic Tectum and Prosencephalic Structures on Visually Controlled Prey-Catching and Avoidance Behaviors in the Fire Salamander

  • Thomas Finkenstädt
Part of the NATO Advanced Science Institutes Series book series (NSSA, volume 56)


In recent years J.-P. Ewert and his co-workers (see this volume) have made extensive quantitative neuroethological studies with regard to visual discrimination of prey and predator both in toads and frogs. Dealing with this subject I am comparatively investigating the influence of the optic tectum and various prosencephalic structures on visually controlled prey-catching and predator avoidance behavior in the fire salamander, Salamandra salamandra, which is an urodele and holds an inferior position on the phylogenetic scale. Quite similar to that described earlier in toads (Ewert, 1968) quantitative behavioral experiments in S.salamandra have shown (Himstedt et al., 1976) that prey capture is best activated by a stripe moving in the direction of its long axis (“worm configuration”) rather than by the same stripe whose longer axis is oriented perpendicular to the direction of movement (“antiworm configuration”). More specifically (Fig.lA), squares with an edge length of approximately 10mm are strongest releasers compared to stripes of corresponding length; but in the range between 20 and 40mm the releasing value of the square is between that of wormlike and antiwormlike stimuli. Predator avoidance behavior can be elicited by a big looming square or disc which simulates an airborne or terrestrial predator. Vibration or tactile stimuli are also effective in releasing escape behavior. Recent quantitative studies in juvenile and adult fire salamanders have shown that their preference for the worm configuration of a stripe against the antiworm configuration is invariant with regard to changes in the stimulus angular velocity (Fig.1B). This phenomenon, which is already known from the common toad, has been confirmed in S.salamandra also by W. Himstedt (unpubl. data).


Optic Tectum Bufo Bufo Tecta1 Neuron Electrical Brain Stimulation Predator Avoidance Behavior 
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. Clairambault, P., 1976, Development of the prosencephalon, in “Frog Neurobiology”, R. Llinas and W. Precht, eds., Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York.Google Scholar
  2. Ewert, J.-P., 1968, Der Einfluß von Zwischenhirndefekten auf die Visuomotorik im Beute-und Fluchtverhalten der Erdkröte (Bufo bufo L.). Z. vergl. Physiol., 61:41–70.Google Scholar
  3. Ewert, J.-P., 1983, Tectal mechanisms underlying prey-catching and avoidance bahviors in toads, in “Comparative Neurology of the Optic Tectum”, H. Vanegas, ed., Plenum Press, New York, (in press).Google Scholar
  4. Ewert, J.-P., and Wietersheim, A.v., 1974, Musterauswertung durch tectale und thalamus/praetectale Nervennetze im visuellen System der Kröte (Bufo bufo L.). J. Comp. Physiol., 92:131–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Finkenstädt, Th., 1980, Disinhibition of prey-catching in the salamander following thalamic-pretectal lesions. Naturwissenschaften, 67:471.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Finkenstädt, Th., 1981, Effects of forebrain lesions on visual discrimination in Salamandra salamandra. Naturwissenschaften, 68:268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Grüsser, O.-J., and Grüsser-Cornehls, U., 1976, Neurophysiology of the anuran visual system, in “Frog Neurobiology”, R. Llinas and W. Precht, eds., Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York.Google Scholar
  8. Himstedt, W., and Roth, G., 1980, Neuronal responses in the tectum opticum of Salamandra to visual prey stimuli. J. Comp. Physiol., 135:251–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Himstedt, W., Freidank, U., and Singer, E., 1976, Die Veränderung eines Auslösemechanismus im Beutefangverhalten während der Entwicklung von Salamandra salamandra (L.). Z. Tierpsychol., 41:235–243.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Schürg-Pfeiffer, E., and Ewert, J.-P., 1981, Investigation of neurons involved in the analysis of Gestalt prey features in the frog Rana temporaria. J. Comp. Physiol., 141:139–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Wilczynski, W., and Northcutt, R.G., 1977, Afferents to the optic tectum of the Leopard frog: An HRP study. J. Comp. Neurol., 173:219–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1983

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas Finkenstädt
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of AnatomyPonce School of MedicinePonce, P.R.USA
  2. 2.Arbeitsgr. Neuroethologie und BiokybernetikUniv. Landes Hessen GhKKasselF.R. of Germany

Personalised recommendations