Cole, Intelligence of Raccoons. 



245 



an act from being put through it, even though they have failed to 

 learn it by their oiun efforts. My own opinion is that No. I learned 

 the exact act by being put through. No. 4, it is true, may have 

 learned only the place to attack. To urge this objection, however, 

 amounts to saying that the animal must have got some idea or 

 image of the place or hook from being put through, for surely no 

 reflex act is established in an animal w^hose muscles are limp. 

 Had I not held my hand beneath her muzzle she would have let 

 it hang down and it would not have raised the hook. So in this 

 case especially the act of putting the animal through with uninner- 

 vated muscles gave her a motive or impulse to innervate the mus- 

 cles. Personally I should iudge that the hook lifting with a click 

 and noisily falling, not more than an inch in front of the raccoon's 

 eyes, was fully as well attended to as the place ot attack. No. i 

 also did not vary once from the act of lifting the hook with his nose. 

 This is important when we compare it with the work of those not 

 put through. I record in Table IX the trials and methods of 

 lifting the hook of No. 2 and No. 3. 



It is evident, therefore, that the best method for the animal is 

 to hft the hook with its nose. I have now shown why we should 

 change the question. Does the animal learn the act you put him 

 through ? to the question, Can he be made to do so ? If the act 

 which he is put through is the one which will remain the easiest 

 and most convenient for him throughout the tests, irrespective of 



