Mar., 1921 THE BIOGRAPHY OF NIP AND TUCK 45 
teen years of ineffectual training (or of nagging) will slough off like an old 
pupa skin and the urge finally come from within? 
Another great source of friction between the generations, and a thorn of 
tribulation for both, is table manners. Would the twins learn to eat properly? 
How the educator did labor with his adopted offspring only to find that his 
efforts went for nought. For three weeks they were fed with medicine drop- 
per and tweezers. The subjects performed most dutifully. They came to the 
finger at ‘‘mess eall’’, opened their mouths, and gulped their portions in proper 
bird fashion. Then, all at once, Nip refused this infantile treatment and would 
not open his beak. He was not the victim of green apples nor of eating be- 
tween meals, for, when the food dropped from the tweezers, Nip picked it up 
and made his meal man fashion. The time had come to put away childish 
things and they were put away. He was never again fed by hand. Now, although 
she was born at the same time as Nip, little Miss Tuck was always a goodly 
bit behind him in development of her instincts. Despite the splendid example 
of the precocious Nip and the labored efforts of the foster parent, who felt 
that his most tedious task should be at an end, Tuck refused to pick up her 
food. The table would be set before the two and Nip would piunge in with 
boy-like exuberance, bent solely upon the engulfing process. Tuck would sec 
the food and recognize it, would open her mouth and beg, seemingly entreating 
it to come and satisfy her craving. The tweezers would pick up morsels and 
dangle them before her and she would follow the movement with open mouth), 
but never, unless the lining of the beak was touched, would she seem to get 
the proper stimulus for taking food. For five days this ineffectual effort ai 
educaticn continued, then the proper instinct ripened as it had in Nip, ané 
Tuck picked up her own food. The ripening, however, was incomplete and for 
three weeks at the beginning of each meal she continued to beg to be fed. 
I wonder why we parents of human young are so intolerant of the petty 
bickerings that arise between children—children, too, who are really fond of 
each other. A distracted mother or even the less intimately associated but 
short-memoried father, may wonder where, in their long line of respectable an- 
cestors, those children picked up so much quarrelsomeness. We worry about 
such things. On the other hand, how cunning are little puppies, or above all 
things, little bear cubs! They tussle and growl and chew at each other as they 
roll and scuffle in the straw. We laugh at them. Is not the cub quarrel due 
to the natural development of individuality, the birth of the ego? At any rate 
it seems to come in the natural course of events in cubs, human or otherwise. 
The tendency should be recognized even though society demand that it be 
eurbed. Nip and Tuck, being normal infants, developed the quarrel instinct at 
the proper time in their history. There was nothing to quarrel over, there was 
plenty of perch room and plenty of food—yes, and plenty of plebeian ‘‘human 
nature ”’, or animal nature, taking its natural course. All at once the eombat- 
ive instinct appeared and they quarreled over nothing. As Uncle Remus 
would say, ‘“Dey quarr’] ’an quarr’]’ jes like folks.’’ Here was good evidence 
that Nip and Tuck were developing normally and the foster parent rejoiced 
in that normality. The quarrels didn’t last long and they were so fascinatinegly 
human. > 
Again the fond and sometimes censurable parent takes pride in the lack 
of self-consciousness of its offspring. The child is taught all manner of ‘‘eute 
tricks’’ which it performs that the older folk may be politely amused. Final- 
