296 ANIMAL INTELLIGENCE 
on the approach of food, but had remained in one place, 
fluttering and incessantly calling until the food was 
brought to it. On the morning of the following day, 
falling drops were again struck at and seized, though 
the bird did not relish the accompanying wetting. At 
noon the drops were again seized and swallowed. Signs 
of disapproval of the wetting were shown on the morn- 
ing of the 14th, and on the morning of the 15th the 
bird avoided falling water and was content with biting 
the edge of the dish. 
From the above observations I am inclined to agree 
with Prof Mills that the nature of eating and of 
drinking are not radically different, and, as the physical 
condition of substances may pass imperceptibly from 
solid to liquid, so the physiological processes are practi- 
cally the same whether the food is solid, pultaceous, 
or liquid, though I should not attempt to compare 
too closely the relative perfection of the two processes. 
I do not, moreover, feel that the first act of drinking 
is, in its totality, necessarily instinctive. In other 
words, “when a chick first drinks on its beak being 
put into water” the act may be considered as, very 
largely, a result of self-teaching. 
The phenomena of eating and of drinking have not, 
in the discussion, been definitely defined, and there 
has been some lack of discrimination in the use of the 
word “swallow.” The beak, moreover, is mentioned 
by Profs. Mills and Lloyd Morgan as the organ, the 
stimulation of which produces the act of drinking, 
though Prof. Baldwin attributes the action to the 
stimulation to the sense of taste. 
It seems to the writer that the entire process of 
eating and drinking should be divided into three parts, 
viz. (1) seizure; (2) mouthing or mulling; and (3) de- 
glutition. It is only in the first of these that the term 
