E inter on Growth and Inheritance 455 



an important one for us. The position we take up is quite 

 unaffected by it, and accords with either alternative. 



His next contention — in favour of that beHef in a 

 universal unity which is the foundation of his system — is ^ 

 that — 



* no fundamental distinction exists between the language formed by 

 the voices of animals and human speech.' 



Now we have no space left to develop our argument 

 against this assertion ; but there is the less need so to do as 

 the question has quite recently been considered by us at 

 great length,^ and in a manner which we hope is satis- 

 factory and conclusive. Lest, however, our readers should 

 imagine that we are at all disposed to ignore the power of 

 animals in this direction, we quote with pleasure a passage 

 cited 3 from Jager in support of Elmer's position : — 



* By means of looks, gestures, and sounds animals speak a very 

 plain language, and it requires only a somewhat persevering attention 

 to learn this language. . . . The sound-language which most 

 mammals and birds, and some reptiles, fishes, and insects possess, con- 

 sists of cries expressing feelings, like the utterances of a child in its 

 earliest years. The interjections of our word-language are the most 

 closely related to the cries of sensation of animals. The cries of animals, 

 however, have not merely the value of interjections, they are something 

 more. Thus the animal can express several sensations by modification 

 of its voice, by modulation of its tones. Thereby animals are able to 

 communicate their sensations and conditions even during the night 

 when they cannot see each other's gestures. 



As to certain monkeys, J. von Fischer is quoted as 

 saying:— 



* I understood the sound-language of each of my monkeys, and 

 knew exactly thereby the state of its feelings at any particular time. 



1 P. 374. 



2 See The Origin of Human Reason. Kegan Paul, Trench, Triibner & 

 Co. 1889. ^ P. 368. 



