Toads were tested to determine whether puromycin could produce memory blockage of a learned aversion for stinging honeybees. Although the drug disrupted the learned aversion, there was evidence that the noxious consequences of puromycin itself produced a generalized aversion in the feeding situation which interacted with the effects on memory.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AgranoffB. N.DavisR. E.Evidence for sages in the development of memory. In CatlsonF. D. (Ed.), Physiological and biological aspects of nervous integration. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, 1968. Pp. 309–327.
2.
BrowerL. P.BrowerJ. V. Z.Investigations into mimicry. Natural History, 1962, 71 (April), 8–19.
3.
BrowerL. P.BrowerJ. V. Z.CorvinoJ. M.Plant poison in a terestial food chain. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 1967, 57, 893–898.
4.
FlexnerJ. B.FlexnerL. B.StellarE.Memory in mice as affected by intracerebral puromycin. Science, 1963, 141, 57–59.
5.
FlexnerL. B.FlexnerJ. B.Intracerebral saline: Effect on memory of trained mice treated with puromycin. Science, 1968, 159, 330–331.
6.
MayorS. J.Memory in the Japanese quail: Effects of puromycin and acetoxycycloheximide. Science, 1969, 166, 1165–1167.
7.
NachmanM.LesterD.Le MagnenJ.Alcohol aversion in the rat: Behavioral assessment of noxious drug effects. Science, 1970, 168, 1244–1246.
8.
OshimaK.GorbmanA.ShimadaH.Memory-blocking agents: Effects on olfactory discrimination in homing salmon. Science, 1969, 165, 86–88.
