Wars and Slavery in the Animal Kingdom. 47 



enters not the slightest trace of genuine intelligence, 

 but only instinctive sensitive faculties ; for, an animal, 

 that even in a state of utmost destitution is unable to 

 combine his feeling of hunger with the perception of 

 nourishment and the impulse to eat, can surely not 

 be credited with even the lowest degree of delibera- 

 tion. "A being that is physically able to eat, but has 

 lost the habit of it, is the greatest libel on animal intel- 

 ligence." 1 



Against this conclusion Dr. Smalian 2 has raised an 

 objection which we are now going to examine. He 

 believes our argumentation unsound; and asks "How 

 does Wasmann know that the Polyergus are at all able 

 to feed? The basis of his argument is in concluding 

 from the nature of the eating organs the ability to 

 eat. And he states, that he has once seen Polyergus 

 taking food independently; however, the matter is 

 doubtful; for in the case of animals which otherwise 

 never feed themselves but are always fed by others, 

 'it is impossible to know, whether the food they 

 touched was actually consumed/' 



That Smalian should make such an objection may 

 be explained only by assuming that he does not know 

 the mode of life of Polyergus from actual observa- 

 tion ; otherwise he would hardly have been led to attack 

 our argumentation. Besides, he has not reproduced 

 in full the proofs which he controverts. Indeed, it 

 was also from the anatomical structure of the mouth- 

 parts of this ant that we drew the conclusion, that no 

 organic impossibility prevented the independent feed- 



*) "Die zusammengesetzten Nester und gemischten Kolonien der 

 Ameisen," p. 204. 



2 ) "Altes und Neues aus dem Leben der Ameisen," p. 42. 



