300 MIND IN EVOLUTION CHAP. 



"When I was at the Diocesan College near Capetown, a 

 retriever, Scamp, used to come and sit with the lecturers at 

 supper. He despised bread, but used to get an occasional bone, 

 which he was not, however, allowed to eat in the hall. He took 

 it to the door and stood there till it was opened for him. On 

 one occasion he heard outside the excited barking of the other 

 dogs. He ran round the hall, picked up a piece of bread which 

 one of the boys had dropped, and stood with it in his mouth at 

 the door. When it was opened, he dropped the bread and raced 

 off into the darkness to join the other dogs." 1 



The associationist's explanation of this piece of craft 

 must evidently be cumbrous. He must plead that the dog 

 had got accustomed to connect being let out with having 

 something in his mouth, and that now, wanting to be let 

 out, the familiar associate turned up. But in ordinary 

 circumstances, the dog had a bone, and not bread ; he 

 wanted to eat, and not to get out ; he did not drop his 

 food ; and so forth. In short, the circumstances are as 

 different as possible, except in regard to the particular 

 relation between taking food in his mouth and getting out, 

 which happens to serve the dog's purpose. The ordinary 

 associations were not present. But out of past experience, 

 the animal picks a way of satisfying its desires. The 

 practical judgment is not independent of associations, for 

 association supplies the whole of its material. But out of 

 that material, it selects what it wants, and shapes it as 

 required. 



As more observers and experimentalists enter the field, 

 it should be possible to cover the ground now left to 

 casual observation in a more systematic manner. In the 

 meantime, if by a self-denying ordinance we restrict our- 

 selves entirely to laboratory experiments and to the 

 comparatively few observations which have been made 

 consecutively, like those of Dr. Wesley Mills, we shall 

 have to draw a marked line between the apes and the 

 lower mammals, 2 allowing to the former a power of 

 combining the results of experience which is not provable 

 for the latter. If, however, taking the whole evidence 



1 Lloyd Morgan, Comparative Psychology, p. 95. 



2 Though even here we should not forget Mr. Cole's raccoons. 



