278 ANIMAL INTELLIGENCE 
such a case, a sort of imitation, so far as its inception is 
concerned. But will any one contend that that first 
act of drinking, referred to above, was other than 
instinctive 2 Again, when a chick first drinks, on its 
beak being put into water, can the act be considered as 
the result of teaching? Is the chick so intelligent as 
to carry out an act so complex in such a perfect way, as 
it does on the very first occasion, as the result of 
“teaching”? Surely no one will deny that sucking is 
an instinctive act, yet a newly - born mammal sucks 
only when its lips come in contact with the teat. Is 
not the case very similar with the chick? The only 
difference is, that the chick is slower to recognise water 
than food, but as soon as the beak touches water it 
drinks, and there is no teaching about it. Considering 
how seldom a fowl drinks, yet pecks all day long at 
particles of food, it is not surprising that the chick is 
slower to recognise water (drink) than food. But it is 
one thing to say that a chick learns to recognise drink, 
and another to affirm that it learns to drink. The pro- 
cess of drinking is quite as perfect as that of eating 
from the very first, if not more so, for a chick at first 
often misses what it pecks at, and fails to convey the 
object into its mouth in other cases, though it may 
touch it. 
The view that instincts are perfect from the first, 
and undergo no development from experience, I believe, 
after much observation, to be as erroneous as it is 
ancient. 
Instinct is never, perhaps, perfect at first, and, so 
far as I can see, could not be owing to general im- 
perfect development in the animal of motor power, the 
senses, etc. A young puppy will suck anything almost 
that can pass between his lips, as a chick will peck at 
any light spot or object if small, be it food or not. My 
