HARDWICKE'S SCIENCE-GOSSIP. 



237 



spider weaves its net by instinct. But what if we 

 tear a spider's web, and see the spider examining the 

 mischief that is done, and either giving up its work 

 in despair, or endeavouring to mend it as well as 

 may be ? Surely, here we have the instinct of weaving 

 controlled by observation, by comparison, by reflec- 

 tion, judgment.'' In short, by reason. Now Mr. 

 Hooper here supposes that the web is spun by in- 

 stinct, but that, when broken, a different set of faculties 

 comes into play. Surely, the primal impulse that 

 causes the spider to spin its web can also repair it. 

 Or, if reason is called into play for the repair of the 

 web, why not for spinning it in the first instance ? If 

 so, why talk of instinct ? Thus there is always a 

 danger, as I pointed out in my letter of January, of 

 man attributing to animals his own modes and laws 

 of thought. Mr. Samuel Butler, whose works Mr. 

 Hooper quotes, has been recently giving the world 

 a new revelation in the "Examiner," which proves 

 to be a species of polytheism. He thinks that all 

 living beings form part of one great animal, which he 

 calls God, and that the inorganic world was created 

 by another God, and reasoning, by analogy, he thinks 

 that the planets are, to use his own expression, simi- 

 larly begodded. His argument, he adds, is a corollary 

 of his previous writings. It should be remarked that 

 the truth of his revelation (other considerations apart), 

 depends entirely on the acceptance of the theory of 

 evolution. Such is the result of the wild speculations 

 of this very able writer. I quite agree with " Idea" 

 that a reminder of what some intellectual minds (even 

 if not scientific) have thought on the subject is of the 

 greatest interest. No one disputes the facts la- 

 boriously collected by our great naturalists, but the 

 inferences they draw from the facts are open to dis- 

 pute, and can be discussed by those who are obliged 

 for lack of opportunity to obtain their information 

 from books rather than from direct observation. — 

 // D. Barclay. 



Intelligence in Animals. — It appears to me 

 that, in the interesting discussion which has been 

 going on for several months in Science-Gossip, 

 sufficient prominence has not been given to habit in 

 animals. We all agree in the fact of instinct ; but 

 as to the power or faculty which seems to go beyond 

 instinct, and override it — in olden times it was called 

 sagacity, by way of distinction — there is a consider- 

 able diversity of opinion. Doubtless there is in 

 animals something akin to reason, using the term in 

 a vague and general sense, something that looks very 

 much like a process of reasoning, in the facts observed 

 and recorded of them ; but after all, is there really 

 anything more than can be fairly explained by the 

 principle of association, by observation, and especially 

 by habit ? Does not what may be called the routine 

 of habit, sufficiently account for many of these facts ? 

 and do not the mistakes of habit continually occurring 

 lead to the suspicion at least, that there is no act of 

 reasoning properly so called ? My dog looks for a 

 run about the time I take the letters to our village post 

 office, and waits quietly outside the door of my dress- 

 ing room, where I generally am before going ; but he 

 does this whether I go to the post or not, it is a habit 

 of his ; but he often blunders about the time, and the 

 road I take, when it sometimes varies from the usual 

 one. The baker's horse knows from habit at what 

 houses to stop ; but he would, if left to himself, stop 

 at the same houses on going the same road on a day 

 when not carrying bread. We know that horses 

 wish to turn at a given road leading to their home, 

 though their driver wishes to go straight on. It 

 seems to me that these and many similar mistakes of 

 habit, go far to disprove careful thought and processes 



of strict, intellectual reasoning in the brute creation. 

 Without entering into nice points of intellectuality or 

 metaphysical operation, 1 am convinced that the 

 apparently-reasoning actions of animals may easily be 

 accounted for as before stated. Association of ideas 

 from association with man ; daily habits, and impulse 

 often arising from these, are surely sufficient to account 

 for the remarkable facts of which we read, and which 

 we personally witness in relation to animals, without 

 seeking to ally them with the intellectual and spiritual 

 parts of man's wonderfully composite nature. In 

 reading the remarks on this subject in Science- 

 Gossip, I have been reminded of the words of the 

 wise man (Eccles. iii. 21) " Who knoweth the spirit 

 of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast 

 that goeth downward to the earth?" — J. S. B., 

 Pentney, Norfolk. 



Intelligence in Man and Animals. — From the 

 many instances recorded in yourjournal and elsewhere, 

 and the numerous others which must occur to the mind 

 of every observer of the habits of animals, I cannot 

 imagine how it is possible to deny to other animals 

 than ourselves the power which we call reason. 

 Define the word as we will, let the cloud of words be 

 ever so delightfully obscure, I do not think the im- 

 pression which presents itself to one's mind when the 

 word reason is used, will be at all the clearer. I will 

 therefore leave the attempt to those who have more 

 leisure than myself. I wish to give you an instance 

 of what I cannot but regard as reason in an animal. 

 Some two or three years ago I had a very powerful 

 tom-cat called "Muff," a great favourite with every- 

 body, which favour he returned with evident signs 

 of affection. But, alas ! Muff was agreat poacher, and 

 has more than once come home in a sad plight. On 

 one occasion I was called by my little girl to come 

 and look at Muff, who was lying on the hearth-rug 

 in the breakfast-room evidently suffering intensely. 

 On passing my hand over his side, I found a bunch of 

 wire just level with his fur, and of course saw at once 

 that he was snared ; he had bitten the twisted strands 

 of copper wire through close to his body, and thus 

 made his escape, but the snare was still round his 

 loins so tightly drawn as to be deeply imbedded in 

 his flesh, and only to be got at where the wire had 

 passed over his backbone. At this point a pair of 

 cutting-pliars soon relieved him from the painful 

 ligature. Now although I touched the cat as tenderly 

 as possible, the examination must have been extremely 

 painful, but in spite of language which was dreadful to 

 hear, not the slightest attempt to retaliate was made 

 by puss, but rather, by the way in which he resigned 

 himself to my hands, and by the disposal of his limbs, 

 he seemed to, and I have no doubt did, render me 

 every assistance in his power. Let the reader call to 

 mind what occurred the last time he had a tooth 

 extracted, how he screwed up his (what he called) 

 moral courage, and went through the operation. Can 

 I doubt that Muff showed moral courage, and that he 

 reasoned thus ? "I am in great pain, my master has 

 never showed me anything but kindness, he can 

 relieve me, and I am sure he will do so. I will there- 

 fore submit myself to his hands." If ever cat looked 

 grateful, the expression on poor Muffs intelligent 

 features was that of intense gratitude for the reward 

 of his faith. — T. Southwell, Norwich. 



Intelligence in Animals. — In answer to Mr. 

 Barclay, I briefly state my opinion on this point. If 

 we meet a friend, something enables us to recognise 

 him, some power of distinction (i.e. reasoning in 

 some form, though very simple, perhaps) is called 

 into play. It may not take the form of a distinct 



