268 NATURAL SCIENCE [October 
lished. On the fifth the ball was thrown so as to strike the other 
or right side of the angle and thus be deflected in the opposite 
direction. The dog followed the old course (the short cut to the 
left) and was completely non-plussed, searching that side and not 
finding the ball for eleven minutes. On repeating the experiment 
thrice similar results were that day obtained. On the following 
day the ball was thrown just ahead of him so as to strike to the 
right of the angle and was followed and caught. This course 
was pursued for three days, and he then learnt to take a short 
cut to the right. On the next day the ball was sent, as at first, to 
the left and the dog was again non-plussed. I have not yet 
succeeded in getting him to associate a given difference of initial 
direction with a resultant difference of deflection. And since these 
words were written the dear little fellow has died. No doubt it 
will be said by some fortunate possessor of a particularly rational 
dog that my fox terrier was a fool. Let him experiment and 
record the stages of progress, remembering that a rational being 
will quickly and surely pierce to the heart of the mystery. 
I may here mention that whenever searching for a ball of which 
he had lost sight in the road he would run along the gutter first on 
one side and then on the other. <A friend who was walking with me 
one day regarded this as a clear case of rational inference. “The 
dog knows,” he said, “the effects of the convex curvature of the 
road as well as we do.” I am convinced, however (having watched 
his ways from a puppy), that this method of search was gradually 
established on a basis of practical experience. No logical inference 
on his part is necessary for the interpretation of the facts; and we 
should not assume its presence unless the evidence compels us 
to do so. 
Such experiments carried out on a different method give results 
in line with Mr Thorndike’s. The conditions are more natural 
which I regard as in some respects an advantage. But we need 
experiments on different methods,—the more the better,—and if 
the results they furnish are in accord, their correctness will be 
rendered the more probable. I hope, however, that Mr Thorndike 
will devise further experiments in which (1) the conditions shall be 
somewhat less strained and straitened, while the subjects are in 
a more normal state of equanimity (cannot “utter hunger” be 
avoided ?), and (2) there shall be.more opportunity for the exercise 
of rational judgment, supposing the faculty to exist. To establish 
the absence of foresight in the procedure of the cats, it is surely 
necessary so to arrange matters that the connections are clearly 
open—nay even obvious—to the eye of reason. It appears 
to me that this consideration has not weighed sufficiently with 
Mr Thorndike. 
