230 Animal Intelligence 
80, and ro times) in two cases (QQ (chute) and RR (wood 
plug). The act was unlike the one taught him in the former 
case. 
| In only one case (bolt at top) out of eight was there pos- 
sibly any attempt at the act after he had been put through 
which had not been made before. The ‘yes or ?’ in the 
table with RR was a case occurring after the imitation of me 
but before the putting No. 1 through} 
Out of 6 cases where he had himself failed, No. 3 suc- 
ceeded (after being put through 113, 23, 20, 10, 10, 20 and 10 
times) in 3 cases (chute bar, push down and bar inside). 
The act was dissimilar in all three cases, bearing absolutely 
no resemblance in one case. There was no unsuccessful 
attempt at the act taught him in any of the cases. With 
the chute he did finger the bar after tuition where he had 
not done so before, but it was probably an accidental result 
of his holding his hand out toward it for me to take as he had 
formed the habit of doing. In the case of box Epsilon 
(push down), with which he succeeded by pushing his hand 
in above the lever (an act which though unlike that taught 
him might be by some considered to be due to an idea 
gained from the tuition), he failed entirely after further 
tuition (15 times). 
Like the dogs and cats, then, the monkeys seemed ynable 
to learn to do things from being put through them. We 
may now examine those which they did do of themselves be- 
fore tuition and ask whether they learned the more rapidly 
thereby or modified their behavior in ways which might be 
due to the tuition.! There are too few cases and no chance 
for comparison on the first point ; on the second\the records 
are unanimous in showing no change in the method of oper- 
ating the mechanisms due to the tuition: 
As in Table 9, figures followed by F mean that in that 
