146 HARVEY CARR 



Watson's argument, to my mind, contains two fallacies : 1. A 

 causal factor can mediate an invariable result (without any 

 exceptions) only under the ideal condition that it is the only 

 causal agency involved. Needless to say such a condition does 

 not obtain in any science, to say nothing of animal behavior. 

 The ideal effect of any hypothetical cause is always somewhat 

 altered, distorted, or even obscured by the influence of other 

 factors which can not be controlled. Hence general tendencies 

 and results must be utilized as diagnostic symptoms in the 

 search for causal conditions. Viewed in this light, Hubbert's 

 results support rather than disprove the efficacy of the alleged 

 principle of selection, for the general trend of the order of elim- 

 ination is that of the spatial contiguity of the alleys to the food 

 box. According to my computations, 80% of her rats eliminated 

 the 6th error before the 5th, 50% the 5th before the 4th, 47% 

 the 4th before the 3rd, 73% the 3rd before the 2nd, and 70% the 

 2nd before the 1st. Determining the average number of trials 

 necessary to eliminate each cul de sac, the order of elimination 

 for the entire group was 6-5-3-4-2-1, where the successive errors 

 are numbered in order from the entrance. This order gives by 

 the rank method a positive correlation of .943 between quickness 

 of elimination and propinquity to the food box. The average 

 number of trials necessary to eliminate the last three errors 

 was less than that for the first three for 90% of the rats. Surely 

 there is a very pronounced tendency for the errors to be mastered 

 in proportion to their nearness to the food box, and the devia- 

 tions from an exact correlation for each rat may well be due to 

 the operation of other causal agencies. The existence of other 

 efficacious agencies, viz., recency and frequency, is admitted by 

 Watson. 2. Granted that food satisfaction is the only effective 

 agency involved, yet a perfect correlation between speed of 

 elimination and nearness to the food box, as demanded by 

 Watson, would not obtain. According to the hypothesis the 

 order of elimination will be determined, not by the spatial 

 arrangement of the cul de sacs in relation to the food box, but 

 by the temporal relation of the errors to the food experience. 

 The temporal order in which the cul de sacs are entered is not 

 the same as their spatial order in the maze. Not all cul de sacs 

 are entered on each run. An animal may enter alleys 1, 3, 



