﻿178 
  ANIMAL 
  BEHAVIOUR 
  

  

  to 
  say, 
  the 
  description 
  that 
  we 
  give 
  of 
  an 
  animal's 
  behaviour, 
  

   or 
  of 
  critical 
  corners 
  in 
  it 
  at 
  least, 
  is 
  bound 
  to 
  be 
  inadequate 
  

   unless 
  we 
  use 
  psychical 
  terms. 
  This 
  is 
  the 
  other 
  extreme. 
  

   It 
  was 
  expressed 
  by 
  Hume 
  when 
  he 
  said 
  : 
  ^ 
  : 
  No 
  truth 
  appears 
  

   to 
  be 
  more 
  evident 
  than 
  that 
  beasts 
  are 
  endowed 
  with 
  thought 
  

   and 
  reason 
  as 
  well 
  as 
  men." 
  That 
  may 
  be 
  tenable 
  generosity 
  

   for 
  horse 
  and 
  dog, 
  but 
  it 
  cannot 
  hold 
  good 
  for 
  starfish 
  and 
  

   earthworm. 
  

  

  How 
  are 
  we 
  to 
  avoid 
  the 
  stern 
  over-parsimony 
  of 
  Descartes 
  

   on 
  the 
  one 
  hand, 
  and 
  the 
  delicious 
  over-generosity 
  of 
  Mon- 
  

   taigne 
  on 
  the 
  other? 
  We 
  must 
  not 
  give 
  a 
  false 
  simplicity 
  

   to 
  the 
  facts 
  by 
  reducing 
  the 
  animal 
  to 
  the 
  level 
  of 
  an 
  auto- 
  

   matic 
  machine, 
  but 
  we 
  must 
  not 
  read 
  the 
  man 
  into 
  the 
  

   beast 
  without 
  critical 
  hesitation. 
  The 
  hive-bees 
  that 
  make 
  

   the 
  honeycomb 
  so 
  symmetrically 
  are 
  not 
  automatic 
  machines, 
  

   but 
  neither 
  are 
  they 
  little 
  geometricians. 
  

  

  To 
  keep 
  to 
  the 
  via 
  media 
  of 
  good 
  sense 
  must 
  always 
  be 
  

   difficult, 
  for 
  the 
  assumption 
  of 
  mind 
  in 
  an 
  animal 
  or 
  of 
  a 
  

   psychological 
  aspect 
  in 
  the 
  behaviour 
  of 
  an 
  animal 
  cannot 
  

   be 
  demonstrated. 
  There 
  is 
  no 
  litmus 
  paper 
  for 
  mentality. 
  

   " 
  Every 
  statement," 
  says 
  Bethe, 
  " 
  that 
  another 
  being 
  pos- 
  

   sesses 
  psychic 
  qualities 
  is 
  a 
  conclusion 
  from 
  analogy, 
  not 
  a 
  

   certainty 
  ; 
  it 
  is 
  a 
  matter 
  of 
  faith." 
  Our 
  assumption 
  of 
  mind 
  

   in 
  our 
  fellow-men 
  rests 
  on 
  the 
  same 
  sort 
  of 
  basis 
  (though 
  

   with 
  inter-subjective 
  corroborations) 
  ; 
  it 
  is 
  a 
  necessary 
  hy- 
  

   pothesis 
  and 
  one 
  that 
  works. 
  Is 
  not 
  a 
  similar 
  hypothesis 
  

   indispensable 
  in 
  regard 
  to 
  animals 
  if 
  we 
  are 
  to 
  understand 
  

   them 
  and 
  make 
  the 
  most 
  of 
  them? 
  But 
  animal 
  behaviour 
  

   has 
  such 
  a 
  long 
  gamut 
  that 
  each 
  case 
  must 
  be 
  judged 
  on 
  

   its 
  own 
  merits. 
  We 
  ask 
  in 
  each 
  case 
  whether 
  we 
  can 
  make 
  

   sense 
  of 
  what 
  we 
  see 
  without 
  assuming 
  mental 
  factors, 
  

   whether 
  we 
  can 
  adequately 
  describe 
  what 
  we 
  see 
  without 
  

  

  