ANIMAL INTELLIGENCE. Sj 



judgment and comparison; it includes imitation in our nan uw 

 sense of transferred association ; it obtains where no impulse is 

 included ; it thus takes frequently the form of lon^ trains of 

 thought ending in no pleasure-giving act ; its elements are often 

 loose, existing independently of the particular association ; the 

 association is not only thought, but at the same time thought 

 adouL None of these statements may be truthfully made of 

 animal association. Only a small part of human association is 

 at all comparable to it. My opinion of what that small part is 

 has already been given. Moreover, further differences will be 

 found as we consider the data relating to the delicacy, com- 

 plexity, number, and permanence of associations in animals. 

 I said a while ago that man was no more an animal with lan- 

 guage than an elephant was a cow with a proboscis. We may 

 safely broaden the statement and say that /nan t's not an animal 

 ■plus reason. It has been one great purpose of this investiga- 

 tion to show that even after leaving reason out of account, there 

 are tremendous differences between man and the higher ani- 

 mals. The problem of comparative psychology is not only to 

 get human reason from some lower faculties, but to get human 

 association from animal association. 



Our analysis, necessarily imperfect because the first at- 

 tempted, of the nature of the association-process in animals is 

 finished and we have now to speak of its limitations in respect 

 to delicacy, complexity, number and permanence. 



Delicacy of Associations. 



It goes without saying that the possible delicacy of asso- 

 ciations is conditioned by the delicacy of sense-powers. If an 

 animal doesn't feel differently at seeing two objects, it cannot 

 associate one with one reaction, the other with another. An 

 equally obvious factor is attention ; what is not attended to wdl 

 not be associated. Beyond this there is no a priori reason why 

 an animal should not react differently to things varying only 

 by the most delicate difference, and I am inclined to think an 

 animal could ; that any two objects with a difference appreciable 

 by sensation which are also able to win attention may be re- 

 acted to differentlv. Experiments to show this are very tedious 



