MISCELLANEOUS NOTES. 531 



^o. XVII.— THE INJUllY-FEIGNING HABIT OF PARENT BIRDS. 



As I said in my original letter (Vol. XVIII, p. 680), I knew I was treading 

 on delicate ground when I suggested reason rather than instinct to be the 

 explanation of the strange behaviour of a bulbul {Otocompsa emeria), when it 

 thought its nestlings in peiil. I cannot regret having done so now that my 

 surmise has provoked Mr. Dewar to write on the subject. He is always worth 

 listening to. and his letter on this subject is particularly interesting. He will 

 doubtless forgive my endeavouring to support my contention in this case. 



Of course, the whole question is one of terms. What is instinct '? What is 

 reason ? An " instinctive action " I take to be the impulse arising from the ex- 

 periences of the moment, «.e., before one's brain has time to reason consciously, 

 what in fact is termed '' reflex action " in certain cases. Unwittingly I put my 

 hand on a hot iron, instinctively I withdraw it. No effort of reason is required. 

 When I find that the pain of the burn remains I apply remedies. This subse- 

 quent action being the result of reason. 



In Mr. Dewar's letter (Vol. XVIII, p. 918), he impugns the logic of both my 

 Bulbul and his Babbler, but that to my mind does not disprove the attempt to 

 reason. Darwin in his " Descent of Man " instances the case of the retriever 

 and the wounded duck as a distinct attempt to reason, although, as he says, the 

 animal's logic was hopelessly wrong, in fact quite as much so as my Bulbul's. 



The way I regard the matter is this. The birds were accustomed to see me 

 looking fraquently at their nest, and had realised that there was no reason to 

 fear me. When, however, a stranger came on the scene— a new experience — 

 they started scolding or threatening us. This failed to have the desired effect, 

 and here, it seems to me, the bird, by changing the tactics prompted by the 

 impulse of ths moment, shows that it must have reasoned something like 

 this: — "My scolding has not succeeded in driving these marauders from my 

 nest, I must try some other course. If they are after birds I will lure them 

 from my young, by making them think they can easily secure me." From 

 this resolve came the wonderful mimicry of a badly maimed bird. 



It has always seemed to me to be a bit of human arrogance to claim reason 

 and a future existence for mankind, and to deny them to the brute creation. 

 No doubt the evolution of reasoning powers in man has been more rapid than it 

 has been lower down the scale, and there are obvious gradations in the human 

 abiUty to reason, but there are on record instances of reason in animals and 

 birds which cannot be assigned to instinct. Take the very elementary case of 

 the puppy. He wishes to relieve his full bowel ; instinct teaches him to do so 

 forthwith. If he is in the garden at the time nothing happens to him for 

 obeying this impulse of nature, but, if he is in the house, his owner at once 

 proceeds to show him that his action is not appreciated. This happens two or 

 three times, and then the puppy has learnt a lesson he remembers all his life. 

 Either his master's castigation has got the better of the animal instinct, or the 

 dog has reasoned that as he always gets punished when he relieves nature in. 

 doors, and never when he does so out of doors, he had better avoid doing the 



