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 ? 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 



