94: Chapter V. 



Of course modern psychologists have tried to dem- 

 onstrate, that monkeys have some knowledge of the 

 systematic relationship which prevails in the animal 

 kingdom. Yet, these would-be proofs are based on 

 nothing more solid than some observations which show 

 that monkeys have a similar dread of blind worms, 

 lizards and turtles as they have of poisonous snakes. 

 The behavior of these monkeys is easily explained by 

 the exterior similarity of dangerous and non-dangerous 

 reptiles, and is fully understood from the laws of sen- 

 sitive association. It implies a monstrous lack of judg- 

 ment to infer from such observations, that monkeys 

 possess an idea of zoological relationship. Nor does 

 this lack of critical acumen become less ridiculous from 

 the fact, that not only a Brehm, but even such men as 

 Charles Darwin were liable to it. It only shows the 

 real worth of "proofs" advanced in favor of the "descent 

 of man from the animal." 1 



More thorough psychologists who, with Emery, ac- 

 knowledge the necessity of a clear analysis of psycho- 

 logical concepts, will avow, that such proofs of animal 

 intelligence are untenable. But it is equally untenable 

 to claim that the general sense images differ from the 

 general concepts of the intellect only in degree, and not 

 in kind. We can therefore briefly sum up our points 

 of argument : 



General sense images do not exist, they are even im- 

 possible. Intelligence alone can form general concepts; 

 therefore, no spiritual power of abstraction is in question 

 in the so-called general sense images of animals. They 



l ) "The Descent of Man," I. Chapt. 3, n. Ill, 



