12 INTRODUCTION. 



are ever published unless the names and 

 addresses of the writers are supplied, and all 

 stories are rejected which have anything 

 clearly suspicious about them. What the 

 editors of the Spectator do not do is to reject 

 a dog-story because it states that a dog has 

 been observed to do something which has 

 never been reported as having been done 

 by a dog before, or at any rate, something 

 which is not universally admitted to be doable 

 by a dog. Apparently this willingness to 

 print stories which enlarge our notions of 

 animal intelligence is regarded in certain 

 quarters as a sign that the Spectator will 

 swallow anything, and that its stories must 

 be apocryphal. I cannot, however, help 

 thinking that all who care for the advance- 

 ment of knowledge in regard to animals 

 should be grateful to the editors of the 

 Spectator for not adopting the plan of ex- 

 cluding all dog stories that do not correspond 

 with an abstract ideal of canine intelligence. 

 Had they acted on the principle of putting 

 every anecdote that seemed prima facie un- 

 likely into the waste- paper basket, they would 



