THE EVOLUTION OF SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR 2:29 
progressive development. They prosper, while unsociable 
species decay.” 
Prince Kropotkine seems, however, to push his argument 
too far. The assertion that the fittest are the most sociable 
animals, that sociability appears as the chief factor in evolution, 
and that unsociable species decay, is not likely to be accepted 
without qualification by zoologists. What grounds have we 
for saying that the solitary wasps are less fit than the social 
wasps? Hach has a fitness according to its kind. Can it be 
maintained that the unsocial tiger is less fit than the social 
jackal ? And can it be said that tigers, which are reported 
absolutely to swarm in Java and Sumatra, exemplify the 
decay of an unsociable species? Is it seriously contended that 
the hawk, which may be successfully mobbed by a number of 
wagtails, is less fit than his more social assailants ? And are 
the unsocial raptorial birds decaying species? Such questions 
might be asked by the score. And the answer in every case 
is that the social and unsocial alike are fitted to their several 
states of life. In fact, it might be contended, with every 
whit as much if not more cogency, that sociability is nature’s 
device for enabling the weaker, and hence in themselves the 
less fit, to resist the attacks and encroachments of the stronger 
and individually fitter. Discussing the possibilities of human 
ancestry, Darwin said : * “In regard to bodily size or strength, 
we do not know whether man is descended from some com- 
paratively small species like the chimpanzee, or from one as 
powerful as the gorilla. We should, however, bear in mind 
that an animal possessing great size, strength, and ferocity, 
which, like the gorilla, could defend itself from all enemies, 
would not perhaps have become social ; and this would most 
effectually have checked the acquirement of the higher mental 
qualities, such as sympathy and the love of his fellows. Hence 
it might have been an immense advantage to man to have 
sprung from some comparatively weak creature.” 
Zoologists, again, will hardly accept without question 
Prince Kropotkine’s assertion that “life in societies is no 
* “ Descent of Man,” vol. i., p. 96. 
