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 



