DISCUSSIONS ON INSTINCT 279 
own records abound in observations that amply prove 
the position taken, and while my experiments and 
observations on birds are in the main in accord with 
those of Prof. Morgan, so far as I know them, I cannot 
but believe, if I have correctly understood his views, as 
reported at the New York Meeting, that he has mis- 
conceived or overstated the case under consideration. 
The subject of heredity is too large to enter upon 
now. I may say, however, that my researches in Com- 
parative Psychology, and especially in that part bearing 
perhaps most closely on the question—psychogenesis, 
do not incline me to believe any the more in that 
biological ignis fatwus—W eismannism. 
WESLEY MILLS. 
M‘Gitt University, MONTREAL. 
Pror. MorGan’s observations agree with those of 
Prof. Mills and others. A chick swallows water in- 
stinctively, but must be taught to drink by example 
or by accident. The chick might die of thirst in the 
presence of water, as the sight of the water does not 
call up the movements of pecking at it, as do food and 
other small objects. The mother hen replaces natural 
selection, and the action, though continually practised 
by the individual, has not become instinctive, because 
it has not a selective value. Prof. Morgan’s argument 
seems to be satisfactory. If actions which occur but 
once in the lifetime of the individual (¢.g. the nuptial 
flight of the queen bee) are thoroughly instinctive, and 
others which are practised continually by the individual, 
do not become instinctive in the race, we can scarcely 
regard instincts as hereditary habits, but must rather 
attribute them to variations, fortuitous or due to un- 
known causes, and preserved by natural selection. 
THE WRITER OF THE NOTE. 
