92 CUTHBERT COLLINGWOOD, ESQ., M.A., B.M. (OXON.), ETC. 
the hen, think, when it runs, spite of her out-cries, to the 
water? Surely it is inconceivable that in any of these cases 
thought enters at all into the matter, or that ideas present 
themselves to the respective animals’ minds in connexion 
with the operations in question. 
Now, all these are typical examples of pure instinct, and 
among those examples which most strongly call forth our 
wonder and admiration. Some of them are performed at 
once, Immediately tpon birth, and without the possibility of 
their being learned from maternal or other teaching; and 
others, although some would have ws believe them to be the 
result of teaching and observation, cannot, after a moment’s 
consideration, be seriously held as such. Thus, no one 
will surely hold that the cells of the hive are ever defec- 
tive in form or material to such an extent as to lead to the 
supposition that some were mere journey-work, while 
others were those of a master. The first web spun by a 
spider is not shown to be less perfect than those which 
follow. Nor is it imaginable that the young bird either 
observes the character of its own cradle, or takes lessons 
from its parent in the construction of its nest when its own 
pairing season arrives, Indeed we know how the maternal 
instinct, however strong during the helplessness of the brood, 
is (in most cases at least) succeeded by an dvtiotopyy, 
which impels the dam to drive away the young, when 
fledged, to shift for themselves; nevertheless, not only do 
those same young build their nests to perfection in their 
turn, but the nests from generation to generation are so 
closely similar, so characteristic of the respective species in 
form, material, and situation, that the ornithologist recognises 
the bird by its nest as infallibly as by its egg. Such state- 
ments as those I have already alluded to must be received 
with the greatest caution—for, in the first place, there is the 
evidence just referred to against such an idea,—second, it 
would be strange indeed if after all these years of observa- 
tion by ornithologists and bird-nesters, such a view could only 
now be brought forward, tentatively, as it were, by one or 
two observers, of no greater reputation than thousands of 
others—and third, the fact remains that there is at least no 
proof that birds build their nests one whit better than they — 
did a thousand years ago. A standard is acquired upon 
which it is not pretended that any improvement is made— 
whereas if any bird thought of what it was doing, it 
would introduce improvements, however sight, which would 
be added to by its successors. But naturalists are un- 
