INSTINCT AND INTELLIGENCE. 



55. A similar anecdote is related of a sub-genus of the Lamelli- 

 cornes, called the Gymnopleurus pilularius, an insect which 

 deposits its eggs in little balls of dung. One of these having 

 formed such a ball, was rolling it to a convenient place, when it 

 fell into a hole. After many fruitless efforts to get it out, the 

 insect ran to an adjacent heap of dung, where several of its fellows 

 were assembled, three of whom it persuaded to accompany it to 

 the place of the accident. The four uniting their efforts, succeeded 

 in raising the ball from the hole, and the three friends returned to 

 their dunghill to continue their labours.* 



56. It is difficult, if indeed it be possible, to explain acts like 

 these by mere instinct, without the admission of at least some 

 degree of the reasoning faculty, and some mode of intercommuni- 

 cation serving the purpose of language. If such acts were com- 

 mon to the whole species and of frequent recurrence, it might be 

 possible to conceive them the results of the blind impulses of 

 instinct; but being exceptional, and the results of individual 

 accident, they are deprived of all the characters with which by 

 common consent instinct is invested. On the contrary, there are 

 many circumstances connected with this, which indicate a sur- 

 prising degree of reason and reflection. Thus, when the insect 

 goes to seek for assistance, it does not bring back, as it might do, 

 from the swarm engaged on the dunghill, an unnecessary number 

 of assistants. It appears to have ascertained by its own fruitless 

 efforts how many of its fellows would be sufficient to raise the 

 dung-ball. To so many and no more it imparts its distress and 

 communicates its wishes ; and how can it accomplish this unless 

 we admit the existence of some species of signs, by which these 

 creatures communicate one with another ? 



57. Darwin relates, that walking one day in his garden, he per- 

 ceived upon one of the walks a sphex, which had just seized a fly 

 almost as large as itself. Being unable to carry oft' the body 

 whole, it cut off with its mandibles the head and the abdomen, 

 only retaining the trunk, to which the wings were attached. "With 

 these it flew away ; but the wind acting upon the wings of the fly, 

 caused the sphex which bore it to be whirled round, and obstructed 

 its flight. Thereupon the sphex again alighted upon the walk, 

 and deliberately cut off first one wing and then the other, and 

 then resumed its flight, carrying off its prey- 



58. The signs of intelligence as distinguished from instinct are 

 here unequivocal. Instinct might have impelled the sphex to cut 

 off the wings of the fly before attempting to carry it to its nest, 

 supposing the wings not to be its proper food ; and if the head 



* Illiger's Entomological Magazine, vol. i., p. 488. 

 138 



