464 
Animal Intelligence. 
Editor Forest and Stream: 
It is a pleasure to read and reply to fair and intelligent 
criticism such as characterizes the letter of Coahoma 
in your issue of Oct. 29. He more nearly confines him- 
self to the exact issue under discussion than any of your 
correspondents. 
Some show a desire to run off from the question of 
the origin of instincts, and to take up and discuss the 
question whether or not animals possess reason. I 
never raised any such issue, and I have not myself any 
disposition to try and draw any line between instinct 
and reason. Neither fact nor argument, upon either side 
of that question, cuts the least figure in that which I 
have been discussing. Let me state it once more: Is 
chance the centrifugal force of nature? Has all her 
variety resulted from chance variations of a few original 
types, the question arose over a statement that shy 
trout and t wild ducks were the progeny of parents who 
had been snagged or crippled, but survived. This 
raised the broader question above stated. My position 
was that some intelligence— not chance— presided over 
all development, including the acquisition of instincts. 
To illustrate by the development of the venom fang 111 
certain serpents. A non-venomous snake once began to 
secrete a venomous saliva which proved useful to him. 
He did not begin by accidentally secreting sugar, salt, oil, 
rosewater, aleohol and a thousand miscellaneous drugs 
and chemicals, until, by a happy chance, he hit upon a 
venom exactly adapted and proportioned to his wants. 
But, by some intelligence, the right thing was produced 
at the right spot and in the right amount, I called that 
a blue print method of development, not a chance 
method. And now comes Coahoma, and without tak- 
ing direct issue with either, my argument or the facts 
adduced, and frankly accepting the issue, he confronts 
me with an example, a dilemma and a hypothesis. Let 
us first consider the example; 
The acorn, with a long cup, which floats in the water 
and survives' overflows, is merely one case of a selected 
breeding of a desirable type. In my first article I 
wrote: 'T am not denying the value of cross-breeding 
and selection in producing the highest possible develop- 
ment of all natural instincts, abilities or powers, or any 
natural variations of any physicial form. For instance, 
by selection we may breed a variety of dogs with very 
short tails. But we will never accomplish it by ampu- 
tating the tails." So, by selection, we may breed longer 
or shorter cups on acorns. But that fact cuts no figure 
in the question whether the first cup on the first acorn 
was a sort of wart or accidental excrescence, or whether 
it was, from the very first, a useful organ, evidencing 
intelligent design in its structure, function and location. 
That is the question we are discussing. 
I do not see anv warts or accidental excrescences in 
nature anywhere. If her whole centrifugal force were 
merely a disposition to break out into warts, we could 
surely always find a few in evidence, not yet accidentally 
converted into useful organs, such as cups on acorns, or 
perhaps 'heads and limbs on animals. So the example 
of the over-cup acorn seems to me to cut no figure. 
Next, let me encounter the dilemma. It is in the 
form of a conclusion to which Coahoma states that my 
argument must lead me— to wit, that "a supreme ruler 
of the universe manages all minute details in the 
development of organized life by his own intel- 
ligent direction on this globe of ours, and planet- 
ary system of our sun, as well as those of a 
hundred millions of other suns." To this I would 
reply, first, that no more here than m geometry can 1 
deny 'the force of sound argument wherever the conclu- 
sion may point. But in this case the dilemma pre- 
sented seems to me entirely imaginary. I can recognize 
"blue print methods" in nature's development, and draw 
no further conclusion than that some intelligence is pres- 
ent. Many other theories of the mystery of life and ex- 
istence are possible beside the one which Coahoma 
indicates. 
I recognize the existence of intelligence, as I do that 
of matter; without being able to say whence either 
came, or whither it goes, or what it all means, or to tell 
anything more about either than simply that I see satis- 
factory evidence of its existence. So the dilemma be- 
comes but a phantasm. As in matters mathematical, we 
need to go as far as demonstration will carry us, but 
there is no need to go further. 
