210 MIND IN EVOLUTION CHAP. 



than one distinct effort. Altogether it seemed very clear 

 to me in this case that he saw what had to be done, and 

 did it. The cat's two performances, on the other hand, 

 are instructive as a contrast. In both cases it led off with 

 a random success. In the one case this success was 

 immediately utilised ; in the other it had no effect at all. 



(9). Upsetting jug or tumbler. 



One knows how a cat will get milk out of a jug, which 

 it cannot reach with its tongue, by dipping in the paw, and 

 licking it. Would a cat learn to turn a jug over and 

 pour the milk out, a thing which a monkey does as a 

 matter of course ? Or, conversely, if a tumbler or vase 

 were inverted over a piece of food, would it turn it over 

 to get the food ? With the jug, Miss G. Thring made a 

 series of experiments with her cat Teufel, the result of 

 which was somewhat anomalous. 



After experiments on five successive evenings, which had 

 resulted in complete failure, some scraps of meat were put into 

 the jug instead of milk. The cat turned the jug over accident- 

 ally with his hind leg, but was not allowed to pick up the meat. 

 He then put his paw in, and turned the jug over four times in 

 ten minutes. On the third occasion, the jug being more full, he 

 fished out the meat with his paw twice, but then, not getting 

 any more turned it over. He still refused to turn it over when 

 filled with milk instead of meat, until the ninth night, when it 

 happened that the jug was placed on a newspaper instead of a 

 plate. The cat, for some reason best known to himself, seemed 

 to think that this made an essential difference, overturned the 

 jug at once, and lapped up the milk. This was done several 

 times. After a week's interval the cat was given the jug on a 

 plate as at first, but overturned it without any hesitation. 



The interpretation of this very interesting experiment is not 

 easy. The first success with the meat may have been due to 

 the accidental overturning. If so, it was a singularly intelligent 

 application of an accident, since the cat was not allowed to get 

 the meat. From what I saw of the cat, I am more inclined to 

 think that there was not much discrimination between clawing at 

 the meat, and clawing the jug over. The other question sug- 

 gested is why the substitution of the newspaper should make any 

 difference. I cannot pretend to answer this question ; but it 

 seems clear, for whatever reason, that the cat had originally some 

 reluctance to upsetting the milk, which was overcome when he 

 once accomplished it without untoward results. 



