HARDWICKK S SCIENCE-GOSSIP. 



93 



Does the intelligence of animals'differ from that of 

 man not only in degree but in kind ? which may be 

 affirmed or negatived whichever school of metaphysics 

 the writer belongs to. — H. Barclay. 



Intelligence in Man and Animals. — With re- 

 spect to this subject, a remarkable instance is mentioned 

 in "Nature," February 20. Some rats gnawed 

 through leaden pipes to obtain water. Dr. Darwin 

 explained by saying that rats heard the water trick- 

 ling, and reasoned about it. They cut through the 

 pipe to obtain it. I think this explanation probable. 

 I agree with your correspondent, Mr. Rogers, who 

 contends that memory is an act of reasoning. Dr. 

 Darwin had a dog which recognised him after several 

 years' absence. This is mentioned in his "Descent 

 of Man," chap, ii., I believe, but I quote from 

 memory. This dog must have exercised some reason- 

 ing power in recognising Dr. Darwin. With respect 

 to reason being developed instinct, as Mr. Keegan 

 says, Huber thinks that in the lower animals there 

 are glimpses of reason, not merely instinct. Darwin 

 says that instinct is variable, and it might vary so 

 far as to produce some reasoning faculty. With 

 respect to man's reason, some Evolutionists argue 

 that it may not have been merely developed, but that 

 some supernatural change may have taken place. 

 Henslow in his " Evolution and Religion," writes to 

 this effect : Certainly the gap between the apes and 

 man, in respect to cranial capacity is very great, and 

 not easily bridged over. Lopinard (L' Anthropologic) 

 gives 1500 cubic centimetres, as cranial capacity of 

 man ; 531 for gorilla. Making allowance for size of 

 body, the ratio of brains of chimpanzee and man is 

 given as 38 to 100. The fact of monkeys chattering, 

 apparently consulting, and then simultaneously acting, 

 is not, I think, explainable merely by instinct. The 

 reasoning might not be very acute, but that would 

 not be necessary. Of course much depends on the 

 way the facts are looked at. Those favouring the 

 view of animal reasoning, would naturally find argu- 

 ments where their opponents would question the 

 reasoning power. Our natural habit of regarding 

 ourselves as the most perfect beings, also militates 

 against the view of animals having reason, as we are 

 naturally loth to allow that they are of similar nature 

 to ourselves. But on the whole, I think that animals 

 have a somewhat higher faculty than mere instinct, 

 and therefore some reasoning power. — A. Wheatley. 



Intelligence in Man and Animals. — As a 

 small contribution to the consideration of the above- 

 named subject, permit me to refer to a fact which I 

 recorded in a paper that appeared in Science-Gossip 

 for November 1, 1876, entitled "Spiders and their 

 Webs." The particular spider there mentioned, after 

 being bitten by a smaller spider of another species, 

 plucked the poisoned limb out of the socket, and 

 cast it from it, evidently, to save its life. Now, was 

 this conduct prompted by what we call reason, or by 

 what we call instinct? Further, what is reason and 

 what is instinct, more than names under which we 

 cloak mysteries, that we are all very far from com- 

 prehending? The voluntary act of this spider in 

 amputating its own poisoned limb, could scarcely be 

 attributed to "memory," or "experience," and it 

 suggests some deep reflections. Was it conscious, 

 for instance, that death would ensue, unless the 

 poisoned limb were immediately plucked out and cast 

 away? and, if so, does this show a knowledge of 

 physical right and wrong ? Again, was this small 

 creature acquainted with Harvey's great discovery, 

 "the circulation of the blood," and did it know that 

 an injected poison could be absorbed into the circula- 



tion to the destruction of life ? Further, did it know 

 that in its case, Nature (or, for anything we know, 

 itself) could reproduce the amputated limb ? And, 

 lastly, who had been sent to its peculiar mental 

 world, to preach the Divine precept, " If thy right 

 hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee?" 

 Man is too apt to arrogate to himself a peculiar or 

 special niche in the great temple of nature, and to 

 rely, too confidently, upon his own very finite powers 

 of observation. Before the telescope was invented, 

 the infinitude of the stellar system was, "the sun and 

 moon and eleven stars ;" before the microscope was 

 invented, a drop of water was a drop of water, and 

 nothing more ; and should it ever be practicable to make 

 telescopes or microscopes that could increase our mental 

 vision as greatly as these instruments have increased our 

 physical vision, then we might be in a better position 

 to pierce the depth of the mystery that attaches to 

 the reasoning powers of the lower animals. It is 

 generally asserted that, so far, "man is the greatest 

 outcome of creative power ;" but as we have only 

 man's word for this, there may be more self-conceit 

 than infinite truth in the assertion. The larvae of the 

 blow-fly, when it is devouring the flesh of a living 

 animal, may conclude that they are the greatest out- 

 come of creative power, because they are unable to 

 comprehend any higher outcome of this power ; but 

 we know this would be a mistaken conclusion on 

 their part ; and for anything we know, the earth, 

 planets, sun and stars, may all be living, and intel- 

 ligent, outcomes of creative power, as much superior 

 to man, as man is to the blow-fly. And as regards 

 reason, why may it not be the universal concomitant 

 of all created being ? Scientifically as well as poeti- 

 cally, we may conclude, that the Creator will be 

 reflected in all His works ; and if so, His attributes 

 may be expected to be reflected by all His creatures 

 to the finite extent of the reflecting capacity which 

 has severally been bestowed upon them. Man, con- 

 sequently, may be in error, when he assumes that he, 

 alone, is the possessor of reasoning powers. — C. L. W. 



Intelligence in Man and Animals. — I have 

 read with pleasure the notes of your correspondents 

 on this interesting subject, and, although it has been 

 ably dealt with by Messrs. Keegan and Barclay, I 

 hope still to see a little more light thrown on the 

 matter, and a more intelligible distinction shown 

 between instinct and reason. Mr - . Rogers, in your 

 February number, says: " A little personal observa- 

 tion and reflection, would, I should have thought, 

 suggest to your correspondent, &c, that what is 

 called instinct in animals often passes under the name 

 of reason in man." Now "personal observation and 

 reflection " has convinced me, whether I am right or 

 wrong, that anything done by instinct is done with- 

 out reason, although the instinct which prompted the 

 action might have been, as Pope says, an "unerring 

 guide." The words instinct and reason to me convey 

 a very wide and different meaning. Animals, I 

 believe, act by instinct, and man has had the higher 

 power of reason given him upon which to act, and 

 the only quality in man which I can compare to 

 instinct is impulse. That acting by instinct and 

 acting by reason are from two different causes, I think 

 there is ample evidence, although the action may be 

 the same. 



Pope says : 



" Reason raise o'er instinct as you can 

 In this 'tis God directs, in that 'tis man " 



Mrs. Hale says : 



"The meaner creatures never feel control, 

 By glowing instinct guided to the goal."^ 