Next, let us wrestle with the Hypothesis. It deserves 
the big H, for, as Coahoma frankly permits to appear, it 
is the sole refuge of those philosophers who maintain 
that chance alone has presided over the development of 
nature. It is supposed to be iron-clad, and impenetrable 
by logic of any weight or caliber. Let me present it 
carefully and fairly. 
I argued that it is as impossible to conceive of chance 
producing the world which we see about us as to con- 
ceive of a newspaper being produced by a change mixture 
of type, picked up, for instance, at random by a blind 
man and set up in forms. For the coincidences and 
adjustments, in any single natural object, seem to me 
as infinitely numerous and as delicate as the coincidences 
and adjustments of type in many printed pages. But 
now comes the Hypothesis. Let the blind man have 
eternity to work in and he will produce the newspaper! 
Let chance have eternity and it will produce the world! 
I quote Coahoma's own language, to wit: "Mr. Alex- 
ander's necessity for his blue-print theory arises from 
his failure to avail himself of that unlimited credit in 
the commodity of time which all philosophers are per- 
mitted to draw upon in the great bank of eternity. In 
other words— granted time enough as a fulcrum and 
Mr. Darwin's lever is fully capable of lifting the proto- 
zoan into man." As I read Coahoma's paper, he is not 
himself, I think, satisfied with this hypothesis, logical 
as it may seem, but he projects it at me rather to see 
what I would say about it. 
I might raise the question whether or not the blind 
man and chance would not each still be less than half- 
way through his task, but there is a more effective 
argument already set forth in my former letters. The 
argument for chance is based upon one indispensable 
premise. This is that characteristics acquired during 
the life experiences of an individual must be trans- 
mitted to its subsequent progeny. The advocates ot 
the chance theory must all support this proposition, and 
it has been thoughtlessly accepted by the majority ol 
readers for a generation back. It was that which led to 
my first letter. 
The most delightful and lovable people, like Mr. 
Mather, were accepting that barren, narrow, illogical 
theory that three crippled grandparents can pull na- 
ture's great centripetal force, heredity, from its grooves, 
and impress new directions upon it. Not only were they 
losing all appreciation of nature's beauty and mystery, 
but they were believing a theory as directly contradicted 
by every-day facts as are the popular beliefs about the 
influence of the moon on the weather and the crops. 
For the premise that acquired characteristics are in- 
herited cannot be proven. The most careful and ac- 
curate tests certainly show that heredity (as I expressed 
it in my last letter) is verv. very hard, if not absolutely 
impossible, on trigger to ordinary life experiences. 
But for it to be even simply not easy on trigger is 
to destroy the premise for the great iron-clad Hypo- 
thesis, It has no leg to stand on if accidental 
impressions upon individuals usually fail to impress 
their subsequent progeny. This fact is put beyond 
doubt by the monumental tests afforded by numerous 
national and religious mutilations, such as compression 
of the feet by the Chinese, of the skull by certain In- 
dians, and others referred to in my last letter. 
Here I might leave the matter, but one other popu- 
lar argument of the chance theorists remains which no 
correspondent has yet advanced, but which some one 
probably soon will. As I would like to make this my 
final remonstrance with them, I will state it. 
One objection to chance as the centrifugal force of na- 
ture, which I noted in my first letter, was based upon 
her ''endless gallery of exquisite sculpture and painting." 
Indeed to any, observant mind the art in nature's infinite 
beauty of form and color calls as loudly for intelligence 
as having some part in its production, as the intricacy 
and delicacy of her wonderful machinery does. The 1 
hypothesis of chance, with eternity to work in, was 
supposed to be a sufficient substitute for intelligence, 
so far as ingenious mechanisms and working devices 
were concerned; but there was still apparent an absolute 
necessity for some intelligence, to which could be 
ascribed the aesthetic beauties of color and form. And 
a more narrow, shallow and inadequate theory, if pos- 
sible, than that of the three crippled grandparent-, was 
invented. It amounts to a supposition that all animals 
have been endowed with a natural artistic sense and 
appreciation of the beautiful in form and color, and 
have been controlled entirely by their sense of beauty in 
the selection of their mates. They have thus bred out 
of existence all ugly and inartistic forms. A single 
short and sufficient reply will at once occur to any one 
who has noted the selection of mates among animals. 
