good neuro textbooks

Hannah Dvorak-Carbone hdvorak at
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>, pjw106 at 
>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> wrote in article
><362FA2E2.C4F5B192 at>...
>> 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 mailing list