382 NATURAL SCIENCE. December. 



largely from Leroy, and appears to consider his explanation of the 

 above case quite satisfactory. We are, of course, unaware of how 

 much odour an iron trap may afford to a fox, but we are also unaware, 

 I think, that the animal is terrified by the odour, or that the terror 

 should subside, or be suddenly overcome when the fox sees that the 

 trap has caught an animal of some sort. A Lanarkshire gamekeeper, 

 whom I have accompanied while trapping foxes, related the following 

 case, which shows the superior cunning of old, as against young, foxes, 

 and further does not involve the need to imagine that the trap has a 

 terrifying odour. He set his traps at an earth with four entrances, a 

 trap at each, being aware that the earth was inhabited by a vixen and 

 her cubs. He succeeded in catching the cubs without difficulty, but 

 the old fox seemed, by the appearance of tracks near the mouths of 

 the earth, to be passing in and out unhurt, in spite of the traps. Day 

 after day he found his traps empty. As the tracks became more 

 numerous, however, he became convinced, by daily examination, that 

 the vixen was simply jumping over the danger each night, returning 

 to the earth by the same method. That she should have returned, 

 with knowledge of an existing danger and after her cubs had been 

 killed, does not argue for much terror on the part of the fox. The 

 keeper caught her, however, by the expedient of setting his traps 

 further away from each entrance, so that instead of jumping over she 

 jumped on to one. 



I do not, however, desire to belittle the importance of fear or 

 terror in controlling the actions of animals. At the same time, it is 

 not possible, in a short paper, to go into the results of fear, or even to 

 discuss the "shamming dead" phenomenon, although it is often 

 closely connected with cunning. 



With reference, however, to that form of fear-instinct which is 

 described as suspicion or wariness — an ever-present condition in the 

 wild animal — I desire to quote from Romanes' an instance given by 

 Leroy. With reference to the stag, he says, " Often (when not being 

 hunted at all), instead of returning home in confidence and straightway 

 lying down to rest, he will wander round the spot ; he enters the 

 wood, leaves it, goes and returns on his steps many times. Without 

 having any immediate cause for his uneasiness, he employs the same 

 artifices which he would have employed to throw out the dogs, if he 

 were pursued by them." Romanes then says, " It is remarkable 

 enough that an animal should seek to confuse its trail by such devices, 

 even when it knows that the hounds are actually in pursuit ; but it is 

 still more so when the devices are resorted to in order to confuse 

 imaginary hounds which mSiy possibly be on the scent." From this he 

 argues that there is a logic of recepts in animals, and probably also a 

 logic of preconcepts. If we accept Leroy's account, it seems to me 

 unnecessary to conclude, as Romanes evidently does, that the artifices 

 of the stag are directed against the pursuit of hounds alone. To 



1" Mental Evolution in Man," p. 54. 



