44 2 Animal Life and Intelligence. 



two sets of offspring one set in which the procreative 

 faculty was predominant to the partial exclusion of in- 

 telligence, and another in which intelligent activities were 

 predominant to the exclusion of propagation. 



It is possible that I have weakened my case by intro- 

 ducing such a difficult problem as the instincts of neuter 

 insects. And I would beg the reader to remember that 

 this is only incidental. What I wish to indicate is that 

 among the many variations to which organisms are subject, 

 there are variations in their intelligent activities ; that 

 these are of elimination value, those animals which con- 

 spicuously possess them escaping elimination in its several 

 modes ; that those survivors which thus escape elimination 

 are likely to hand on, through inheritance, that intelligence 

 which enabled them to survive ; that if, thoughout a series 

 of generations, such intelligence be applied to some definite 

 end, nervous channels will tend to be definitely established, 

 and the intelligent activity will more and more readily 

 become habitual ; that eventually, through the lapsing of 

 intelligence, these habitual activities may become so fixed 

 and stereotyped as to become instinctive ; that intelligence 

 has thus been a factor in the establishment of these in- 

 stinctive activities ; that throughout the sequence there is 

 no inheritance of anything individually acquired, the in- 

 telligent variations being throughout of germinal origin; 

 and that, therefore, in the origin of instincts, the co-opera- 

 tion of intelligence and the lapsing of intelligence are not 

 excluded on the principles advocated by Professor Weismann. 



What, then, is excluded? Any individually acquired 

 increment, either in the intelligence displayed or the stereo- 

 typing process. The subject of instinct and of animal 

 intelligence has not at present been considered at any 

 great length by Professor Weismann, but, judging by the 

 general tenor of his writings, I take it that what he 

 demands is definite proof that such individually acquired 

 increment is actually inli< rited. 



As before indicated in the chapter on "Heredity," 

 such proof it is, from the nature of the case, almost im- 



