362 Notices of Books. [July, 
But we can go further: animals do discern the presence of 
number in things around them. The Rev. J. G. Wood, in his 
interesting work ‘‘ Man and Beast,” gives a case of a dog whom 
his master, when drunk, had cruelly and unjustly beaten. The 
dog, after this, watched his master’s potations, and as soon as it 
saw him take the fourth glass it invariably hid itself, and kept 
out of the way till he was sober. 
Another instance, still more decisive, is the following :—A 
man wishing to shoot a crow which had her nest in a hollow 
near the top of a high tree, concealed himself in an outhouse 
close at hand, and waited for her to fly out. She remained con- 
cealed, however, till he had gone away. He then, to puzzle her, 
got another man to come with him into the shed, and go away 
afteratime. Still she refused to come off her nest. Larger num- 
bers of men were then tried ; but it was not until seven men had 
gone in and six came away, leaving one behind, that her arith- 
metic failed her, and she was shot. Bitches, whose puppies 
have been removed and brought back, have been observed 
examining the lot with a puzzled air, as if in doubt whether the 
whole brood had been returned. The same phenomenon has 
been remarked with cats and their kittens. These facts, we 
submit, prove that animals can, though but to a small extent, 
recognise number. The crow saw that six was greater than five. 
The dog could count up to four, or, in other words, could perform 
a simple addition sum to that extent. This is very little less 
than what we observe among savages, some of whom can barely 
count as far as seven. ‘The difference between man and beast, 
as far as number is concerned, is therefore one of degree, not of 
kind, and Mr. Girdlestone’s argument must be set aside as null 
and void. 
The Author seems not “‘ to conceive it possible that quadrupeds 
might, in the course of long ages, become bipeds.” Were there 
no mammalian forms on earth, living or fossil, save Hodge the 
ploughboy and Dobbin his horse, some difficulty might be expe- 
rienced. But if we survey the whole mammalian series we per- 
ceive that the nearer we approach man the more the anterior 
extremities lose the character and functions of legs, and assume 
those of arms. Place side by side the arm of Hodge, the ante- 
rior limb of a gorilla and the fore leg of Dobbin, and no one can 
deny that the two former terminate in hands, and that the difference 
between them is trifling indeed compared tothe contrast between 
the two latter. 
Whilst holding, however, that Mr. Girdlestone has signally 
failed in proving his case, we consider that he deserves the 
thanks of naturalists for having drawn attention to a point 
which in their studies of animal intelligence has been too much 
neglected. 
— I 
——) 
