Instinct and Intelligence According to Modern Zoology. 17 



of proof that this psychic process is due to intelligence. 

 On the contrary, psychological analysis compels us to 

 explain this so-called intellectual act by the same psychic 

 laws which guided the chicjcen when it happily avoided 

 being stung by the wasp the very first time they came 

 into contact. 



Should we then call the behavior of the chicken in 

 the second case instinctive or intelligent? As its avoid- 

 ance of the wasp springs from a sensile impulse and not 

 from intellectual deliberation and is ruled only by 

 sensitive knowledge, we must necessarily call it in- 

 stinctive. Still it is not instinctive in the strictest sense 

 of the term, because it contains an element of individual 

 sensitive experience. It is, however, undoubtedly 

 instinctive in a wider sense, and we are far more 

 justified in extending the notion of instinctive actions to 

 those which contain an element of sensitive experience 

 than is modern psychology in making the notion of 

 "sensitive experience" in the animal coincide with the 

 notion of "intelligence." The latter conception leads to 

 obvious contradictions, as the following examples clearly 

 demonstrate. 



In full accord with other psychologists who have 

 recently written on animal life, the English scientist 

 George Romanes 1 calls only those adaptive actions of 

 the animal instinctive which are "antecedent to 

 individual experience," and designates as intelligent 

 all the rest which result from an experimental 

 source. (P. 17.) Now, only a few pages above 

 (P. 13) the same Romanes explained the difference 



J ) "Animal Intelligence," 5th edition, London, 1892, 



