COMPARATIVE PSYCHOLOGY 21 
But where shall we draw the line? Formerly the 
line was drawn at reason. It was said the brutes can 
not reason. Only persons who do not themselves 
reason about the subject with the facts before them 
can any longer occupy such a position. The evidence 
of reasoning power is overwhelming for the upper 
ranks of animals, and yearly the downward limits are 
being extended the more the inferior tribes are studied. 
Perhaps the highest faculty man possesses is that by 
which he generalises and forms conceptions of the 
abstract. That animals have imagination or the power 
to frame mental pictures of absent objects the grief of 
the dog at the absence or loss of his master amply 
proves, as does also the capacity of animals to dream. 
If, as some assume, abstraction is a necessary part of 
reasoning, then it must of course be conceded that 
animals have the power of framing abstract concep- 
tions. There is a certain amount of evidence that some 
animals can count within narrow limits. It is scarcely 
possible to account for the conduct of the horse, dog, 
elephant, and ape, under certain circumstances, without 
believing that they have the power to generalise upon 
details. Once concede the power to form abstract 
ideas, and there is then the basis for any other faculty 
man possesses that is considered usually as peculiarly his. 
Have animals a moral nature, or are they capable of 
forming a conception of right and wrong? The answer 
to this introduces the question as to method of com- 
parison. Should the highest of the inferior animals be 
compared with the most civilised races of men, or with 
man in his most degraded condition? That neither of 
these comparisons is just can be shown. As capacity 
for education is one of the best evidences of menta 
ability in both man and inferior animals, and as man’s 
civilisation is the outcome of his own intellect, he must 
be credited with this as evidence of his superiority. 
