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 fatuus Weismannism. 



WESLEY MILLS. 

 M'GiLL UNIVERSITY, MONTREAL. 



PROF. 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 (e.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. 



