112 CUTHBERT COLLINGWOOD, ESQ., M.A., B.M. (OXON.), ETC. 
not know how far the second of these -two factors may be 
increased at the expense of the first” (Mental Evolution, 
p- 46). But does Mr. Romanes mean to infer that the minute 
mass of the bee’s or ant’s brain is compensated by structure 
to a degree sufficient to account for their so-called intelli- 
gence? Because, if so, why cannot, in the first place, the 
superiority of structure be pointed out, or in some manner 
indicated, by the micro-physiologist ? 
I have before me Swammerdam’s drawing of the dissected 
brain (or cephalic ganglion) of the bee, which well details 
the cortical substance communicating on either side (within) 
with the cord (which itself forms a loop posteriorly, and 
then gives origin to the first ganglion of the body), while 
the distal surface of the cortical substance is connected 
with the cortical fibres of the eyes ; which again lie trans- 
versely under the membranes which support the pyramidal 
fibres (of the eye). We do not mean to affirm that Swam- 
merdam gives all that the microscope would now detect; 
but we may safely surmise that the highest powers of the 
modern microscope would give no clue to the power which 
exists in that tiny mass “for the carrying out of the 
wondrously complicated social economy of the hive. 
And, in the second place, if superiority of neural structure 
compensates in these minute-brained animals for mass, what 
becomes of the doctrine of mental evolution? If the ant or 
the bee, members of the order Articulata, are so vastly 
superior in the structure of their brains to animals greatly 
higher in the scale of organisation, what law of evolution or 
natural selection can be formulated to account for such an 
anomaly ? 
Again, take the brain of any animal in the Mammalian ranks, 
and compare it with that of Man; can the cerebral physiolo- 
gist determine wherein lies the vast superiority of the human 
brain ? We are assured that the brain of Man differs less 
from that of a chimpanzee than the chimpanzee’s does from 
that of a pig. But who does not see that the braim-mani- 
festations of a pig and a chimpanzee are far nearer akin than 
are those of a chimpanzee anda Man. But if these facts do 
not justify us in forming strong a priori conclusions concern- 
ing the relations of intelligence to mere size or mass of brain, 
yet they do seem to justify as in the conclusion that, while 
the brain is universally (and no less so by mental evolu- 
tionists) regarded as the organ of mind, yet nevertheless, the 
vast distinctions or gaps in psychical manifestations are not 
to be accounted for at all on any known physiological 
