Uniform Standard for Comparative Animal Psychology. 141 



the solution of the other question, whether dogs, ele- 

 phants or monkeys are endowed with intelligence or not. 

 If then some of our opponents deny the legitimacy 

 of a comparison between the intelligence of insects and 

 that of higher vertebrates on the pretext that they "rep- 

 resent totally different branches of the great trunk of 

 the animal kingdom"* it looks very much like trying 

 to shirk a clear analysis of psychological concepts. But 

 we insist on equal rights for the psychological criticism 

 of all sensitive beings, and we must apply to each and 

 all of them the same critical principles. Psychic activi- 

 ties which are dubbed intelligent in the case of dogs 

 or monkeys, can and must be called intelligent in the 

 case of ants, despite the anatomical difference between 

 the eyes of ants and monkeys, or between the formation 

 of their brains. We must necessarily use the same 

 psychological standard in judging the actions of ants 

 who post sentinels, in order to guard themselves against 

 sudden hostile attacks, as we apply to monkeys who do 

 exactly the same, when they are about to pillage a 

 banana-grove. Anatomical reasons will never justify 

 anyone in dubbing one and the same action "intelli- 

 gent," when performed by monkeys, and "instinctive" 

 when performed by ants. The psychic manifestation on 

 the part of the dog that meets a dreaded rival, growls, 

 shows its teeth and gets out of the way, is fully equiva- 

 lent to that of the ant which chances to run against a 

 warrior of a hostile camp, opens her jaws in a menacing 

 manner and sneaks away from the combat. The small 



l ) Ziegler, "Naturwissenschaft und socialdemokratische Theorie" 

 (1893), p. 186. Smalian, op. cit., p. 39. Forel, "Gehirn und Seele," 

 pp. 28 and 29. 



