[mills] development OF COMPARATIVE PSYCHOLOGY 191 



into him all that characterized the creature of the liighest intelligence. 

 lloAvever, this is, on the whole, scarcely to be regretted, for interest 

 was through this sympathetic bond awakened and prepared the way for 

 that critical investigation of animal psycholog}', which at an earlier 

 period would have been premature. 



JSTaturalists at a time prior to what may be termed the laboratory 

 period, had noted the habits of animals with loving interest, but had 

 not subjected them to a very critical analysis, and certainly had scarcely 

 dreamt of correlating the mental life of even the highest groups of 

 animals with that of man. Darwin had set the example of investigat- 

 ing the mental life of animals and of man by the same method of close 

 observation. A study of his dog and his child were to him of equal 

 interest scientifically, and his records remain among the most valuable 

 of their kind to this day. 



Sir John Lubbock soon followed after with admirable studies of 

 insects. Huxley remained the critic, and his attitude in regard to 

 animal intelligence, is one of the features of that great man's mental 

 character not readily understood. To think that so pronounced an 

 evolutionist should have held views not greatly different from those 

 of Descartes, is truly surprising. Lubbock had worthy fellow-workers 

 in McCook, Forel, the Peckhams and others. Probably no man did 

 more, in Great Britain at all events, to stimulate the interest not only 

 of scientists, but that large body of people who read to a greater or 

 less extent the more popular of the scientific journals, than Eomanes. 

 He wias in a position to devote much time to the subject, and hi=? 

 numerous letters and the replies they called forth in " Nature,'' have 

 been among the most telling influences of our own time in advancing 

 this subject. He has embodied his views in works, that in spite of all 

 the destructive criticism o.f the last half dozen years, remain valuable 

 both as storehouses of fact and examples of helpful critical analysis. 



Within at the most ten years another great change has taken place. 

 The biologists began to be more accurate, systematic and comparative 

 in their observations, and most important of all, a different class of 

 thinkers entered the field. If the biologists can be compared to the 

 spearmen or the axemen of the army, the psychologists are the bowmen. 

 They brought to the task, at all events, more skill in mental analysis 

 and perhaps a clearer comprehension of the problems to be solved. 

 They were, moTeover, better prepared to correlate the data of animal 

 and human psychology and find what was common to both, as well as 

 draw sharp lines of distinction, if indeed, such lines can be drawn. If, 

 on the one hand, the naturalists had been spasmodic, unsystematic and 

 rather loose in their contributions and superficial in their analyses, the 

 psychologists showed a tendencv to substitute words and definitions for 



