2 NOTES AND COMMENTS [suLY 
psychology. He has himself published observations of interest and 
value—modestly asserting that he “has recorded more experiments 
(not to mention scores which he has not described) than all other 
investigators together, if we except those working on insects.” But 
in analysis and interpretation he has not shown himself strong. It 
is questionable whether his discussion of imitation and memory, for 
example, have any real bearing upon Prof. Thorndike’s contentions. 
Indeed, at one point he seems to dimly realise this, for he says: “To 
be sure, there is a sort of deliberate, studied, high-class imitation 
possible to man, but beyond the reach of animals.” But he does not 
appear to grasp the fact that it is just the occurrence in animals (save, 
perhaps, the Primates) of such imitation which Prof. Thorndike ques- 
tions. Speaking of “free floating ideas,’ Prof. Mills says: “The 
believer in evolution will demand that, in this and other cases, in 
which qualities man possesses are denied to animals, there be the 
clearest proofs given. The burden of proof lies with those who deny 
them.” With this assertion many psychologists entirely disagree ; and 
Prof. Wesley Mills’ zpse dixit, without adequate discussion, will not 
lead them, we imagine, to alter their opinion. It is strange that Prof. 
Lloyd Morgan’s name should be mentioned as that of one who holds 
the view “that we must always adopt the simplest explanations of an 
animal’s action,” seeing that in his “Introduction to Comparative 
Psychology” (p. 54), he urges that the simplest explanation is not that 
which we should necessarily accept. 
Prof. Thorndike’s article deals with young chicks. His observa- 
tions tend, on the whole, to confirm those of previous investigators, but 
add some interesting facts. The newly-hatched birds were found to 
peck at small (2 mm.) squares of coloured paper on backgrounds of 
white and black. The observations are not sufficient in number to 
justify conclusions as to colour preference; but they suffice to estab- 
lish the fact that the patches, either from their colour or their light 
intensity, afford the requisite stimulus to the pecking response. Mr, 
Thorndike found that chicks from ten to twenty days old ate bees 
greedily, “ first mashing them down on the ground violently in a rather 
dextrous manner.” It is probable, however, that they would not have 
touched them had they been stung then or at an earlier stage in their 
experience. He makes a point here against Prof. Lloyd Morgan, who 
states that a young bird dropped a bee, shook his head, and wiped his 
bill on the ground, “ probably because he had tasted the poison.” This 
statement, indeed, hardly seems to accord with Lloyd Morgan’s own 
later observations of the eating of wasps and bees by young birds of 
several kinds. Other noteworthy facts which Prof. Thorndike records, 
are that young chicks placed in water will swim, and that, prior to 
experience, they will not leap down from a height of 39 inches, though 
they will do so at once from a height of 10 inches or less, and after 
some hesitation from heights of 16, 22,and 27 inches. In general 

