FUNDAMENTAL RELATIONS OF ANIMALS 75 



principle exists unquestionably, and whether it be called soul, reason, 

 or instinct, it presents in the whole range of organized beings a series 

 of phenomena closely linked together; and upon it are based not 

 only the higher manifestations of the mind, but the very perma- 

 nence of the specific differences which characterize every organism. 

 Most of the arguments of philosophy in favor of the immortality 

 of man apply equally to the permanency of this principle in other 

 living beings. May I not add that a future life, in which man should 



larity or difference alone that the relations between man and animals have to be 

 considered. The psychological history of animals shows that as man is related to 

 animals by the plan of his structure, so are these related to him by the character of 

 those very faculties which are so transcendent in man as to point at first to the 

 necessity of disclaiming for him completely any relationship with the animal king- 

 dom. Yet the natural history of animals is by no means completed after the somatic 

 side of their nature has been thoroughly investigated; they, too, have a psychological 

 individuality, which, though less fully studied, is nevertheless the connecting link be- 

 tween them and man. I cannot therefore agree with those authors who would dis- 

 connect mankind from the animal kingdom and establish a distinct kingdom for man 

 alone, as Ehrenberg {Das Naturreich des Menschen, 1835) and lately Isidore Geoff roy 

 St. Hilaire, (Histoire naturelle generate des regnes organiques, 3 vols., Paris, 1854- 

 1862, I, pt. 2, 167) have done. Compare, also, Chap. II, where it is shown for every 

 kind of group of the animal kingdom that the amount of their difference one from the 

 other never affords a sufficient ground for removing any of them into another category. 

 A close study of the dog might satisfy every one of the similarity of his impulses with 

 those of man, and those impulses are regulated in a manner which discloses psychical 

 faculties in every respect of the same kind as those of man; moreover, he expresses by 

 his voice his emotions and his feelings, with a precision which may be as intelligible 

 to man as the articulated speech of his fellow men. His memory is so retentive that 

 it frequently bafHes that of man. And though all these faculties do not make a philoso- 

 pher of him, they certainly place him in that respect upon a level with a considerable 

 proportion of poor humanity. The intelligibility of the voice of animals to one an- 

 other and all their actions connected with such calls are also a strong argument of 

 their perceptive power and of their ability to act spontaneously and with logical se- 

 quence in accordance with these perceptions. There is a vast field open for investiga- 

 tion in the relations between the voice and the actions of animals, and a still more 

 interesting subject of inquiry in the relationship between the cycle of intonations 

 which different species of animals of the same family are capable of uttering, which, 

 as far as I have as yet been able to trace them, stand to one another in the same 

 relations as the different so-called families of languages in the human family. All the 

 Canina bark; the howling of the wolves, the barking of the dogs and foxes, are only 

 different modes of barking, comparable to one another in the same relation as the 

 monosyllabic, the agglutinating, and the inflecting languages. The Felidce mew: the 

 roaring of the lion is only another form of the mewing of our cats and the other species 

 of the family. The Equina neigh or bray: the horse, the donkey, the zebra, the dauw, do 

 not differ much in the scale of their sounds. Our cattle and the different kinds of wild 

 bulls have a similar affinity in their intonations; their lowing differs not in kind, but 

 only in the mode of utterance. Among birds this is perhaps still more striking. Who 

 does not distinguish the note of any and every thrush, or of the warblers, the ducks, 

 the fowls, etc., however numerous their species may be, and who can fail to perceive 

 the affinity of their voices? And does this not indicate a similarity also in their mental 

 faculties? 



