20 ANIMAL INTELLIGENCE 
ever, on this, to the whole study of comparative psycho- 
logy. The objection holds to some extent even for 
human psychology; but, as we infer similarity of 
behaviour in men to denote similarity of inner pro- 
cesses, so are we justified in the same as regards the 
lower animals, though it must be conceded somewhat 
less so. We must always be prepared to admit that 
there may be psychic paths unknown and _ possibly 
unknowable to usin the realm of their inner life. But 
if we regard man as the outcome of development 
through lower forms, according to variation with 
natural selection—in a word, if a man is the final link 
in a long chain binding the whole animal creation 
together, we have the greater reason for inferring that 
comparative psychology and human psychology have 
common roots. We must, in fact, believe in a mental 
or psychic evolution as well as in a physical (morpho- 
logical) one. 
It is not inconceivable that special faculties which 
do not exist in the lower animals have been implanted 
in man; but the trend of investigation thus far goes to 
show that at least the germ of every human faculty 
does exist in some species of animal. Nor does such a 
view at all derogate from the dignity of superior man, 
while it links the animal creation together in a way 
that no other can. It opens up the subject for genuine 
scientific study; it tends to beget a respect for the 
lower creation, which, while it fosters modesty in man, 
also furnishes a foundation for broader sympathy with 
those lower in the scale. The opposite view may lead 
to our pitying the brute, but can scarcely yield as good 
moral fruit. Let but an individual man assume that, 
by virtue of something he possesses, he is radically 
different from his fellows, and what is the result? 
Your genuine aristocrat (in feeling) is a sad stranger 
to humanity in general, 
