INSTINCT AND REASON. 117 
By the Rev. W. Guzsr, F.G.S.— Dr. Collingwood has laid us 
under much obligation by his powerful arguments in relation to 
a current controversy. We may rest confident that the teaching 
of extreme evolutionists in their contention that the difference 
is one of degree only between the intellectual perception of man 
and the lower animals cannot be sustained. They are driven 
to this assumption; it is the necessity of their position, and will 
assuredly end in their discomfiture. The reaction is setting in 
strongly on the part of members of their own school, and Dr. 
Collingwood has done much to strengthen their protest. Neverthe- 
less, we shall weaken our cause by imitating their positiveness. 
We lose nothing by acknowledging the mysteries that still shroud 
the boundaries of Instinct and Reason. Many of our members 
will hesitate to adopt the language of the author of the paper, and 
affirm that ‘Thought is aboriginally wanting in all the animal 
races ;”’ nor will they be prepared to say that there is not “the 
remotest capability for the crucial endowment of speech” (pp. 98 
and 99); and while firmly holding that the instinct of animals 
differs from the reason of man in “kind,” they will be unable to 
withhold from animals an ability of adaptation of actions to the 
ends sought, which implies more than is found in the unguided 
steps of the somnambulist (p. 101). 
