ON THE ANIMAL KINGDOM. 209 



both of these methods would have been equally applicable 

 with that proposed by the celebrated author of the Histoire 

 ISaturelle des Animaux sans Vertdbres. He has, indeed, 

 himself been sensible in some measure of this, as appears 

 from his later division of animals into Intelligent, Sensible, 

 and Apathetic ; where those which are vertebrated are styled 

 Intelligens, Insects and Mollusca are considered Sensibles, 

 and the Radiata and Polypes are Animaux Apathiques. 

 Without discussing the propriety of these three degrees of 

 comparison, and the perspicuity with which they are de- 

 fined, it will be sufficient to state, in order to prove that a 

 system founded on them must be erroneous, that some 

 fishes and some reptiles are as truly or even more defec- 

 tive in intelligence than are many insects ; and, on the other 

 hand, that the Cirrhipedes and many insects, such as the 

 larvae ofDiptera, are as apathetic, in Lamarck's sense of the 

 word, as any of the Intestinal worms. It is not easy to per- 

 ceive, moreover, why an Echinus ought to be considered as 

 showing less signs of life than an Ascidia, or Oyster; yet all 

 these conclusions, so contradictory to the naturalist's per- 

 sonal observation, are the direct consequences of a system 

 founded on Lamarck's scale of intelligence. 



Animals may no doubt be classed according to the de- 

 grees of intelligence which each may display ; but it is ab- 

 surd to imagine that intelligence is divisible into three sorts, 

 more than into any other number. There is nothing that 

 I am aware of which can be adduced in favour of this 

 hypothesis. It seems perfectly arbitrary, since every per- 

 son, whether naturalist or not, knows that the intelligence 

 of man is one degree, that of a horse another degree ; in short, 

 that as we can judge of intelligence only by its effects, and 

 these effects differ not only with the species but also with 



