Mat 6, 1887 J 



8CIEJSCE. 



439 



How, in the light of these extracts, Science can 

 say, ' ' We can find in Dr. Mills's address no evidence 

 that he has ever given them [Professor Morgan's 

 views] any consideration," it is difficult for me to 

 understand. 



Now, Professor Morgan bases his belief in the mind 

 of the lower animals on, 1°, "f^e justification by 

 results. We habitually act towards our four-footed 

 friends as if they were conscious beings, with results 

 which point to the correctness of our hypothesis." 

 2". " The justification based on evolution. Animals 

 have inherited brain-structures in many respects 

 similar to those possessed by man, and there is no 

 reason for supposing that in them no psychoses run 

 parallel or are identical with their neuroses." Now, 

 the whole tenor of my paper shows that I have 

 adopted a similar line of reasoning. 



It will be f)erceived that up to this point Professor 

 Morgan and myself are very much in accord. The 

 difficulty which Professor Morgan feels in regard to 

 all our knowledge of minds other than oiir own is 

 one that occurred to me many years ago with great 

 force. The views expressed in the address now 

 under consideration were penned months before I 

 had read Professor Morgan's paper in Mind ; and it 

 was with much gratification that I found my own 

 opinions, formed independently, shared by so able a 

 thinker. Professor Morgan's position may be logi- 

 cally impregnable ; but while there is need for the 

 greatest caution in regard to the ' eject' we form, it 

 seems to me impossible for one, at least, who believes 

 in the evolution of mind, to agree with Professor 

 Morgan, "that our ejective inferences concerning 

 their motives, minds, and characters, are so largely 

 liable to error as to render the drawing of them 

 unprofitable for purposes of scientific investigation, 

 except in so far as they may aid the objective study 

 of habit and activity." 



Professor Morgan defines intelligent actions as 

 ' ' those which are performed by the individual, in 

 virtue of his individuality ; in special adaptation to 

 special circumstances." Now, is it possible to under- 

 stand this adaptation at all except by some sort of 

 'eject'? Professor Morgan's views, if pressed, 

 strike at the root of all psychology as a science. 

 There is great need of such caution, as he and I my- 

 self have urged ; but the belief is irresistible that the 

 inner life of the lower animals is not totally and 

 radically different from our own. 



It seems to me the whole difference between Pro- 

 fessor Morgan and those who would, like myself, be 

 a little less conservative as to the ' eject,' is that of 

 mere quantum ; and, as psychology does not admit 

 of exact weighings and measurings, in the present 

 state of knowledge it cannot be expected that men 

 will agree as to how far we shall be justified in using 

 the ejective method. But of one thing I am fully 

 convinced, that the study of the psychology of the 

 lower animals cannot but improve the highest, 

 whether he considers himself of them or apart from 

 them. 



In conclusion, I think it will now appear that 

 Science, Professor Morgan, and myself are much 

 more in harmony than was supposed. 



T. Wesley Mills. 

 Montreal, April 23. 



[We print Dr. Mills's lucid communication with 

 much pleasure. He brings out very clearly the fact 

 which we did not gather from the reading of the ad- 

 dress in question, namely, that he has not only read 



but carefully weighed Professor Morgan's argument. 

 We still think, however, that this fact is not readily 

 inferrible from the original address without the em- 

 phasis of the present letter. — En.] 



The relations of the International geological 

 congress to geological workers. 



A very wide-spread misapprehension exists of the 

 purposes of the International geological congress 

 which is to hold its fourth session in London next 

 year, as well as of the definite steps it has taken in 

 the way of recommendations to geologists. 



In order to throw some light on the matter, the 

 following list has been prejaared, which includes all 

 the points upon which the congress has expressed a 

 decided opinion. It ought to be remembered that 

 this congress has not any interest in maintaining this 

 or that theory, but has been organized by geologists, 

 of geologists, and for geologists (to slightly alter 

 Lincoln's noble definition of our republic). 



It has no authority but that of the influence of the 

 large number of eminent geologists who either com- 

 pose it or support its conclusions ; yet when one 

 considers the advantages which must result from 

 agreeing upon a common scientific language (written 

 and spoken) whereby widely separated observations 

 may be made comparable, and may be utilized by 

 persons of any nation as soon as they appear in 

 print, to add to their own observations, and thus 

 form base lines from which to triangulate to new 

 generalizations, it does not seem to be a fatal ob- 

 jection to these recommendations either that they 

 have not attained perfection, or that it may be found 

 desirable with later experience to modify them. 



It is apparent from the modest number of decided 

 preferences which the congress has yet expressed, 

 that it will not be difficult for any geologist to adapt 

 to its large framework any provisional scheme which 

 he may prefer. It is only those having strongly de- 

 fined prejudices in antagonism to the broadest gen- 

 eralizations generally acceisted among geologists, 

 who will have any difficulty in joining in the ac- 

 ceptance of the recommendations of the congress. 



1. The congress voted (solely for the purpose of 



bringing out the map) that a gray color should 

 be provisionally chosen, of which different 

 tints should be applied to the carboniferous and 

 Permian (Report of Amer. com., p. 20, ^3). 



2. Solely for the purpose of printing the European 



map, the committee on the map was authorized 

 to select a color for the Silurian (Cambrian in- 

 clusive), but this choice was not to affect the 

 scientific question connected with the classifica- 

 tion at all {Ibid., p. 21, Tf 1). 



3. The eruptive rocks were to be represented by seven 



tints, ranging from dark to light red {Ibid., p. 

 21, 113). 



4. The solution of other questions which might 



arise in the construction of the map were left to 

 the committee on the map (Ibid., p. 21, If 4). 



5. The congress decided that ' Archaean ' should be 



the term applied to the group preceding the 

 paleozoic (Ibid., p. 23, ^2). 



6. The congress agreed to abandon Protogine as a 



division of rocks {Ibid., p. 23, ^ 10). The di- 

 vision of the Cambrian and Silurian was post- 

 poned till the congress at London. 



7. The upper limit of the Devonian was placed at 



the base of the carboniferous limestone, that is 

 to say, that the system comprises the psammites 



