The Elephant 33 



not used as such in the way described. That Andersson 

 was about to be seized was purely suppositious upon his 

 part, while the descent of the elephant's proboscis, with 

 such violence that it swept away large stones as if they 

 had been pebbles, was a matter of fact. The animal did 

 strike, whether he intended to do so or not, and that this 

 was not his intention is merely a guess. This story illus- 

 trates other traits also, and among these the alleged fear 

 of man. " An implanted instinct of that kind," observes 

 William J. Burchell (" Travels into the Interior of South- 

 ern Africa ") " such as all wild beasts have, their timid- 

 ity and submission, form part of that wise plan predeter- 

 mined by the Deity, for giving supreme power to him who 

 is, physically, the weakest of them all." The only objec- 

 tion to this very orthodox statement is that it is not true. 

 Man is not weaker than many wild animals, and so far as 

 "timidity and submission" go, he might have found Afri- 

 can tribes barricading their villages and sleeping in trees 

 for no other piirpose than to keep out of their way. Cau- 

 tion proceeds from apprehension, and this from an experi- 

 ence of peril. When the conditions of existence are such 

 that certain dangers persist, wariness in those directions 

 originates and becomes hereditary. Man has been the 

 elephant's constant foe, and in those places where human 

 beings were able to destroy them, these animals were 

 overawed; but otherwise not, or at least, certainly not 

 in the sense in which this assertion is generally made. 

 With regard to the conclusions — many of them directly 

 contradictory ^ which prevail concerning the elephant's 

 sense of smell, there are several circumstances which 



