DELAYED REACTION 51 



"orientation" column. The first reaction, e.g., is to be read 

 as follows : The light was turned on in b, the middle box. Bob 

 was held for 8 sees, during which time he pivoted on his hind 

 feet, swinging his body along in front of b. At the moment 

 of release he was still in front of this box, but was oriented with 

 his nose in the comer halfway to a, the box on the right. Dur- 

 ing the delay at the fourth reaction, no part of the raccoon's 

 body was constant. He walked over in front of a and when 

 released was in front of b, but his body was pointed to the corner 

 half way to c at the moment of release. At the instant of re- 

 lease for the eighth reaction, Bob's body was pointed three- 

 fourths of the way toward c. This brought his nose within a 

 few inches of the entrance to that box, yet the reaction succeeded. 

 In the tenth trial, as in the second, position and orientation both 

 favored the same wrong box. In each case the reaction was 

 correct. 



The net result of the data presented here for Bob is an almost 

 entirely conclusive proof of the statement that he does not 

 wholly depend either upon bodily orientation or upon position 

 in the box for the cues determinant of the subsequent reaction. 

 The 37% made with the reactions of class i is very significant 

 when one does not lose sight of the fact that both orientation 

 and position were here combined against any other factor lead- 

 ing to a correct response. In class 2 where such a combination 

 was not present, the percentage is conclusive as to the presence 

 of some non-observable cue. This is but further data confirma- 

 tive of that already presented above for Jack with the small 

 and large release. 



In view of the generally negative results obtained with the 

 large release, as far as developing new and higher types of be- 

 havior is concerned, some one may say; (i) That if all of the 

 animals had been started with the large release instead of with 

 the small one, they would not have been so likely to develop 

 gross motor cues to guide their reactions, and (2) that it is not 

 surprising that no new type of behavior appeared after the 

 animals were firmly in the grip of habits developed in the small 

 release. To these criticisms I can only reply that any experi- 

 ment must exhaust first one method and then another. Time 

 did not permit the use of both methods here. 



