i873-l Notices of Books. 117 



ready to grasp and save him. When used by us as a mere sign 

 of astonishment, at some strange but harmless phenomenon, it 

 has become to a great extent conventional, but the origin here 

 advocated is rendered probable by a remark of Mr. Darwin him- 

 self, that, as one of the expressions of fear, " the arms may be 

 protruded as if to avert some dreadful danger;" and among 

 savages almost every source of astonishment would excite more 

 or less fear. 



It is rather curious that an author who is not usually satisfied 

 with anything less than a real and intelligible explanation, should 

 yet be so ready, in some cases, to admit innate ideas or feelings. 

 Among the numerous, and often most interesting, observations 

 on his own children, Mr. Darwin tells us that a child six months 

 old was distressed at seeing its nurse pretend to cry. He thinks, 

 in this case, that " an innate feeling must have told him that the 

 pretended crying of his nurse expressed grief; and this, through 

 the instinct of sympathy, excited grief in him." Now, although 

 I imagined myself much more disposed to believe in innate ideas 

 than Mr. Darwin, I cannot see the necessity for them here. A 

 child at that age often cries or is distressed at any strange face, 

 or even at the sight of a friend in a strange dress. The nurse's 

 attitude and expression were strange ; they made her look unlike 

 herself, and the child got afraid, and was about to cry. That 

 seems to me a better explanation than that the child had an 

 innate knowledge that the nurse was grieved. 



Somewhat akin to this is a readiness to accept the most mar- 

 vellous conclusions or interpretations of physiologists on what 

 seem very insufficient grounds. In discussing the subject 

 of reflex action Mr. Darwin quotes the well-known experiment 

 of the decapitated frog, which is said to wipe off a drop of acid 

 from its thigh by a motion of the foot of the same leg. But if 

 this foot is cut off it makes several fruitless efforts, then stops a 

 while, as if restless and seeking some other way, and then, by 

 using the other foot, succeeds in wiping off the drop of acid. 

 Now this is imputed to pure reflex action, and not a word of 

 doubt is thrown either on the experiment or on the inference 

 from it. Yet it seems to me absolutely certain, either that the 

 experiment is not correctly recorded, or that, if correct, it demon- 

 strates volition and not reflex action. For surely reflex action 

 cannot produce, in a decapitated frog, movements which were 

 probably never once performed by the living frog. The action 

 of drawing up the leg in swimming or leaping is one which the 

 frog performs incessantly during its whole life ; it would there- 

 fore probably be performed under any suitable stimulus by reflex 

 action, and might, as a consequence of the usual motions, wipe 

 off the drop of acid from a place which the foot, during con- 

 traction, would naturally reach. But the action of crossing one 

 foot over to the thigh of the other leg is one which was very 

 rarely, if ever, performed, because during life the frog possessed 



