766 



SCIENCE. 



[N. S. Vol. XIX. No. 489. 



American Review. The nest and framework are 

 wholly the work of the orioles themselves. They 

 tied the three sticks together, with string, in the 

 form of a triangle; they swung this triangle by 

 means of cords below the limb of a buttonwood 

 tree and fastened it there, and then built the nest 

 on their own framework. Beyond the bits of 

 thread and string which they collected about the 

 house, they received no help from any human 

 agency. (Signed) F. G. Leslie. 



Stamford, Conn., 25 April, 1904. 



Subscribed and sworn to before me this 25th 

 day of April, 1904. E. L. Scofield, 



Notary Public. 



It is hardly necessary to add that we have 

 here a simple question which can not be ridi- 

 culed by the cry of ' hunter's yarn ' or ' practi- 

 cal joke,' or befogged by the call for expert 

 testimony. It is not a question of instinct 

 or intelligence or comparative psychology, or 

 anything else to call for experts or trained ob- 

 servation. The question is, whether or not cer- 

 tain birds tied three sticks together and hung 

 them unaided from the limb of a tree. That in 

 itself is a sufficiently wonderful fact;' and 

 again I leave it to the readers of Science to 

 say whether or not I was justified in accept- 

 ing it as reasonable evidence. 



Let us hear the conclusion of the whole 

 matter. Here are certain books which, by 

 almost universal consent, are doing good in 

 the world. They arouse not only a love for 

 animals, but an intelligent interest and, if the 

 testimony of hundreds of educators is to be be- 

 lieved, a keen interest to study and understand 

 the animal life about them. They are not 

 stories, but studies, and incentives to study; 

 and if unwittingly they contain any error, the 

 error is bound to be swept away by the very 

 interest in nature study which the books them- 

 selves arouse. And here, on the other hand, 

 are a few critics, who, in the name and with the 

 authority of science, condemn the books and 

 warn an innocent public against being deceived 

 by falsehood and inventions. Now what is 

 the scientific explanation of this phenomenon? 

 By scientific I mean simply that which will 

 take into account the facts and, so far as pos- 

 sible, all the facts. The alleged facts brought 

 forward in the criticisms which appeared in 



Science are seen to be dogmatic denials mixed 

 with considerable error and misrepresentation. 

 Here are certain other facts to be duly con- 

 sidered: 



1. The books in question record hundreds of 

 observations, the great majority of which are 

 known to be true. The rest are unusual, and 

 some, indeed, seem incredible. On the other 

 hand, it may be said for the latter that we 

 know very little of the lives of the animals 

 described, and the most striking things re- 

 corded are no more incredible than scores of 

 well-authenticated instances of the intelligence 

 of dogs and cats and horses. The only ques- 

 tion, therefore, is, can we safely attribute to 

 the wild animal the same individuality that 

 we see in our domestic one? In other words, 

 are the wolf and fox less intelligent than the 

 dog, the black duck less keen than the barn- 

 yard fowl, the wild turkey and the grouse of 

 less wit than the chickens, the deer and moun- 

 tain sheep less resourceful than domestic 

 cattle? 



2. The observations recorded in the books 

 in question have been made by an experienced 

 observer who has put himself with much care 

 and patience in the position to see what he 

 describes. It is possible that he has made 

 honest mistakes in his observations; but, on 

 the other hand, those facts which have been 

 most denied, like the woodcock, have been veri- 

 fied by other observers. 



3. The author studies the living animal in 

 his native haunts and in every case writes from 

 first-hand knowledge, after long experience 

 and with unusual opportunities for observing 

 the wild creatures. The critics, with far less 

 experience or knowledge of the animals in 

 question, and with different interests, deny the 

 observations on general principles, or on the 

 ground that they have not seen them. 



4. The attacks which have been made thus 

 far are mostly ill-tempered and intemperate, as 

 far as possible from the scientific spirit which 

 they invoke. Though written in the name 

 of science, they show none of her careful, 

 painstaking methods; though their professed 

 object is truth, they do not verify their own 

 statements nor prove their accusations. The 

 attacks are generally made by men who have 



