468 



POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



ures 300-350 feet across at the base is 

 slightly curved in the direction of 

 Saint Pierre ; the eastern face is smooth 

 and grooved, showing well the marks 

 of attrition against the encasing wall 

 of rock which lined its channel of exit. 

 On the west and southwest it is 

 ' cavernous ' and slaggy, having the im- 

 press of successive eruptions which 

 have blown its parts asunder. On the 

 night of June 12, immediately preced- 

 ing my ascent, the southwest base was 

 intensely luminous, shining out bright 

 red Avith the lava that was being 

 forced into it. A few days later, a 

 thin vapor pennant was seen to issue 

 from the absolute apex. Basal erup- 

 tions were taking place almost con- 

 tinuously. 



Angelo Heilprin. 



PROFESSOR SEALER ON ANIMAL 

 INTELLIGENCE. 



■ To THE Editor: Permit me to call 

 your attention to an article by Pro- 

 fessor N. S. Shaler in the July issue 

 of Harper's Monthly under the caption 

 ' Plant and Animal Intelligence.' This 

 article contains so many glaring inac- 

 curacies and misinterpretations of the 

 views of Huxley, the monistic philos- 

 ophers and those whom he terms ' men 

 of the extreme Darwinian school ' that 

 in the interest of scientific truth — of 

 which your journal has always been 

 such a valuable exponent — some action 

 on your part to correct the evil effect of 

 these errors would be both timely and 

 consistent. Now, I am not posing as 

 a champion of monistic philosophy, 

 but the public should not be misled 

 with respect to what monism really 

 means, nor should the broad-minded 

 Huxley, the enemy of dogma, whether in 

 science or leligion, be held responsible 

 for views not only foreign to his be- 

 liefs, but incompatible with his habits 

 of thought. 



Professor Shaler asserts that Huxley 

 was the originator of the theory of 

 animal automatism. One is tempted 

 to believe that the learned professor 



has had no time to peruse Huxley's 

 monograph on the subject, but has 

 jumped at the conclusion that the title 

 signifies a belief in that theory in its 

 narrowest sense. The great name of 

 Descartes, the real originator of the 

 theory, is not even mentioned, and 

 Professor Shaler seems to be ignorant 

 of the fact that Huxley's interesting 

 monograph is merely a critical anal- 

 ysis of Descartes's thesis, leading to 

 the inevitable conclusion that the 

 great seventeenth century philosopher's 

 views on the subject were untenable, 

 although in part justified by his mar- 

 velously prophetic insight into the 

 truths of modern psychology and physi- 

 ology. 



The following extracts from Huxley's 

 monograph show very clearly his 

 thought on these subjects: 



But though I do not think that Descnrtes' 

 hypothesis can be positively refuted, I am not 

 disposed to accept it. The doctrine of contin- 

 uity is too well established for it to be permis- 

 sible to me to suppose that any complex 

 natural phenomenon comes into existence 

 suddenly, and without being preceded by 

 simpler modifications; and very strong argu- 

 ments would be needed to prove that such 

 complex phenomena as those of consciousness, 

 first make their appearance in man. . . . We 

 know, further, that the lower animals possess, 

 though less developed, that part of the brain 

 which we have every reason to believe to be 

 the organ of consciousness in man ; and as, in 

 other cases, function and organ are propor- 

 tional, so we have a right to conclude it is with 

 the brain ; and that the brutes, though they 

 may not possess our intensity ol consciousness, 

 and though, from the absence of language, 

 they can have no trains of thoughts, but only 

 trains of feelings, yet have a consciousness 

 which, more or less distinctly, foreshadows 

 our own. 



It is true that Huxley, in another 

 part of his essay, offers the postulate 

 that man, and other higher organisms, 

 are conscious automata, but this is 

 very different from believing, as Pro- 

 fessor Shaler asserts he did, ' that mind 

 was a peculiarity of man, the lower 

 animals being essentially automata, all 

 their apparent intelligence being due to 

 mere reflex action essentially compar- 

 able with mechanical movements such 



