408 Journal of Comparative Neurology and Psychology. 



trials lie manifested an interest in the screen, but made no headway in get- 

 ting food. In the imitation tests the conduct of the other animal seemed 

 to accentuate his interest at times, but never sufficiently modified his behavior 

 to enable him to get food. In the later tests he seemed interested in the 

 screen only when another animal was present getting food. 



F. Behavior of No. 3 and No. 8. 

 In the cases of No. 3 and No. 8 there was apparently but slight influence 

 of the behavior of the imitatee. Owing to the lack of space the details are 

 omitted. The tables which follow show the number of tests to which they 

 were subjected. The summaries give all that was important in their 

 behavior. 



Summary of Behavior of No. 3 in the Screen Experiment. 

 The behavior of No. 3 was much like that of No. 2. The imitation tests 

 served to quicken his interest in the screen, but it waned even earlier in 

 the series than that of No. 2. At the last, though he repeatedly got food 

 when No. 4 did, he seemed interested in the screen only when No. 4 was 

 working at it. 



TABLE 22. 

 No. 3 Imitating No. 4. 



Sum marl/ of Behavior of No. S in the Screen Experiment. 

 The behavior of No. 8 practically repeated that of No. 3, though his 

 activity evidenced even less influence of the behavior of No. 4. In the first 

 imitation tests his attention to the screen increased slightly, but in the later 

 tests it disappeared almost entirely. 



