186 LOLA 



for her to think of these psycho-olfactory theories 

 perhaps without knowing it even before the experi- 

 ments. Therefore, the experiments themselves would 

 always be perfectly " genuine," but of course this 

 genuineness is of a different sort to what she thought it. 



To conclude, the supporters of the new zoopsy- 

 chology must not complain if the views which I have 

 set out above help in course of time to oust their 

 " point of view." It seems to me that even while 

 robbing the " thinking " animals of some of the 

 intelligence attributed to them, and while regarding 

 what remains as qualitatively different from human 

 intelligence (e.g. through the much greater interference 

 of subconscious factors), we are still free to find the 

 animals to be perhaps even more interesting than before. 



I am quite conscious of the fact that the " cases " 

 are still few for theories to be built upon ; and some 

 may think that I might have done better by reporting 

 them simply without attempting any explanation 

 whatever. However, I believe, that if as the result 

 of my work the recognition of the internal weakness 

 of certain hypotheses especially in the psychological 

 field is generally recognized, it will not be so harmful 

 to have put forward some suggestions for dealing with 

 facts which have already been, or will be, established. 



I have accordingly tried to do so, but I shall always 

 be ready to modify my views if new facts should 

 persuade me that this is necessary. 



Postscript. Professor G. C. Ferrari has published an 

 article on Lola in Rivista de Psicologia, 1920, i. His 

 explanation corresponds in many points with my own. 



