Cantatrix sopranica L : Et autres écrits scientifiques

Tomatoes (Tomato rungisia vulgaris) were thrown by an automatic tomatothrower (Wait & See, 1972) monitored by an all-purpose laboratory computer (DID/92/85/P/331) operated on-line. Repetitive throwing allowed up to 9 projections per sec, thus mimicking the physiological conditions encountered by Sopranoes and other Singers on stage (Tebaldi, 1953). Care was taken to avoid missed projections on upper and/or lower limbs, trunk & buttocks. Only tomatoes affecting faces and necks were taken into account. 

Control experiments were made with other projectiles, as apple cores, cabbage runts, hats, roses, pumpkins, bullets, and ketchup (Heinz, 1952). 

Cantatrix sopranica

Démonstration expérimentale d'une organisation tomatotopique chez la Cantatrice.

L'auteur étude les fois que le lancement de la tomate il provoquit la réaction yellante chez la Chantatrice et demonstre que divers plusieures aires de la cervelle elles etait implicatées dans le response, en particular, le trajet légumier, les nuclei thalameux et le fiçure musicien de l'hémisphère nord.

As observed at the turn of the century by Marks & Spencer (1899), who first named the ``yelling reaction'' (YR), the striking effects of tomato throwing on Sopranoes have been extensively described. Although numerous behavioral (Zeeg & Puss, 1931; Roux & Combaluzier, 1932; Sinon et al., 1948), pathological (Hun & Deu, 1960), comparative (Karybb & Szyla, 1973) and follow-up (Else & Vire, 1974) studies have permitted a valuable description of these typical responses, neuroanatomical, as well as neurophysiological data, are, in spite of their number, surprisingly confusing. In their henceforth late twenties' classical demonstrations, Chou & Lai (1927 a, b, c, 1928 a, b, 1929 a, 1930) have ruled out the hypothesis of a pure facio-facial nociceptive reflex that has been advanced for many years by a number of authors (Mace & Doyne, 1912; Payre & Tairnelle, 1916; Sornette & Billevayzé, 1925). Since that time, numerous observations have been made that have tried to decipher the tangling puzzle as well as the puzzling tangle of the afferent and/or efferent sides of the YR and led to the rather chaotic involvement of numberless structures and paths: trigeminal (Loewenstein et al., 1930), bitrigeminal (Von Aitick, 1940), quadritrigeminal (Van der Deder, 1950), supra-, infra-, and inter-trigeminal (Mason & Ragoun, 1960) afferents have been likely pointed out as well as macular (Zakouski, 1954), saccular (Bortsch, 1955), utricular (Malosol, 1956), ventricular (Tarama, 1957), monocular (Zubrowska, 1958), binocular (Chachlik, 1959-1960), triocular (Strogonoff, 1960), auditive (Balalaika, 1515) and digestive (Alka-Seltzer, 1815) inputs. Spinothalamic (Attou & Ratathou, 1974), rubrospinal (Maotz & Toung, 1973), nigro-suiatal (Szentagothai, 1972), reticular (Pompeiano et al., 1971), hypothalamic (Hubel & Wiesel, 1970), mesolimbic (Kuffler, 1969) and cerebellar (High & Low, 1968) pathways have been vainly searched out for a tentative explanation of the YR organization and almost every part of the somesthesic (Pericoloso & Sporgersi, 1973), motor (Ford, 1930), commissural (Gordon & Bogen, 1974) and associative (Einstein et al., 1974) cortices have been found responsible for the progressive building-up of the response although, up-to-now, no decisive demonstration of both the input and output of the YR programming has been convincely advanced.

C'est alors que Marcel Gotlib, découragé par l'échec commercial de son oeuvre la plus ambitieuse, 2002, Odyssée de l'espace, renonça définitivement au 7e Art, brûlant symboliquement devant la terrasse du Fouquet's les scripts des trois films qu'il avait alors en projet et dont seuls les titres nous sont parvenus : Les Choses de la vie devant soi, Deux Anglaises et le continent perdu, et Balzac 001 contre le docteur No.