170 EVOLUTION AND MAN S PLACE IN NATURE 



It is most natural for us, as it is the simplest course, 

 to attribute to Intelligence the wonderful activity 

 of the ant. It is certain that without use of our 

 intelligence we could not accomplish what the ants 

 do. But, the limits to their work are so marked as 

 to show the lack of intelligence, and to lead us to 

 classify their actions otherwise. Lubbock s observa 

 tions supply marked testimony as to these limits. 

 Marvellous sensibility accounts for much, and beyond 

 this, there is action manifestly uninstructed, un 

 trained, unreflective. Any reserve which seems need 

 ful in view of the observations of Huber, Lubbock, 

 Pouchet, M/Cook, and others, must be attributed to 

 the indirectness of the knowledge attainable by us. 

 Sensibility and instinct together, apart from intelli 

 gence, seem capable of accounting for most of the 

 observations. How instinct is to be regarded, will 

 appear presently. The recorded observations are so 

 many and striking that it is impossible to assign to 

 them any other than a conspicuous place in discussion 

 of the problems of animal intelligence. The affirma 

 tion or denial of intelligence here, becomes a turning- 

 point, round which definite theoretic conclusions must 

 gather. If intelligence may with full warrant be attri 

 buted to ants, the argument for continuity is broken. 

 We place insects high in intelligence, while we place 

 fishes and amphibians low. On the other hand, if 

 we deny intelligence to the insects, we have the most 

 wonderful testimony to the possibilities of sensibility 

 and instinct, and on this account the testimony 

 for intelligence in the higher mammals is greatly 

 narrowed. Either intelligence appears so low in the 

 scale of life as to break continuity, or its appearance 