The one prominent fact is that the sense of sight plain- 
ly cuts no figure in it whatever. Any animal might be 
painted, mutilated or disguised by artificial malforma- 
tions, but it would not make the slightest difference in 
its being selected as a mate when instinct teaches that 
the time for mating has arrived. This theory, like the 
great hypothesis, is erected upon a false premise. Even 
with its premise it would never pretend to account for 
more than outside and visible beauties, while those 
hidden from ordinary view are infinitely more numer- 
ous, and no less pertect and elelicatc, or less persistent 
through hundreds of generations. 
Indeed, no observer of nature can fail to be im- 
pressed with the idea that nature's beauty is for beau- 
ty's sake, as an artist might paint. to please his own eye, 
where no other eye could ever see his work. But I 
am not writing a book. I am only making my last, but 
still my indignant protest, against tne shallow theory 
that behind nature's wonderful exhibit there is nothing 
more than accidental grandparents, that chance is the 
centrifugal force of nature, and is the sole source 
and origin of all her varied and persistent in- 
stincts, and that her exquisite sculptures and gor- 
geous and delicate paintings are but selections maele 
by animal taste out of miscellaneous and acci- 
dental excrescences and splotches of color. Instead 
let me commend to your readers the conception that 
intelligent methods have always characterized the revolu- 
tion of nature's infinite variety. That the elevelopment 
of every species has been as plainly guided by intellect 
as the development of a locomotive engine, and that not 
only the earmarks of the method, but the quality and 
skill of the intellect employed, stand out even more 
conspicuously upon the animals than upon the machines. 
That nature's centripetal force, her streams of here- 
dity,, when one started or turned by her into any par- 
ticular channel, are not left subject to be diverted by 
the fortunes of any grandparents, On the contrary, there- 
are a thousand daily evidences that she has not only 
barred all interference by ordinary accidents, but has so 
hedged in the stream of heredity from all approach that 
man, with all his science, has not yet learned its secret. 
He cannot yet even breed male and female at will. The 
strongest passions of nature, and those of tmiversal 
possession and lifelong activity, do not acquire any' in- 
crease of strength in a thousand generations. The 
subtlest instincts, not called into play once in many- 
lifetimes, persist just as strongly and just as long. And 
does it not also seem logical and right that this should 
be so if there ever were any original intelligence any- 
where? To open heredity to accident would be for in- 
telligence to deliberately resign the reins 10 chance, and 
to commit the fortunes of creation to chaos itself. 
But, however this may be, there is one further fact 
which is beyond all controversy, and which seems to me 
of great significance. While heredity is securely barred 
against interference by ordinary chance or accident, we 
see it wide open to interference by that mysterious 
something which I have called nature's centrifugal force. 
We see constantly new instincts speedily developed by 
whole species, anel we see evidence that new powers, 
new organs, new limbs, or new senses even, may also be 
added, and adopted by heredity and transmitted to progeny. 
This force then is perpetually on guard, and has inti- 
mate acquaintance with every daily need of all animal 
organisms. The only force in sight with which we may 
possibly identify this is that which maintains the 
physical life of every animal organization, making its 
[Dec, m, y&oH. 
heart beat and every organ of the body perform it 
functions, but which is entirely separate from the con 
scious life of the individual. For this force I suggested 
the name sttb-ego, as short and convenient. As a countc 
hypothesis to Coahoma's that chance and eternity hav 
made man out of a protozoan, I suggest that intelligenc 
existed somewhere before man's coming, and cut son 
figure in the process. Man did not originate intelligenc 
but intelligence with its blue-print methods originated]) 
him, and endowed him with a portion of itself. But h 
does not hold the sole monopoly" of it even on tlr 
planetary system. And finally, let me close with 
last hypothesis for your correspondents who wish t 
maintain the identity of animal instinct with reason 
May not the only difference between them _be this 
that reason is the product of the intelligence in the eg 
and that instinct is the product of the intelligence opei 
ating in the sub-ego? E. P, Alexander. 
