36
And, to follow this thread in our publications, we learned in 2011 that this 1993
paper was one of the most cited in the history of BBE, and we were invited to revisit
the paper, think back on what we had said in 1993, and review changes in the fi eld.
We are quite proud of “Fish Hearing: New Perspectives From Two ‘Senior’
Bioacousticians” (Fay and Popper 2012 ) because it allowed us both, as we were
cogitating retirement, to look at the fi eld of fi sh bioacoustics as it had evolved over
our careers. But, again, 19 years after the fi rst BBE paper and 39 years after our
1973 review, we still saw many open and exciting questions for the next generations
of investigators to pursue.
3 Modes of Hearing
Our fi rst research collaboration resulted in two papers in 1974 and 1975 (Fay and
Popper 1974 , 1975 ) (Fig. 2 , right). These were inspired, as we recall, by some work
done by Dick’s mentor, Dr. Wever (also the discoverer of the Wever–Bray Effect,
better known as cochlear microphonics; see Hallpike and Rawdon-Smith 1934 ). Dr.
Wever was one of the fi rst to suggest that fi sh hear with both particle motion and
pressure, but there were, at that time, no experimental studies to demonstrate this
possibility. (We did not know then that a number of our European colleagues were,
using different approaches, asking the same questions; see the wonderful review by
our close friend and colleague Tony Hawkins 2014 .)
Thus, our fi rst collaborative experimental studies (Fay and Popper 1974 , 1975 )
involved placing fi sh in a tube and using evoked potentials to determine hearing
sensitivity with and without air in the swim bladder. We examined goldfi sh
( Carassius auratus ) and a cichlid ( Tilapia macrocephala ) and concluded that the
swim bladder was involved in hearing in the goldfi sh for higher frequencies but not
in the cichlid. This led to our suggesting (but not using the terms) that there are
“hearing specialists” and “hearing generalists.” This differentiation, as we will get
to below, came back to “haunt” us later in our careers.
4 Eniwetok and Shark Hearing
In the summer of 1972, we teamed up with two of the most remarkable people we
have ever met, Drs. Albert Tester and James Kendall, to do a study on shark hearing
(Fig. 3 ). Al Tester was one of the world’s preeminent elasmobranch biologists and
was on the faculty of the University of Hawai’i (UH) for decades. Jim Kendall
moved to Hawai’i after retiring as a professor of biology at City College of New York
(CCNY; he was also a retired colonel in the U.S. Air Force). When Jim moved to
Hawai’i, he met Al and that led to a very deep friendship and a magnifi cent scientifi c
collaboration. On thinking back on it, perhaps the collaboration and friendship we
saw in Jim and Al rubbed off on us and could be the basis of our working together.
A.N. Popper and R.R. Fay
And, to follow this thread in our publications, we learned in 2011 that this 1993
paper was one of the most cited in the history of BBE, and we were invited to revisit
the paper, think back on what we had said in 1993, and review changes in the fi eld.
We are quite proud of “Fish Hearing: New Perspectives From Two ‘Senior’
Bioacousticians” (Fay and Popper 2012 ) because it allowed us both, as we were
cogitating retirement, to look at the fi eld of fi sh bioacoustics as it had evolved over
our careers. But, again, 19 years after the fi rst BBE paper and 39 years after our
1973 review, we still saw many open and exciting questions for the next generations
of investigators to pursue.
3 Modes of Hearing
Our fi rst research collaboration resulted in two papers in 1974 and 1975 (Fay and
Popper 1974 , 1975 ) (Fig. 2 , right). These were inspired, as we recall, by some work
done by Dick’s mentor, Dr. Wever (also the discoverer of the Wever–Bray Effect,
better known as cochlear microphonics; see Hallpike and Rawdon-Smith 1934 ). Dr.
Wever was one of the fi rst to suggest that fi sh hear with both particle motion and
pressure, but there were, at that time, no experimental studies to demonstrate this
possibility. (We did not know then that a number of our European colleagues were,
using different approaches, asking the same questions; see the wonderful review by
our close friend and colleague Tony Hawkins 2014 .)
Thus, our fi rst collaborative experimental studies (Fay and Popper 1974 , 1975 )
involved placing fi sh in a tube and using evoked potentials to determine hearing
sensitivity with and without air in the swim bladder. We examined goldfi sh
( Carassius auratus ) and a cichlid ( Tilapia macrocephala ) and concluded that the
swim bladder was involved in hearing in the goldfi sh for higher frequencies but not
in the cichlid. This led to our suggesting (but not using the terms) that there are
“hearing specialists” and “hearing generalists.” This differentiation, as we will get
to below, came back to “haunt” us later in our careers.
4 Eniwetok and Shark Hearing
In the summer of 1972, we teamed up with two of the most remarkable people we
have ever met, Drs. Albert Tester and James Kendall, to do a study on shark hearing
(Fig. 3 ). Al Tester was one of the world’s preeminent elasmobranch biologists and
was on the faculty of the University of Hawai’i (UH) for decades. Jim Kendall
moved to Hawai’i after retiring as a professor of biology at City College of New York
(CCNY; he was also a retired colonel in the U.S. Air Force). When Jim moved to
Hawai’i, he met Al and that led to a very deep friendship and a magnifi cent scientifi c
collaboration. On thinking back on it, perhaps the collaboration and friendship we
saw in Jim and Al rubbed off on us and could be the basis of our working together.
A.N. Popper and R.R. Fay