instinct and Intelligence According to Modern Zoology. 19 



proverb by simple associations of representations, long 

 before it has arrived at the use of reason. 



Thus, we again arrive at the inevitable conclusion, 

 that the notion of intelligence of modern animal psy- 

 chologists cannot be maintained in face of a critical 

 analysis. It is unsound and has been falsified by the 

 influence of "pseudo-psychology." It is wrong to style 

 all those psychic actions "intelligent" which presuppose 

 the experience of the animal, just as it is wrong to 

 designate only those as "instinctive" which do not depend 

 on experience. 



Does a young dog, that sniffs at a bone for the first 

 time and feels impelled by the enticing odor to crunch 

 it, act from intelligence or from instinct? The answer 

 of every modern psychologist will evidently be: From 

 instinct ; for the dog does not know by experience that 

 bones taste well. But if the same dog finds a second 

 bone, and its previous experience of pleasure in gnawing 

 the former bone helps to whet its appetite, then 

 "intelligence" is said to cooperate side by side with 

 instinct. Or when a young ant, say Formida sanguinea, 

 meets for the first time a genuine guest, a Lomechusa 

 strumosa, living in the same nest, and on touching the 

 beetle with her feelers perceives an agreeable odor and 

 immediately begins to lick the beetle, she is said to act 

 from "instinct ;" but when she licks it a second time, after 

 having once tasted the very agreeable flavor of the 

 ethereal matter secreted from the yellow hair-tufts of 

 the beetle, "intelligence" is said to have a part in this 

 second and in all subsequent acts. Is it not obvious that 

 we have to do with an abuse of the term "intelligence" ? 

 The only idea to be conveyed by the term is an asso- 



