Kalman Rubinson wrote:
>> On Thu, 17 May 2001 06:31:13 GMT, George Hammond
> <ghammond at mediaone.net> wrote:
>> >Kalman Rubinson wrote:
>> >> Sorry but the proportion of crossing fibers in the fornix is very
> >> small and characterising it as an "X" (or chiasm) is improper.
> >> The fornix is basically a direct fiber pathway stretched and bent by
> >> external forces, a phenomenon easily visualize by comparing fornices
> >> across verterate species.
> >
> >[Hammond]
> >Sorry to have to point out your error. The decussation in the Fornix is
> >documented and described in my peer reviewed published paper
>> It's a question of the proportion and significance of those crossing
> fibers. Compared to the optic chiasm and the pyramidal decussation,
> they are few.
[Hammond]
You still have no point. The argument is that the decussation of
the fornix is isomorphic structurally with the decussation of the
optic chiasma. Which apparently it is.
>> Kal
--
BE SURE TO VISIT MY WEBSITE, BELOW:
-----------------------------------------------------------
George Hammond, M.S. Physics
Email: ghammond at mediaone.net
Website: http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/index.html
-----------------------------------------------------------
