16 HAROLD C. BINGHAM 



would be valid for similar experiments conducted in natural and 

 uncontrolled light. With the discrimination of stimuli con- 

 tinued under a varied visibility of surroundings the perception 

 could not have been of patterns. 



In a brief review, Washburn (32) dissents from my interpre- 

 tation of form perception, declaring that she would conclude 

 that the chick is not possessed of an abstract idea of 

 triangularity. She says: 



A triangle with apex up is a different form from a triangle with apex down: 

 the two have in common only the abstract quaHty of three-sideness. The per- 

 ception of form, as distinct from an abstract idea of form, is based precisely on 

 the unequal stimulation of different parts of the retina. 



A portion of my later paper involves this lack of agreement 

 in defining form (3). In that paper it is maintained that my 



Fig. 2 

 Reprinted from Journal Animal Behavior, vol. 4, p. 137. 



conception of form is in keeping with the ordinary usage of the 

 term, and that we should not depart from the usual meaning 

 in an effort to have it included in an animal's stock of percep- 

 tual experiences. If we find that our animals have a power of 

 discrimination which approaches form perception, but which 

 Is not form perception in the strict sense of the term, we 

 should adopt a terminology to fit the special case; we should 

 not attempt to enlarge the scope of the old term to cover the 

 special case. 



Perhaps a more or less crude pattern vision is the nearest 

 approach to form perception that animals possess. At any 

 rate, Hunter has done well in calling attention to the distinction 

 between patterns and forms. But our definition should not 

 stop here. Two forms may be identical, but even in the ab- 



