16 APPENDIX : NO. XVI. 
WET be 
Sacacity In Fro6s. 
[‘ Zoologist, v. (1847) pp. 1703-1705. } 
J wave read with much interest the curious anecdote of the Frogs 
(Zool. 1643) *, but finding that I cannot acquiesce in the suggestions 
of the narrator as to the motives for their conduct, I am now about 
to examine why, and also to see whether I can suggest anything that 
appears to myself more probable. In the first place, I am strongly 
predisposed to-consider the Frog incapable of the implied degree of 
sagacity ; both because I cannot recollect to have seen, heard, or read — 
in books of authority, proofs or indications of anything at all equal 
to itin the Frog, nor yet in any of his relations—Toads, Newts, 
Lizards, Snakes, Fish; and also because even in the hot-blooded 
animals, whose intellects for the most part seem to be of a higher 
order, similar instances of sagacity are very rare. Where can we 
find them at all? Perhaps here and there in some pre-eminently 
gifted individual of one of those superior races of animals who are 
constantly in the company of man, who every day experience his 
benefits and his power, and who have learned to look up to him and 
to trust in him for everything. But the Frog is none of these: if we 
allow him to have sufficient sagacity, he has nevertheless none of 
the opportunities necessary for acquiring that knowledge of man 
aud of his nature, which the subjects of our present consideration are 
supposed to have possessed. Even were the knowledge of man 
instinctive, these Frogs showed further very great ingenuity in the 
plans of action they founded upon this knowledge of theirs: and of 
their being master of such ingenuity and sagacity, we are, I think, 
entirely without sufficient evidence. And not only do | think him 
incapable of assisting a friend in misfortune in the manner supposed, 
if he wished to help him, but I even doubt whether he ever would 
wish it. Do we know any instances of Frogs or Toads caring for 
their wounded or imprisoned fellow-creatures ? In other classes of 
animals, no doubt, it is common for certain species to assemble round 
an injured companion ; but often in anger rather than in love; and 
in putting him out of his misery, they show the kindness of their 
Creator rather than their own. What other explanation then do we 
1 [No doubt the behaviour of the Frogs, which took place at Lindfield, in Sussex, 
as described by Mr. Robert Davis, who wrote from Belgrave Place, Pimlico, was 
strange, but so is much that goes on in nature. Briefly it amounted to this—one 
Frog had his foot caught by the closing of a shutter-blind, whereupon two others 
climbed up the window-frame, and looked into the room, in Mr. Davis’s opinion, 
“‘for the purpose of imploring assistance to effect the escape of the imprisoned 
one.” If that were really their object, it shewed something more than what we 
should term sagacity, for it implies on their part a trust in human charity which 
must be contrary to the experience of most Frogs. The common sense of 
Mr. Wolley’s remarks seems undeniable, and perhaps if we knew the business the 
first Frog was after when he came to the window we might get a clew to that 
which took the others thither.—Ep. } 
