[mills] comparative PHYSIOLOGY AND PSYCHOLOGY 295 



On the following • day no change of a physiological character was 

 manifest, but both the laboratory attendant and myself were of opinion 

 that the bird seemed wilder and snatched with greater eagerness at 

 any food presented to him. 



Attempts to determine his visual condition were not successful as 

 the bird was not sufficiently quiet to permit of accurate tests being 

 made, but, so far as could be observed, his vision was unaltered. How- 

 ever, it would be safer to draw no conclusion in this instance. The 

 bird fed from the first as usual and continued well. 



On March 21st a second operation was performed. This was 

 substantially the same as the other and with similar negative results 

 as to stimulation. The region exposed, over an area as large as in 

 the other case, was removed, when stimulation of the underlying parts 

 gave the same results as in the first experiment, viz. : movements of 

 the toes and head. The portion cut away weighed seven grains. Tn 

 this instance also there was very speedy recovery from the ether. The 

 bird at once jumped upon his perch, and as he behaved as usual when 

 1 moved my hand towards him, there seemed no reason to believe that 

 there was any serious change in his visual powers. Up to March 34th 

 he seemed more excitable, but in a few days again became natural in 

 this respect. The only marked changes of any kind in the bird from 

 the time of operation to the date of writing. May 18th, may be thus 

 liricfly stated: — 



1. Periods of greater excitement following each operation. 



2. Decrease in weight; the bird weighed 335 grammes at oper- 

 ation, and on May 16th, only 254 grammes. 



3. Decrease in strength. This last was evident this morning 

 (May 18th), when an opportunity presented itself to judge of his 

 behaviour on a live mouse being presented to him. The mouse, when 

 dangled over the cage, at once attracted his attention and an immediate 

 attempt was made to seize it. AVhen the creature was put before him 

 it was at once seized and shaken, as a terrier might a rat. The bird 

 evidently appreciated the fact that the creature was alive, for at no 

 time did he allow it to escape from him. He soon proceeded to attempt 

 to tear it to pieces, holding it between the feet on the perch — but 

 throughout his loss of strength was evident. The loss of weight and 

 vigour was not due to lack of food, for he has always fed abundantly, 

 but it is in harmony with a large experience of mine in keeping pigeons 

 after removal of portions of the cerebiiim. There was at no time 

 any clear evidence that this crow was, except in these particulars, 

 physiologically in any way disturbed, while he was psychically the same 

 bird as far as my observations carried me, and as the experiments 



