Feb. 3, 1882.] 



♦ KNOWLEDGE 



289 



the higher frog to be represented. For the frog, let it be 

 nmembered, is the highest type of its class ; and the 

 i\olutionist's contention is that it has ascended to that 

 place and dignity by successively rising from fish to newt, 

 and from newt to frog. The reasons for the "meta- 

 morphosis " of the frog are clear enough, on the principle 

 that development repeals descent — not always clearly, it is 

 true, and with much modification, but still plainlj- enough 

 to reveal the ways of the " becoming " of the animal 

 world. 



If it is asked, Why do not all animals show their descent 

 as clearly as does the frog '\ I reply, because their develop- 

 ment has been modified. But it is none the less true that 

 in the development of all animals we see glimpses of the 

 lines of their genealogy. The great diflerence between a 

 frog's development (or that of an insect or crustacean which 

 also undergoes " metamorphosis ") and that of, say, a fish 

 which hatches directly from the egg, consists simply in the 

 fact that the frog's development is mostly passed outside 

 the egg, whilst the lish developes within the egg. 



But it is interesting to note that the frog in itself thus 

 serves to link together groups of its own class. Thus its 

 own development — not to speak of that of the newts 

 themselves — teaches us that the newts have arisen from 

 the tish-stock, and that they represent a lower phase of 

 amphibian life than do the frogs and toads with their 

 shortened tails. Indeed, the study of the frog itself not 

 merely proves to us its own evolution, but demonstrates 

 au orderly sequence in the descent of its class — a sequence 

 wherein the newt-type followed the tish, and wherein the 

 t'rog-type, in turn, was evolved from the newt. 



Tliat some such explanation — or, at least, an explanation 

 liosed on similar grounds — is the only feasible method of 

 explaining the metamorphosis of a frog, may be stoutly 

 maintained against all comers. Evolutionists may differ 

 ii'garding tlie exact lines along which the descent pro- 

 ceeded. They do not difter regarding the main facts at 

 issue, namely, that fishes are linked to frogs in more ways 

 than one, and that the history of the frog-race, rightly 

 viewed, is really a cormecting-thre^ on which the various 

 forms of living and extinct members of its class may be 

 strung. In my next paper, I shall endeavour to trace the 

 " links " which bind birds to reptOes. 



INTELLIGENCE IN ANIMALS. 



KEPLER'S (the mastiflfs) claim to be looked upon as a 

 rea-soning dog may be regarded by some as being 

 better h>a,sed, perhaps, on what his master and mistress 

 described as actual mathematical calculations. " Kepler,' 

 says the latter, " like his great namesake, is an excellent 

 mathematician. Many distinguished men have been de- 

 lighted witli his performances in this direction. The mode 

 of procedure is this : His master tells him to sit down, and 

 shows him a piece of cake. He is then questioned, and 

 bai'ks his answers. Say he is asked what is the square root 

 of 16 or of 9 ; he will bark three or four times, as the 

 case may be. Or such a sum as '6 + 12-3 di\'ided by .5,' 

 he will always answer correctly : more prolonged calcula- 

 tions rather fatigue him. The piece of cake Ls, of course, 

 the meed of such cleverness. It must not 'be supposed 

 that in these performances any sign is consciously made by 

 his questioner. None whatever. We explain the per- 

 formance by supposing that he reads in his master's ex- 

 pression when he has barked rightly : certainly he never 

 takes his eyes from his master's face." A singxilar per- 

 formance, and one showing that some dogs possess not only 



keen vision, but keener powers of perception than most 

 men. It would, however, be a mistake to regard Kepler's 

 performance as illustrating the possession of actual reason- 

 ing power by animals. ' For certainly the calculations he 

 seemed to conduct were conducted in reality by his master. 



Tliis intelligent lUiimal showed excellent judgment when 

 a large photograjih of one of Landseers dogs (that is, a 

 photograph of a dog pictured by Landseer) was shown him. 

 He showed his perception of the painter's skill by at once 

 distinctly recognising that the photograph represented a 

 strange dog, of whom, by-the-way, he manifested decided 

 jealousy. Kepler knew the meaning of many words. He 

 recognised clearly when his master was ill, and showed at 

 such time real concern and sympathy. " He was exceed- 

 ingly kind and unselfish to a little English terrier, called 

 Tycho ' Brahe' "* (I quote again from Mrs. Huggins' 

 interesting little sketch ; only, as Kepler is dead, I change 

 the tense in these few last sentences from the present to 

 the past), " who often tried him, and to a very unamiable 

 cat, who both formed part of the household in which lie 

 dwelt. Altogether, there was in Kepler's every look, and 

 motion, and utterance, a noble and intelligent individuality 

 which endeared him to all who knew him. Much might 

 be learnt from him in many ways ; and he was indeed 

 worthy of a large share of an inclusive love — that love 

 which loveth 



' All things both gieat and small.' " 



The que.stion whether animals can count in any way, or 

 discriminate, at any rate, between different numbers, is one 

 about which different opinions have been expressed. We 

 cannot consider that the question was answered (affirma- 

 tively) by Kepler's achievements, though he seemed to do 

 more than count. On the other hand, the common opinion 

 that a bird, whose nest has been robbed of all the eggs but 

 one, is as well content with that one as with the entire set, 

 is not supported by evidence, and, indeed, seems to have 

 been devised to comfort the consciences of those who like 

 to go birds'-nesting, but might be troubled with regret for 

 the troubles of the parent birds, were it not for this 

 ingenious theory. We all i-emember the remonstrance of 

 Tom Brown, when East proposed to take all four of the 

 eggs in the nest robbed by ^Martin, " No, no ! leave one, 

 and then she won't care," said Tom. "We boys," says the 

 author, " had an idea that birds couldn't count, and were 

 quite content as long as you left one egg. I hope it is so." 

 However this may be with birds (and, on the whole, I 

 incline to think even penguins, " l)Oobies " though sailors 

 call them, have some idea of the number of their eggs), the 

 following story seems to show that dogs can count their 

 young. " To my friend. Dr. Velasquez Level, a respectable 

 physician of this city," writes M. A. Ernst, of Caracas ; 

 " and for several years a resident of the island of Mar- 

 garita, I am indebted for the following touching instance of 

 the sagacity of a bitch. Her owner, for some reason or 

 other, had destroyed all the female puppies in two suc- 

 cessive litters. On her having brought forth a third one, it 

 was found that there were but three male puppies. The bitch, 

 however, was observed to leave her whelps occasionally, and 

 to return some time after. Being followed, she was discovered 

 suckling three female puppies, which she had hidden under 

 some brushwood, undoubtedly with the intention of saving 

 them from the master's cruel hands." This, perhaps, is the 

 most striking of all the cases we have yet considered. It 

 would seem that when the female puppies of the first litter 

 were destroyed, the mother either did not recognise the 

 circumstance that all the male puppies were left, or else 



* Tycho Brahe (the dog, not the astronomer) was commonly 

 called by Dr. Hnggins, Tyko Barky. 



