good neuro textbooks
hdvorak at cns.caltech.edu
Fri Oct 23 15:43:51 EST 1998
It's being used for the introductory neuro class here at Caltech this year,
and it's definitely available here. I haven't had a good look at it, but they
used to use Kandel, Schwartz and Jessell for this same class, so it's probably
pretty good. The "look" of it struck me and some of my labmates as a little
odd, though. It's very colourful, reminiscent of my high school textbooks.
The 1999 copyright date is kind of a scam, IMHO. There don't seem to be any
references more recent than 1998, which is not surprising given the lead time
required to produce a textbook. But since when are copyright dates post-dated?
New car model years are one thing, but it seems silly to allow a book published
in '98 to be copyrighted '99...
- Hannah Dvorak-Carbone
In article <01bdfe68$8773a980$81a22090 at Magpie.york.ac.uk>, pjw106 at york.ac.uk
>I have a copy on my bookshelf at the moment - don't know if that counts :)
>Got it from Heffers in Cambridge, UK. Is it available in UK and not
>elsewhere at the moment? Seems unlikely but you never know...
>Joseph V. Martin <jomartin at crab.rutgers.edu> wrote in article
><362FA2E2.C4F5B192 at crab.rutgers.edu>...
>> I would advise getting a desk copy in hand before selecting it.
>> Since it was promised by this (current) semester, I had ordered
>> it for my class and had to change at the last moment. I have
>> STILL not seen an actual desk copy, although the sample chapters
>> look good.
>> Pam Willoughby wrote:
>> > Try fundamental neuroscience - published by academic press, edited by
>> > Zigmond, Bloom, Landis, Roberts and Squire. Copyright 1999 so its bang
>> > to date. It doubles up as a very effective doorstop too... :)
More information about the Neur-sci