250 



NATURE 



[July 14, 1898 



■savours, to say the least of it, of improbability. In any 

 ■case I do not recognise it as my own view. I hold as 

 strongly as Mr. Thorndike that the efferent impulse (as 

 an organic link) is a sine qud non in every case of 

 association in animal psychology, and that no animal can 

 supply it " at will." 



A very interesting series of experiments were made 

 with a view to extracting an answer to the question, 

 Do animals imitate ? The question is not so easy to 

 answer as it looks. No one with adequate experience 

 can doubt that young birds and mammals perform 

 actions which, from the observer's point of view, are 

 'imitative. The sight of an animal performing some 

 •simple action is the stimulus which prompts to the per- 

 formance of a similar action. This I have termed 

 ■" instinctive imitation." And this Mr. Thorndike would 

 not deny to animals, though he would, I take it, deny 

 (and not without psychological justification) its right to 

 be spoken of as imitation, properly so-called. On this 

 basis are founded the numerous cases of imitation by 

 suggestion where the sight of an action performed is the 

 stimulus to the performance of a similar action. A more 

 ■complex case is that of the bird which, hearing certain 

 sounds, is not only stimulated to make sounds itself 

 (like a laughing jackass to which one whistles), but 

 gradually to make its own sounds resemble those which 

 afford the stimuli (like the parrot which "draws a cork"). 

 Here it seems that the resemblance itself gives satis- 

 faction — in any case the factor of experiential selection 

 is introduced. In these cases imitation by suggestion is 

 supplemented by a tendency to more exactly reproduce 

 the sound which affords the stimulus — a tendency which 

 seems to be based upon the innate satisfaction which ac- 

 companies the act of reproduction. Thus far, in my 

 opinion, animals can certainly go ; but even this, it may 

 be urged, is only pseudo-imitation. True imitation is seen 

 only where a being of set purpose copies a given model, 

 not only reproducing, but intending to reproduce. And 

 it is the presence of true imitation of this type which 

 Mr. Thorndike's experiments were designed to test. 

 They afford, however, no evidence of it. Cats were 

 allowed to see others do the trick of the box-cage. But 

 they themselves, when placed in the cage, took the usual 

 time to effect their escape. Their exit was no quicker 

 from seeing others get out by the performance of certain 

 ■clawings or pushings. The experiments do not carry 

 •complete conviction to my mind, though I regard the 

 •conclusion to which they lead as probably correct. 



Mr. Thorndike thinks it likely that the primates 

 stand at a higher level in this respect than dogs or cats. 

 " If it is true," he says, " that the primates do imitate 

 acts of such novelty and complexity that only this out- 

 and-out kind of imitation can explain the fact, we have 

 located one great advance in mental development. Till 

 the primates we get practically nothing but instincts 

 and individual acquirement through impulsive trial and 

 •error. Among the primates we get also acquisition by 

 imitation, one form of the increase of mental equipment 

 by tradition." My own observations on imitation in 

 monkeys are too few and inconclusive to justify more 

 than a very guarded expression of opinion. I lean to 

 tthe view, however, that there is, even in them, little 

 ■evidence of true imitation of the higher psychological 

 type ; and that the observed facts may be accounted for 

 by a great extension of " instinctive imitation " suggestion, 

 ■and behaviour directly founded thereon. I hope Mr. 

 Thorndike will put the matter to the test of well-devised 

 experiment. 



Several interesting problems connected with the 

 psychological interpretation of animal behaviour are 

 briefly discussed, but can only be mentioned here. Mr. 

 Thorndike accepts the conclusion that in animals 

 ■*' memory" is simply what has been termed "reinstating," 

 and involves no true localisation in time or space. " The 



NO. 1498, VOL, 58] 



animal's self is not a being looking 'before and after.'" 

 " Memory in animals, if one still chooses to use the word, 

 is permanence of associations, not the presence of an 

 idea of an experience attributed to the past." This is 

 precisely the conclusion to which the present writer has 

 been led. On the question whether animals are aware of 

 the pleasure or pain that others are feeling, he says that 

 the conduct of animals " would seem to show that they 

 do not. For it has given us good reason to suppose that 

 they do not possess any stock of isolated ideas, much less 

 any abstracted, inferred or transferred ideas. These ideas 

 of others' feelings imply a power to transfer states felt in 

 oneself to another, and realise them as there." As thus 

 stated I think his conclusion is correct, though he quotes 

 me in an opposite sense. In my later discussion (" Intro- 

 duction to Comparative Psychology," p. 320) I expressly 

 exclude any such ejective transference. 



In conclusion, some apology is perhaps demanded for 

 reference to my own observations and conclusions in the 

 same field of study. But it is well to preserve historical 

 continuity in a topic, and it so happens that Mr. Thorn- 

 dike's work has carried further and extended some of my 

 own ; and that his leading conclusions are in the main 

 confirmatory of those vvhich I have reached. In the 

 general trend of our opinions we are perhaps more 

 essentially in accord than, in some cases, he seems to 

 suppose. Even our illustrations are sometimes closely 

 similar ; both utilising, for example, the consciousness of 

 a man when he is playing tennis as illustrating the 

 probable subjective condition of the conscious but not yet 

 self-conscious animal. And this substantial agreement is 

 not a mere personal matter. Were it such there would 

 be no justification for drawing attention to it. It shows 

 that the method of observation and experiment, on 

 different but parallel lines, has led two independent 

 investigators to results which are on the whole har- 

 monious ; and it affords some ground for the hope that 

 comparative psychology has passed from the anecdotal 

 stage to the higher plane of verifiable observation, and 

 that it is rising to the dignity of a science. In any case 

 Mr. Thorndike's research is one of no little value, and 

 will, I trust, be supplemented by further investigations. 

 C. Lloyd Morgan. 



TH^ FLORA AND FAUNA OF BRITISH INDIA. 

 ■jVr O portion of the earth's surface surpasses the British 

 •l-^ Empire in India in the wealth and importance of 

 its vegetable and animal life. Not only is there no other 

 equally large tropical area that has received the same 

 amount of exploration from naturalists, but the territories 

 and dependencies of British India comprise regions with 

 a marvellous variety of climates, from tropical islands 

 like the Andamans and hot plains like the Carnatic, to 

 the snows of the Himalayas and the frigid plateaus of 

 Tibet ; whilst the rainfall varies from the "record" 600 

 inches or more on the Khasi hills to the meagre supply 

 that occasionally damps the arid sands of the Sind 

 desert, where, frequently, for years in succession, rain is 

 unknown. The remarkable antiquity of the Indian 

 peninsula, the greater part of which appears to have been 

 land from the earliest geological times, adds greatly to 

 the scientific importance of the fauna and flora. 



Under these circumstances it is not surprising that the 

 variety of plants and animals occurring in India should 

 be very great. There is no other large tropical region 

 with which comparison is possible, because, as already 

 mentioned, there is none of which the natural produc- 

 tions are as well known. Europe (3,800,000 square 

 miles) has more than twice the area of India (1,750,000 

 square miles), but it has a far poorer flora and fauna, 

 only about 9500 flowering plants being known to occur 

 against 14,500 Indian species ; whilst British India 

 and its dependencies contain more than twice as many 



