7. THE LABYRINTH
227
B. Hearing
The history of the problem of hearing in fishes has been reviewed in
detail by von Frisch (1936), Kleerekoper and Chagnon (1954), and
Enger (1968). It may suffice to recall here that from antiquity onward
fish have been believed to be endowed with sound perception. This was
believed to be localized in the internal ear and also in the lateral line.
However, under the impact of the discovery of the equilibrium function
of the labyrinth in the first half of the nineteenth century, and in view of
the absence in the fish labyrinth of any structure corresponding with the
cochlea of the higher vertebrates, the assumption gained ground that
fish may after all be deaf, and that all earlier evidence for their power of
sound perception ought to be considered with suspicion since it was
probably based on a misinterpretation of circumstantial evidence. Even
if sound perception could be convincingly demonstrated in fishes, it was
argued, the term “hearing” should be used only if it could definitely be
shown that the inner ear was the chief receptor organ concerned. After
the publication of work by Zenneck (1903), Piper (1906), and Parker
( 1904, 1909), evidence in favor of hearing in fishes began to accumulate.
A number of workers based their claims on observations of direct responses of various species of fish to sound stimuli. occurrence and repeatability of such responses was, however, often doubtfully documented,
and no convincing picture emerged, chiefly because the various acoustic
stimuli used were without biological significance for the experimental
animal. Here, as so often, the method of conditioning helped to overcome
the difficulty and yielded convincing evidence in favor of sound perception over a considerable range of frequencies in a number of families of
fishes.
1. FREQUENCY RANGE AND PITCH DISCRIMINATION
Table I surveys the reliable data including, in a number of cases, the
frequency range of responses.
The Ostariophysi show a significantly better performance insofar as
threshold, range, and pitch discrimination are concerned, and this fact
is held to be connected with the presence of a swim bladder and its linkup
with the labyrinth by the chain of Weberian ossicles (von Frisch, 1936;
Poggendorf, 1952; Kleerekoper and Roggenkamp, 1959). The evidence
in favor of sound reception among teleosts is thus impressive and makes
the assumption of a well-defined biological significance of hearing inescapable. Sound production exists in a great variety of types of fish and
suggests the existence of acoustic communication among individuals. This
227
B. Hearing
The history of the problem of hearing in fishes has been reviewed in
detail by von Frisch (1936), Kleerekoper and Chagnon (1954), and
Enger (1968). It may suffice to recall here that from antiquity onward
fish have been believed to be endowed with sound perception. This was
believed to be localized in the internal ear and also in the lateral line.
However, under the impact of the discovery of the equilibrium function
of the labyrinth in the first half of the nineteenth century, and in view of
the absence in the fish labyrinth of any structure corresponding with the
cochlea of the higher vertebrates, the assumption gained ground that
fish may after all be deaf, and that all earlier evidence for their power of
sound perception ought to be considered with suspicion since it was
probably based on a misinterpretation of circumstantial evidence. Even
if sound perception could be convincingly demonstrated in fishes, it was
argued, the term “hearing” should be used only if it could definitely be
shown that the inner ear was the chief receptor organ concerned. After
the publication of work by Zenneck (1903), Piper (1906), and Parker
( 1904, 1909), evidence in favor of hearing in fishes began to accumulate.
A number of workers based their claims on observations of direct responses of various species of fish to sound stimuli. occurrence and repeatability of such responses was, however, often doubtfully documented,
and no convincing picture emerged, chiefly because the various acoustic
stimuli used were without biological significance for the experimental
animal. Here, as so often, the method of conditioning helped to overcome
the difficulty and yielded convincing evidence in favor of sound perception over a considerable range of frequencies in a number of families of
fishes.
1. FREQUENCY RANGE AND PITCH DISCRIMINATION
Table I surveys the reliable data including, in a number of cases, the
frequency range of responses.
The Ostariophysi show a significantly better performance insofar as
threshold, range, and pitch discrimination are concerned, and this fact
is held to be connected with the presence of a swim bladder and its linkup
with the labyrinth by the chain of Weberian ossicles (von Frisch, 1936;
Poggendorf, 1952; Kleerekoper and Roggenkamp, 1959). The evidence
in favor of sound reception among teleosts is thus impressive and makes
the assumption of a well-defined biological significance of hearing inescapable. Sound production exists in a great variety of types of fish and
suggests the existence of acoustic communication among individuals. This