Haggerty, hnitation in Monkeys. 441 



not display much tcndciiey to repeat the mere acts of other monkeys. 

 That they did not imitate in this way may have been due to the 

 conditions of the experiments. Where opportunity was given for 

 imitation, food was given as a reward. It often happened that when 

 the attention of the imitator was only sliglit it would he greatly 

 accentuated when the imitatee began to get food. ISTo. 10 and No. 

 11 were kept in the same cage. No. 10 whii)|)ed No. 11 and treated 

 him with indifference. Yet when she saw In'm get food in the 

 I*aper Experiment, she at once showed an accentuation of the (»bj(!c- 

 tive marks of attention. In the Ilo})e Ex[)(n-iinent, No. "1 was in- 

 different to the behavior of No. 3 until he saw No. 8 with food 

 and his attention was not drawn to the food door until lu; saw No. Z 

 get food th(M-e. His interest in No. 3 steadily increased nntil he 

 got food for himself. The same comment may be nuide npdn the 

 behavior of No. 3 when watching No. 2 in the Paper Expci-inicnI. 

 In general, No. 4 lorded it over No. and No. 5 when in the living 

 cages, but she invariably became attentive to them when she saw 

 them getting food in the experiment cage. 



Thus tlie facts would indicate that not only the act of the animal, 

 but also the profitable result of that act was a necessary factor in 

 producing imitation. By further experimentation I hope to dis- 

 cover the relative importance of these two elements. 



