ELEI'IIA VTS. 



5*7 



Intelligence. 



employment of the trunk of the Indian elephant (or all manner pi purposes, 

 Sanderson observes thai "the idea that be can use it for any purpose, Prom 

 picking up a needle to dragging a piece of ordnance bom a, bog, la, like many 

 others, founded entirely on imagination An elephant might manage the Conner 

 feat, though I doubt it; the latter he would not attempt, Elephants engaged in 

 ■uch work as dragging timber, invariably take tin: rope between their teeth; they 

 never attempt to pull a heavy weight with the trunk. In carrying a light lo^, 



they hold it in the mouth as a doe; doea a stick, receiving .some little assistance in 

 balancing it from the trunk. Tuskers fjencrally use their tusks for this ami 

 similar purposes, and are more valuable than females for work. An elephant Ifl 

 powerful enough to extricate a cannon from a, difficult situation, but he does it by 

 poshing with his head or feet, or in harness— never by lifting or drawing with 

 his trunk." 



An equal degree of misapprehension is prevalent BJ to the 

 intelligence of elephants, at least so far as the Indian species is 

 Concerned; and all competent observers who have hud much practical experience 

 of these animals are, of opinion that their iiit.elleet.mil faculties have been greatly 

 Overrated in popular estimation. It is true, that when in captivity the Indian 



elephant exhibits a marvellous docility and obedience, and is also capable ( ,f 

 learning to perform certain kinds of labour, each as stacking logs of timber, which 

 at first sight appear to demand a considerable amount of Intellectual power. 



There is here, however, a considerable amount of confusion, as Mr. Blanford 



remarks, between high intelligence and mere docility and capacity for receiving 



instruction; and there can be little doubt that the usefulness of the elephant is 

 due. t.o the. latter rather than to the former trait. Indeed, the size and structure of 

 tie- brain is quite sufficient to prove that the intellectual capacity of elephants is 

 far inferior to that of dogs, and is probably below that of most other Ungulates. 



This view of their intelligence is strongly Confirmed by the circumstance that 

 elephants, in spite of many statements to the contrary, are wanting in originality, 

 and do not rise to the occasion when confronted by any sudden emergency OX 



event beyond tie- range of tleir ordinary daily experience. As Sir Samuel Hakci 



pertinently observes, an elephant "can be educated to perform certain acts, but he 

 would never volunteer his services. There is no elephant that I ever saw who 

 would spontaneously interfere to save his master from drowning or from attack 

 An enemy might assassinate you at the feet of your favourite elephant, but he 

 would never attempt to interfere in your defence : he would probably run away, 

 main impassive, unless guided and instructed by his mahout. This is incon 



ble; the elephant will do nothing useful unless he is specially ordered to 



it.ain work or- movement." At the same time, in addition to its 



capacity for receiving instruction, an elephant undoubtedly appears to have a very 



retentive memory, both for acts of kindness and of cruelty; and this has doubtli I 

 partly contributed to icter for general intelligence. 



In this connection it may be. observed that the Indian species, a t any rate, 

 differs from all other mammals in the readiness with which it may be tamed and 

 domesticated when fully adult; nearly all those which are captured in India being 



fully mat 



