1898.] on Instinct and Intelligence in Animals. 573 



behaviour — nest building, incubation, song, dance, display, and strange 

 aerial evolutions — which are presumably, in large degree, instinctive, 

 though of this we need more definite evidence ; for it is difficult to esti- 

 mate, with any approach to accuracy, the influence of imitation. There 

 seems to be no reason for doubting that, when an animal grows up in 

 the society of its kind, it is affected by what we may term the tra- 

 ditions of its species, and falls into the ways of its fellows, its imitative 

 tendency being subtly influenced by their daily doings. The social 

 animal bears the impress of the conditions of its peculiar nurture. 

 Its behaviour is in some degree plastic, and imitation helps it to 

 conform to the social mould. 



The exact range and nature of the instinctive outline, indepen- 

 dently of those modifications of plan which are due to the inherent 

 plasticity of the organism, are therefore hard to determine. And if, 

 as we have good grounds for believing, the growth of intelligent plas- 

 ticity, in any given race, is associated with a disintegration of the 

 instinctive plan, congenital adaptation being superseded by an accom- 

 modation of a more individualistic type, to meet the needs of a more 

 varied and complex environment, the problems with which we have to 

 deal assume an intricacy which at present defies our most subtle analysis. 



We must now turn to the consideration of the manner in which 

 individual accommodation, through the exercise of intelligence under 

 the teachings of exj^erience, is brought about ; and it will be well 

 to pave the way by adducing certain facts of observation. 



Although the pecking of a young chick, under the joint influence 

 of hunger and the sight of a small near object, would seem to belong 

 to the instinctive type, the selection of appropriate food, apart from 

 the natural guidance of the hen, seems to be mainly determined by 

 individual experience. There is no evidence that the little bird 

 comes into the world with anything like hereditary knowledge of good 

 and evil in things eatable. Distasteful objects are seized with not 

 less readiness than natural food, such as grain, seeds and grubs. The 

 conspicuous colours of certain nasty caterpillars do not appeal to any 

 inherited power of immediate discrimination, so as to save the bird 

 from bitter experience. They seem rather to serve the purpose of 

 rendering future avoidance, in the light of this bitter experience, more 

 ready, rapid and certain. Bees and wasps are seized with neither 

 more nor less signs of fear than large flies or palatable insects. Nor 

 does there seem to be any evidence of the hereditary recognition of 

 natural enemies as objects of dread. Pheasants and partridges showed 

 no sign of alarm when my dog quietly entered the room in which they 

 were kept. When allowed to come to closer quarters, they impudently 

 pecked at his claws. A two-days chick tried to nestle down under 

 him. Other chicks took no notice of a cat, exhibiting a complete in- 

 difference which was not reciprocated. A moorhen, several weeks old, 

 would not suffer my fox-terrier to come near his own breakfast of 

 Bopped biscuit, but drove him away with angry pecks until the higher 

 powers supervened. 



