376 'Journal of Cojnparative Neurology and Psychology. 



times be looked up at the chute. Then he climbed the cage wire, but did 

 not look at the chute. Later, when under the chute, he looked at it steadily 

 and then started for the front as if to climb, but was turned away by 

 seeing a hull on the floor. 



Fourth test. The conditions were the same as in the preceding tests. 

 No. 2 got food fourteen times. Ten of these performances No. 3 saw com- 

 pletely ; the other four he saw in part. He kept away from No. 2 because 

 No. 2 slapped him. 



When No. 2 was out No. 3 spent bis time on the floor hunting over empty 

 hulls and paid absolutely no attention to the chute during the entire time. 

 No. 3 was so little influenced by seeing No. 2 obtain food that it seemed 

 useless to continue the tests longer. They were, therefore, discontinued. 



Summary of Behavior of No. 3 in Chute Experiment B. 

 No. 3 was not nearly so active in the preliminary trials as the animals pre- 

 viously discussed. In the imitation tests he seemed to see what was done. 

 What he saw, however, did not seem to influence his behavior in any way 

 unless it was to increase his looking at the chute. He failed to make any 

 effort to get the food for himself. 



TABLE 8. 

 No. 3 Imitating No. 2. 



General Summary of Besults of Chute Experiment A and Chute 



Experiment B. 



Taking Chute Experiment B as a whole, we have to consider six 

 animals, no two of which exhibited exactly the same behavior. In 

 the cases of ISTo. 13, l^o. 4, ISTo. 11 and jSTo. 6, there is a similarity 

 in that each animal showed a decided change of behavior after wit- 

 nessing another animcd get food from the chute. Each of these 

 animals repeated with more or less exactness of detail the act which 

 it had seen the other animal perform. Without meaning to imply 



