COMPARATIVE PSYCHOLOGY. 653 



the more experience we have, that we are often at fault as to both. 

 And when we are more free from the thralldom of so-called systems 

 and methods in education, we may learn that the activities of the hu- 

 man mind can not be reduced in all persons to precisely the one plan, 

 like so much clock-work. This may mar somewhat the completeness 

 and beauty of our philosophy of education, but it may also in the end 

 conduce to human progress by providing the greater freedom, and end 

 in insuring an individuality of character which seems to be now rap- 

 idly disappearing. Now, if individual men so differ in psychic be- 

 havior, how much more is it likely that still greater differences hold 

 for the lower animals ! An objection may be based, however, on this 

 to the whole study of comparative psychology. The objection holds 

 to some extent even for human psychology ; but, as we infer, similar- 

 ity of behavior in men to denote similarity of inner processes, so are 

 we justified in the same as regards the lower animals, though it must 

 be conceded somewhat less so. We must always be prepared to admit 

 that there may be psychic paths unknown and possibly unknowable to 

 us in the realm of their inner life. But if we regard man as the out- 

 come of development through lower forms, according to variation 

 with natural selection — in a word, if a man is the final link in a long 

 chain binding the whole animal creation together, we have the greater 

 reason for inferring that comparative psychology and human psy- 

 chology have common roots. We must, in fact, believe in a mental 

 or psychic evolution as well as in a physical (morphological) one. 



It is not inconceivable that special faculties which do not exist in 

 the lower animals have been implanted in man ; but the trend of inves- 

 tigation thus far goes to show that at least the germ of every human 

 faculty does exist in some species of animal. Nor does such a view 

 at all derogate from the dignity of superior man, while it links the 

 animal creation together in a way that no other can. It opens up the 

 subject for genuine scientific study ; it tends to beget a respect for 

 the lower creation, which, while it fosters modesty in man, also fur- 

 nishes a foundation for broader sympathy with those lower in the scale. 

 The opposite view may lead to our pitying the brute, but can scarcely 

 yield as good moral fruit. Let but an individual man assume that 

 by virtue of something he possesses he is radically different from his 

 fellows, and what is the result ? Your genuine aristocrat (in feeling) 

 is a sad stranger to humanity in general. 



But where shall we draw the line? Formerly the line was drawn 

 at reason. It was said the brutes can not reason. Only persons who 

 do not themselves reason about the subject with, the facts before them 

 can any longer occupy such a position. The evidence of reasoning 

 power is overwhelming for the upper ranks of animals, and yearly the 

 downward limits are being extended the more the inferior tribes are 

 studied. Perhaps the highest faculty man possesses is that by which 

 he generalizes and forms conceptions of the abstract. That animals 



