190 



HARDWICKE'S SCIENCE-GOSSIP. 



monkeys. We are told that monkeys occasionally 

 "execute careless sentinels," thus (if we judge of 

 them by comparison with our own thoughts and 

 motives) they have a conception of retributive justice; 

 the carrying out of conception denotes contemplation, 

 mental conception and contemplation denotes mind — 

 but as Mr. Barclay (I think) has put it, are we sure 

 we are safe in so judging ? Let it be proved that 

 a monkey's idea of capital punishment comes from 

 the same kind of reasoning as that of man, that it is 

 acquired in the same manner, then I can believe that 

 monkeys have mind ; but let it be proved (and the 

 thing seems to me to be self-evident) that it is not so 

 acquired, and that probably it comes from the pure 

 instinct of revenge, then I can only believe that 

 however "reasonable" the actions may appear, they 

 are the result of primal impulse. Mr. Rogers says 

 he cannot see how memory can exist without reason, 

 nor reason without memory. Is not the difficulty 

 rather how instinct can possibly exist without memory, 

 its necessary incident ? What would be the use of 

 an instinct of locality unless an animal remembered 

 the particular locality its instinct prompted it to find ? 

 What would be the use of its instinct of appetite 

 without the memory to know where it had found food 

 and thence where to look for it ? What would be 

 the use of the instinct to avoid pain unless the animal 

 remembered what gave it pain ? What would be the 

 use of the instinct of the dog to become attached to its 

 master unless through the instinct of scent or other- 

 wise it remembered its master, and so on in all cases 

 of instinct ? Without memory in these cases the 

 instinct could not and would not exist. It may be 

 said so it is with mind ; without memory that would 

 have no existence, but it by no means makes the 

 two faculties (mind and instinct) alike. The difference 

 seems to me to consist in this, man is able to remem- 

 ber and to think, and from thought to act inde- 

 pendently of primal impulse. Animals are able to 

 remember, and from memory to act in accordance 

 with some given primal impulse. The one constitutes 

 mind, the other instinct. So far as either faculty 

 depends upon memory for its development or com- 

 pletion, it differs only in degree from the other. So 

 far as the one does not depend, and the other does 

 depend for its development or completion upon primal 

 impulse, they differ in kind, the one stamping the 

 creature as an intellectual, the other an unintellectual 

 being — at least, such is my idea. — Idea. 



Intelligence in Man and Animals. — The little 

 discussion on the above subject, now appearing in 

 Science-Gossip, is in danger of becoming confused, 

 unless the several disputants at once define clearly 

 and precisely what they mean by the terms "instinct" 

 and "reason." Exact definitions are at all times 

 valuable ; but in the present instance they are 

 absolutely necessary, to show the points of agreement 

 and of difference subsisting between the parties to the 

 discussion. How far is an "instinctive" act auto- 

 matic, and how far is it the outcome of volition ? I 

 have long held the opinion, that what is termed 

 instinct, is identical in essence with what we call 

 reason ; and that this peculiar "faculty" is possessed, 

 in some degree, by all animal organisms at least. 

 Whether any sections of the vegetable kingdom are 

 similarly endowed, I do not pretend to say ; but 

 certainly, the actions of some of them are remarkable. 

 I shall watch the progress of the discussion with great 

 interest. — F. James George. 



Intelligence in Man and Animals. — There 

 were two or three misprints in my letter of June, 

 which, as they alter the sense, I should be greatly 



obliged if you would grant me a line to correct. They 

 are as follows: For "concise proposition," read 

 " converse proposition." For " law of reason," read 

 " supposed law of reversion." — H. D. Barclay. 



Devotion of a Dog to a Cat. — When staying 

 near Lausanne this spring, I met some Swiss friends 

 of my host's, who told us a remarkable instance of 

 attachment on the part of their Saint Bernard dog to 

 a kitten. Their next door neighbours threw some 

 newly-born kittens over tke garden wall that the dog 

 might make away with them. He caught and bit one 

 kitten as intended, and one was killed by the fall. 

 Bernard now seems to have undergone a re\nlsion 

 of feeling, for the two remaining kittens became the 

 objects of his attention and care. Carrying them off 

 in his mouth to his kennel he tried to revive them by 

 licking and warming them. One soon died, but the 

 other responded to the care bestowed on it by its huge 

 nurse, which was supplemented by the kindness and 

 feeding of Bernard's owners. It throve in its kennel 

 home, where the pair were constantly to be seen to- 

 gether, the soft little black cat lying cuddled in 

 Bernard's protecting arm, whence its bright eyes 

 peeped out at passers-by. Pussy returned the dog's 

 good-nature by the devotions of a daughter, and when 

 in the course of time she became the proud mother of 

 a family, she was impatient to introduce her kittens 

 and adopted father. Mewing and skipping before him 

 she conducted Bernard from his kennel to her cosy 

 nest, rolling over and over with delight on the grass 

 near, while he solemnly inspected his favourite's 

 family ; thus showing the strongest proof possible in 

 an animal of confidence and affection, and one 

 certainly at variance with the instincts usual in cats 

 towards dogs. The regard which existed between the 

 two friends lasted through life ; what is very remark- 

 able is that Monsieur Gaulis says Bernard, ever after 

 his adoption of the kittens, showed the greatest 

 disinclination to hunt any black cat. — D. Hoskyns. 



Shrew Mice [Sortx araneus). — Rambling in June 

 last on the Welsh hills, on and around a block of 

 millstone grit rock, I noticed the remains of a 

 great number of shrew mice. The rock was situated 

 at the top of a mountain, the highest ground in the 

 district. The remains consisted of the heads and 

 hinder quarters of at least thirty animals all in various 

 states of decay. The heads appeared to have been 

 severed from the body very much in the same place ; 

 indeed, so much so that one might almost have 

 imagined the bodies to have been placed in a line and 

 then to have had their heads cut off with a knife. 

 The hind quarters were also severed precisely in the 

 same manner above the hind legs. I also noticed that 

 the livers had also been carefully rejected, and a few, 

 quite fresh, were still sticking to the rock. I con- 

 cluded the shrews must have been brought there by 

 some bird of prey. Taking into consideration the fact 

 of the rock being lofty and more or less isolated, I 

 thought the bird might possibly have been a kestrel 

 (Falco percgriiius). Being unable, however, to find 

 the remains of birds or other animals, I was led to 

 suppose it might be an owl. Can any of your readers 

 inform me if either of these birds or any others are 

 in the habit of choosing one particular spot whereon 

 to eat their food ? And also as to their having eaten 

 it so daintily? — A. A. 



How TO destroy Beetles. — Can any of your 

 readers inform me the best plan to get rid of the 

 Otiorynchus sulcatus (or Picipes), which does great 

 damage to raspberry plants ? — IF. Roberts, 9 Chapel- 

 Street, Penzance. 



