140 



HARDWICKE'S SCIENCE-G OSSIF. 



regard to the imagination. Mr. Darwin derives the 

 faculty from dreams, and observe that animals dream. 

 Dreams are explainable by the theory generally 

 accepted, that when we are asleep our intellect is 

 partly awake, and when we are awake it is partially 

 dormant. Doubtless the savage may occasionally 

 mistake dreams for realities, though one would 

 suppose their constant occurrence would familiarise 

 him with the phenomenon. Surely this is a very 

 slight basis on which to establish the origin of the 

 faculty so marvellous as the imagination. That animals 

 possess memory, attention, and sympathy, cannot be 

 disputed. Will Mr. Rogers or Mr. Wheatley explain 

 why they think " memory an act of reason ?" How 

 do they reconcile the assertion with the fact that 

 idiots often possess marvellous memories ? J. E. Taylor 

 remarks on the mistakes made by animals, which he 

 thinks may throw much light on animal psychology, 

 and his letter suggests to me that the favourite method 

 of illustration with the Darwinians is to compare the 

 lowest savage that can be found with the most intelli- 

 gent quadruped, and then remark that there is little 

 or no difference between them, overlooking the fact 

 that one is capable of development to an immense 

 extent, and the other but to a limited degree. With 

 regard to these cases of mistakes by animals, many 

 swimmers must be aware that, when in the water, it 

 is often difficult for them to keep their dogs off, they 

 appear to wish to rescue their masters, and they do 

 not always know their own masters when naked. I 

 have known instances of naked persons being in danger 

 from a dog and a cat, and I am informed that the 

 maternal yearning of a cow that has lost its calf may 

 be entirely satisfied by a skin stuffed with straw. 

 There are also m-any instincts to which we have no 

 clue whatever. All these must be explained before 

 it can be conceded that the minds of animals and 

 man differ only in degree. Turning for a moment 

 from the mental to the physical question, which 

 inevitably suggests itself, we find that Mr. Darwin 

 compares the fcetus of a man, a monkey, and a dog, 

 and remarks that at an early stage of development 

 they are apparently the same, and argues from this 

 resemblance that they must have had a common 

 progenitor. Despite this seeming resemblance, how- 

 ever, there is the indisputable fact that they develope 

 into a man, a monkey, and a dog. Surely, if this 

 proves anything, it proves the danger of reasoning by 

 analogy, and Mr. Darwin's arguments are of this 

 nature. The appearances explained by the law of 

 reason may be as fallacious. I am not in the least 

 prejudiced against the Darwinian hypothesis ; what- 

 ever the conditions of our existence we must perforce 

 submit to them ; the question for me is, Can it be 

 confirmed by facts ? but no thinker can disregard the 

 instinctive disgust with which it is regarded by many 

 persons of all degrees of cultivation. 



What do the evolutionists, who argue that some 

 supernatural change may have taken place in the 

 reason of man, mean by the word supernatural ? If 

 they mean some law not as yet discovered, why do 

 they not suspend their judgment ? If they mean a 

 direct interference of the Deity, it is a purely specula- 

 tive idea, without proof of any kind. We are not 

 bound to explain the origin of species, or of man, but 

 we are bound to examine any explanation that may be 

 offered under penalty of being led on a delusive 

 voyage of discovery. Much first-rate talent is being 

 spent on deductions from the Darwinian hypothesis. 

 What if the premisses are false ? The finite cannot 

 comprehend the infinite ; so far I agree with your 

 correspondent, C. L. W., but when he deduces from 

 this fact that " man may consequently be in error 

 when he assumes that he alone is the possessor of 



reasoning powers," he suggests on this basis an asser- 

 tion that may or may not be true. In my letter, in 

 the April number, the words " the same kind of 

 intelligence " are a misprint for " some kind of intel- 

 ligence," the reverse of my meaning. — H. D. Barclay. 



Intelligence in Man and Animals. — Mr. 

 Wheatley quotes (from "Nature") a "remarkable 

 instance of rats gnawing leaden pipes in order to 

 obtain water, and which Dr. Darwin explained by 

 saying that the rats heard the water trickling, and 

 reasoned about it, and cut through the pipe to obtain 

 it. I think this explanation probable." I believe it 

 to be in the highest degree improbable. In this city 

 the pipes are always full, and consequently no sounds 

 of "trickling" could be heard ; yet I know of more 

 than one instance of pipes being gnawed by rats and 

 mice, even the pipes conveying gas are sometimes 

 bitten through, of which an instance came under my 

 notice a few days ago. I think a much simpler ex- 

 planation can be given than that the rats detected 

 the presence of water and reasoned upon it, viz., that 

 the pipes happened to be in their way. — F. Killon. 



Intelligence in Animals.—" It is quite clear " 

 (says Dr. Whately) "that if such acts were done by 

 man they would be regarded as an exercise of reason, 

 and I do not know why, when performed by brutes, 

 evidently by a similar process so far as can be judged, 

 they should not bear the same name. To talk of a 

 cat having instinct to pull a bell when desirous of 

 going out at the door .... would be to use words 

 at random." And I think many would agree with 

 the learned archbishop if they would carefully read the 

 testimony and researches of such eminent naturalists 

 and thinkers as Lockslie, Bacon, Burns, poet ; Pro- 

 fessors Darwin, Huber, Brehm, Rengger and Kirby ; 

 Cuvier, the naturalist ; J. K. Lord, Lubbock, and the 

 lately recognised genius, Edward, of Banff, &c. As 

 an example, of which so many can be adduced, let 

 us take the incident related by Mr. Edward. He 

 saw two birds vainly trying to turn over a large fish 

 on the sands, to get the vermin beneath. After many 

 futile attempts, extending over half an hour or more, 

 and after attracting a third bird who helped them to no 

 purpose, they stood together, and apparently by their 

 noise were engaged in some mysterious process of 

 conversation and reasoning. They again set to work 

 and dug a large hole in the sands from one side of the 

 fish, even to undermining a certain distance, and then 

 with evident expressions of triumph, rolled it over 

 with ease and commenced the feast they had worked 

 for. That fish measured 3J feet, being a fine cod, 

 and those birds undoubtedly used their reason to 

 elaborate a scheme to accomplish their object. With- 

 out running off into Darwinian theories, I would 

 remind Dr. Keegan, as he lays so much stress on the 

 capacity of the brain, that one of our great physiolo- 

 gists tells us " that every chief fissure and fold of the 

 brain of man has its analogy in that of the ourang," 

 whilst Huxley adds " whilst in those things in which 

 the brains of men and apes do differ, there is also a 

 great difference amongst various men." It is true 

 structure is not all— the machinery may be perfect in 

 every detail, yet if it lack the motive power of what 

 avail is it ? Still is it not reasonable to suppose 

 that structure being so similar, God intended the 

 ape to use her brain like man's but in a less 

 degree ? The chief obstacle to belief in reason in 

 animals lies in the fear of what the admission may 

 lead to, but surely we need not grudge these poor 

 brutes the possession of a feeble development of 

 reason, when man, and man alone, can thank his 

 Creator for giving him a hope of a future which no 

 animal is destined to enjoy. 



