November 21, 1901] 



NA TURE 



51 



have that of Dr. S. W. Williston upon another species, A. 

 yarro'U'i, and still later, in the summer of 1899, the present 

 writer and three others observed the same thing in a 

 large species of Ammophila (propably A. sabulosa) at 

 St. Helens, Isle of Wight. The latter observation fol- 

 lowed very closely the account given by Dr. Williston. 

 After the wasp had placed the larva in the burrow and, 

 as was subsequently ascertained, laid an egg upon it, she 

 seized, not a pebble, as in Dr. Williston's case, but a 

 piece of peat or fibrous root, and forced it into the hole. 

 The object of this was undoubtedly to act as a plug and 

 prevent the earth from falling into the cell where the 

 larva lay. Then earth was thrown upon the plug and after 

 this an angular fragment of brick, which needed some 

 effort to force into the tube ; then more earth and a final 

 raking of the surface and scattering of twigs, &c., 

 which obliterated all traces of disturbance. The piece 

 of brick seemed to be in the nature of a burglar-proof 

 door rather than a smoothing or pounding apparatus, in 

 this particular instance. The soil was dry and sandy 

 and perhaps did not need such special methods. .\t a 

 previous stage the wasp acted as if with intelligence in 

 dragging the larva into the burrow and then very rapidly 

 out again in order to enlarge it still further. But this 

 action is also in all probability the outcome of a nervous 

 system built through heredity which impels the wasp to 

 bury the larva in such a manner as to provide food and 

 space for the wasp's growing ofifspring. The instinct 

 requires a trial for its complete fulfilment. The evidence 

 required to prove intelligent behaviour would be the 

 observation that the wasp e.xcavated more accurately and 

 needed fewer trials with her prey, as, in the course of her 

 life, " the nervous system developed through use." But 

 any such evidence is as unlikely as that the other wasps 

 should require experience to build their combs with 

 e.xactness. We are dealing, in insects, with animals 

 which commonly require to do various elaborate acts 

 each but once in a lifetime, and thus always " prior to 

 individual experience." The behaviour which leads to 

 the production of an elaborate cocoon or the burial of a 

 larva in its earthen cell is clearly instinctive, and the 

 most convincing evidence is required in order to prove 

 that certain insects which perform the same elaborate 

 act many times in their lives are guided by anything 

 except the compulsion of a "nervous system built 

 through heredity.'' 



The experiments and conclusions upon the intelligent 

 behaviour of the higher vertebrates are most convincing. 

 They are introduced by a clear statement of the essential 

 nature of rational behaviour and the wide difference 

 which separates it from intelligent behaviour. The 

 attempt made by the author and Dr. Thorndike (pp. 153, 

 154) to set forth the mental condition of one of the 

 higher animals is deeply interesting. Dr. Thorndike's 

 " animal consciousness" sometimes felt during swimming 

 will appeal to many as a very real experience, when 



" one feels the water, the sky, the birds above, but 

 with no thoughts about them or memories of how 

 they looked at other times, or aesthetic judgments 

 about their beauty ; one feels no ideas about what move- 

 ments he will make, but feels himself make them, feels 

 his body throughout. .Self-consciousness dies away. 

 Social consciousness dies away. The meanings, and 



NO. 1673, VOL. 65] 



values, and connections of things die away. One feels 

 sense-impressions, has impulses, feels the movements he 

 makes ; that is all." 



In the discussion upon the evolution of intelligent 

 behaviour a most interesting and ingenious experiment 

 made by the author is recorded. The close resemblance 

 between specially protected species was explained by 

 Fritz Muller in 1879 by the hypothesis that life was saved 

 during the education of young and inexperienced 

 enemies when the number of colours and patterns was 

 few. Thus one appearance under this hypothesis may 

 serve as a warning for many species, and it is not neces- 

 sary for enemies to test more than a certain proportion 

 of the species in order henceforth to avoid the whole. 

 Prof. Lloyd Morgan made the following experiment in 

 the attempt to discover whether the behaviour of a pos- 

 sible enemy is such as the MuUerian hypothesis assumes. 



" Strips of orange and black paper were pasted beneath 

 glass slips, and on them meal moistened with quinine 

 was placed. On other plain slips meal moistened with 

 water was placed. The young birds [chicks] soon learnt 

 to avoid the bitter meal, and then would not touch plain 

 meal if it were offered on the banded slip. And these 

 birds, save in two instances, refused to touch cinnabar 

 caterpillars [with black and orange bands], which were 

 new to their experience. They did not, like other birds, 

 have to learn by particular trials that these caterpillars 

 are unpleasant. Their experience had already been 

 gained through the banded glass slips ; or so it seemed. 

 1 have also found that young birds who had learnt to 

 avoid cinnabar caterpillars left wasps untouched. Such 

 observations must be repeated and extended. But they 

 seem to show that one aspect of the Miillerian theory is 

 not without some facts in support of it ; and, so far as 

 they go, they afford evidence that black and orange 

 banding, irrespective of particular form, may constitute 

 a guiding generic feature in the conscious situation." 



This evidence is of especial interest to the student of 

 mimicry, particularly to the present writer, who ventured 

 to suggest {Proc. Zool. Soc, 1887, p. 235) a Miillerian 

 association between the cinnabar larva and the wasp. 



In the account of " Miillerian mimicry" (p. 164) the 

 hasty reader might infer that Dr. Fritz Miiller had 

 depended on ]\Ir. Frank Finn's observations upon birds, 

 observations made after Miiller's death and about twenty 

 years after the publication of his hypothesis. A reference 

 to the publication, from which a sentence is quoted, would 

 prevent any possible misconception. 



Want of space prevents any discussion of the remain- 

 ing chapters, which are full of interest. Prof. Groos' 

 theory of animal play as a preparation for the serious 

 business of life is explained in a luminous manner 

 (pp. 248 et sqg.), so that the reader will gain a perfectly 

 clear idea of one of the most important of recent con- 

 tributions to Darwinian theory. Dr. Louis Robinson 

 published an outline of this idea the year before Prof. 

 Groos' work appeared. Thus in the Reports of the 

 British Association for 1894, p. 778, the abstract of Dr. 

 Robinson's paper to Section H contains these words : — 



" It is found that in young apes, puppies, and other 

 like animals, the most ticklish regions correspond to the 

 most vulnerable spots in a fight. In the mock fights of 

 immaturity, skill in defending these spots is attained." 



.\nd Prof. Lloyd Morgan himself had written still 

 earlier on the same subject {Atahinla, January 1889). 



