In article <1995Jul10.094953.8028 at alw.nih.gov> elis f. stanley,
elis at helix.nih.gov writes:
>>personally I would be rather sad to see this new group started. There
>really is not enough volume in the current goup to justify another one. Is
>the vert/invert division really sufficient to stop talking to one another?
I tend to agree. As a vertebrate physiologist I know that the study of
invertebrates has been every important but that knowledge hasn't
translated into reading much of the invertebrate literature. The reality
is that I will read threads devoted to specific issues if I stumble
across them, but I doubt that bionet.neuroscience,invertebrate would be
on my regular reading list.
On the other hand it may be that the lack of specific group is inhibiting
people posting questions in this more general newsgroup.
>As I see it we really need a NEUROLOGY group so that people with headaches
>etc can find expert advice.
It is a problem affecting a few other newsgroups too.
sci.med.psychobiology is mostly about prozac etc.
Robert M. Douglas
Deptartment of Ophthalmology McKellar Designs
University of British Columbia www.mckellar.com/designs/
douglas at org.ecc.ubc.cardouglas at mckellar.com