184 DE. T. WESLEY MILLS ON 



animal iu the presence of such circumstances as lead to its so-called feigning, I have been 

 led to conclude that it is really largely, if not wholly, a condition allied to, if not identical 

 with, Preyer's cataplexy ; but no one seems to have given the subject that accurate exam- 

 ination necessary for a solution, in this, perhaps, the very best animal in which to test it. 

 The creature is abundant and could be captured at any age and degree of development. 

 In this case, as the animal is poor iu resources of escape by flight, etc., the instinct may 

 be valuable to it, but, from the above account, evidently not always. 



The general intelligence of the animal is low, for it will readily enter traps laid for it. 

 I am the more confirmed in the above-stated view of the case,' and indeed of the extensive 

 prevalence of such nervous phenomena, from an examination of an account of the 

 behaviour of a Turkey Buzzard, given by Dr. Prentiss in the paper to which reference has 

 already been made. This writer states that, having winged a buzzard, on coming up with 

 it, the creature lay on its side as if dead. Believing it really was dead, he thrust it into 

 his game-bag, brought it home and threw it down in his yard, limp and apparently lifeless. 

 A little later it was found running around, but, on being approached, it acted as before, 

 and with each shamming it " disgorged," to use the writer's expression. He further states 

 that after a while it would only disgorge and hiss. Now, on comparing this " disgorging" 

 with the phenomena described by Preyer as witnessed in his animals that were truly 

 hypnotic, I feel quite persuaded that this case of the buzzard is explicable by the facts of 

 hypnotism, especially as the symptoms disappeared largely on familiarity with the sur- 

 roundings : it was not a genuine case of feigning. The author of the account does not 

 himself clearly indicate his view of the case. 



But Romanes, while inclined to the theories of Couch and Preyer as a partial explana- 

 tion, adduces from the writings of others instances of feigning in monkeys which place 

 it beyond doubt that animals may consciously and deliberately feign ; yet he regards the 

 matter as one of great difficulty. Unquestionably it is ; but I must again express my 

 conviction that Romanes has imported into the subject difficulties which are not in the 

 nature of the case present. First of all, is it at all essential to " feigning " either death or 

 injury that an animal should have, as Romanes supposes, the abstract idea of death at all ? 

 It is to be remembered that in these cases the animal simply remains as quiet and as 

 passive as possible, which is in accord with all an animal's experiences as to escape from 

 danger by any form of concealment. "We have all degrees of this. The little Chipmunk, 

 when a hawk is at hand, squats, if on a fence ; if near its burrow, rushes in, according to 

 Dr. Abbott {lor. cit.) It is within the observation of all that a cat watching near a rat hole 

 feigns quiet ; in like manner, a dog, desirous of capturing the fly that has been tormenting 

 him, feigns apparent unobservance or unusual inactivity. I suspect that a human being, 

 suddenly finding himself in danger, may, and often does, exercise a similar control 

 without any abstract notion of death. Indeed, the extent to which the abstract in this 

 sense enters into the psychic life of men, if we except the higher class of intellects and 

 persons well educated, is much less than writers have been wont to believe. A great 

 part of the whole difficulty, it seems to me, has arisen from the use of the expression 



' Since writing the above I liave been pleased to find tliat Dr. Charles Abbott ha.s given the .so-called feigning' 

 of the Opossnm a careful, one might say, expérimentai, examination. He has discussed the subject in his work, 

 "A Naturalist's Rambles About Home," and has been led to form conclusions similar to my own. 



