COMPAEATIVE 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 ahout 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 basts 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~m BotKlmannaiidj^ 



civilisation is the outcomeof his own intellect^ he 

 be_cr&iied with this as evidence q! his s 



