Received: 9 January 2002 / Accepted: 14 January 2002 / Published online: 7 February 2002© Springer-Verlag 2002Comparison is the essence of science. But before anycomparison can be made one should extend one's knowl-edge of the subjects to be compared. We should be grate-ful to Bshary, Wickler, and Fricke (2002) for their com-prehensive review of cognitive processes in fish becausedespite its long history, this field has faced serious neglectin recent years. This lack of interest in fish cognition iseven more striking if one considers that all ethologistNobel Prize winners had some interest in fish behaviourduring their career, and much of this work is still cited intextbooks for students [e.g. von Frisch (1941): frightpheromons; Ter Pelkwijk and Tinbergen (1937): recogni-tion of sign stimuli)]. Unfortunately too many researchersinterested in cognitive processes in animals have turned tothe study of mammals, despite the fact that the laboratoryenvironment for the study can be made more natural forfish than for most mammals. Primates, especially, have re-ceived much attention from the scientific community, andalthough there are debates about the interpretation ofmany experimental results, primate cognition research isflourishing, and comprehensive reviews are published ona regular basis (e.g. Kohler 1925; Byrne and Whiten1988; Tomasello and Call 1997).Given the present situation, Bshary et al. (2002) did thebest they could by comparing many different skills in fishthat are thought to depend on cognitive processes withsimilar traits described for primates. They argued that fishcognition can and should be used as a null hypothesis forunderstanding primate cognition since most phenomenacan be found in both taxonomic groups, suggesting thatthe difference is only of a quantitative nature.However, apart from knowing our "subjects", for anyevolutionary comparison we should clarify the supposedrelationship between them. In comparative ethology, as inA. Miklosi (®)Dept. of Ethology, Eotvos University,Pazmany P. s. 1/c, 1117 Budapest, Hungarye-mail: miklosa@ludens.elte.hu,Tel.: +36-1-3812179, Fax: +36-1-3812179other biological sciences, such evolutionary comparisonsare based on the concept of homology and analogy (orconvergence). By homology we mean that there is somedetectable evolutionary relationship ("continuity") amongthese traits - in other words, one trait was presumably theantecedent of the others (in two different species). Analo-gies always describe the functional value of the traits oftwo species. In other words, it is supposed that similarecological constraints may lead to similar behaviouraltraits in a function, since this enables both species to sur-vive in a given environment. Since in evolution species-specific traits change over time, the detection of homolo-gies is getting more and more difficult. The opposite istrue for functional analogies, where a longer time on theevolutionary scale means an increased chance to developsimilarity. It should be noted, however, that functionalanalogy does not mean that the behaviour is served bysimilar underlying mechanisms. Nobody thinks that thebee dance informing companions about distance and di-rection of a food source is driven by the same behav-ioural/neural mechanisms used by humans when transmit-ting the same information using language. Nevertheless,in a sense bee dance and language can be regarded asfunctional analogies. The main question therefore is howfar one should stretch such a comparison, given that one'sinterest lies in the underlying mechanisms that govern thebehaviour.In the present case of animal cognition one might sup-pose that the building blocks of such abilities are stronglytied to the neural characteristics of neurons and are wellmodelled by the forms of associative learning. The ques-tion, then, is whether such similarity at the basic level ofneural organisation is enough to warrant a comparison be-tween these distantly related taxa. In other words, whatcan we gain by such comparative analysis?Part of my argument against this proposition relies onBshary et al.'s (2002) observation that in the primategroup one could pick many single species that have beenshown to have most of the traits investigated. In strongcontrast, in fish for many or most cases different specieshad to be used as the subjects of comparison. Although