Neural pathway for aggressive display in Betta splendens: midbrain and hindbrain control of gill-cover erection behavior.

Horseradish peroxidase (HRP) was used to identify parts of the presumptive neural pathway for gill cover erection, a behavioral display pattern performed by Siamese fighting fish (Betta splendens) during aggressive interactions. Motor, motor integration and sensory areas were identified in the medulla and mesencephalon. Motor neurons of the dilator operculi muscle, the effector muscle for gill cover erection, are located in the lateral and medial parts of the caudal trigeminal motor nucleus. Iontophoretic injections of HRP into the lateral trigeminal motor nucleus resulted in labeled cell bodies in two motor areas (medial part of the trigeminal motor nucleus, anterior part of the motor nucleus of cranial nerve IX-X), two parts of the reticular formation (medial and inferior reticular areas), and two nuclei of the octavolateralis system (nucleus medialis, magnocellular octaval nucleus). The HRP injections in the medial part of the caudal trigeminal motor nucleus resulted in labeled cells in the lateral part of the nucleus and in the medial reticular nucleus. Discrete injections of HRP into nucleus medialis revealed a strong axonal projection that terminated in the torus semicircularis. The medial reticular area and both of the octavolateralis nuclei received projections from their contralateral counterparts. Connections between motor areas, and between parts of the reticular formation, may coordinate the performance of gill cover erection with other behavioral patterns used during aggressive display. Connections with the octavolateralis system may provide information on the strength of an opponent's tail beats via the lateral-line system, as well as vestibular information about the fish's own orientation during aggressive display. The organization of inputs to the trigeminal motor nucleus in Betta, a perciform fish, was found to differ from that reported in the common carp, a cypriniform fish. These differences may underlie the different behavioral capabilities of the two groups of fish.