Bull Bat and Robin. 
Editor Forest and Stream ' 
I would not weary the ears of your readers by further 
pursuing the little bull bat controversy that unexpectedly 
arose between friend Didymus and myself, but for the i"act| 
that my kindhearted friend has brought up the robinJ 
question, upon which I think some profitable remarks may 
be made, if not practical, at least in a philosophical mode., 
of treatment. Also, I have a grudge against Didymus. 
for calling in cmestion my piety, a charge so grave that, 
it is hardly to be condoned by the complimentary ex- 
pressions with which he seeks to make amends, albeit nrj 
stern integrity had a hard battle with my softer side iiu 
the effort not to forgive him. 
Didymus quotes Fred Mather in a triumphant manner; 
and yet that gentleman (who is high authority on fish, Jj 
believe) says not a word about mosquitoes in connec- 
tion with "bull bats, whippoorwills and bats." In any cas^i 
the bats constitute the only significant factor in the conw 
bination, the other two being relatively too few to counif 
much as insect destroyers; and he fails to mention the 
vast army of swallows and the various species of the mar- 
tin family, which outnumber those noted by him prob- 
ably a thousand fold. 
I have not traveled as widely as Didymus, but I live- 
right here very near the national capital of the mosquito, 
nation, and I know all about them. Among other things 1 
I know that a bull bat would work himself to death trying 
to make a living on empty mosquitoes, even if he got 
among them, which ordinarily he does not The facts, 
which the observations of Didymus disclose refute his: 
arguments, as showing that the "bull bats, whippoorwills 
and bats" utterly fail to keep down the myriads of mos- 
quitoes, which do indeed make life a burden to some 
of us. 
Didymus says the bull bat is a "Huffy little bundle of 
feathers and wings, with a body so small that it would 
take at least two dozen to fill a hungry man." Well, that! 
depends upon the man. It is related of Governor Mc- 
Nutt, a former chief magistrate of Mississippi, that hi 
regarded the turkey as "a very inconvenient bird, loo 
much for one and not enough for two." I will wager a 
mosquito bar against a mosquito bite that Didyfnus never 
ate a bull bat,. nor so much as ever saw one divested of 
its feathers. The bird, when dressed and served, U 
about the size of a snipe (long bill), perhaps a little- 
larger, and resembles him in several other respects, B.yjj 
the way, the snipe is ecpially as "iuincent" a-! the bull hat, 
and not quite so hard to shoot. The partridge (quail V 
is also eeiually innocent, and not so good t » eat. In sh.iri 
1 do not know any "game bird" that can hi charged with 
misdoings, that call for capital punishment at the hands, of 
the sportsman. 
There are but two requisites in so far as I apprehend 
the subject, that constitute eligibility for the enviable- 
position of "game bird" — the one, that he shall afford 
-port in the shooting; the other, that he shall furnish ii 
toothsome dish for the table. All other modes of classih- 
caliem are merely provincialisms. 
And that brings me to the robm, the pretext for thitf 
argument, which, like a woman's letter, saves the prime 
subiect for the past scriptum. 
The robin claims exemption from the game bird cate- 
gory on the plea that he is more valuable for other pur- 
poses. 
Here is another example of that ancient cause of con- 
troversy, looking at opposite sides of the shield. 
In the States north of the cotton belt the robin is a 
summer resident, and during the breeding season is wide- 
ly distributed in pairs about the orchards, gardens, parks; 
anel farmyards. He makes himself familiar to the inhabi- 
tants, their wives and children, and assumes the role 
of a semi-domestic bird. He is moreover a pretty 
songster, and lends a cheerful aspect to his surroundings 
It is easy to understand that he has acquireel a firm hold 
upon the affections of the people who live in the- StateJ 
that are his summer home. 
But in the lower cotton States his hasty "twee-twee ' a- 
he scuds before the north wind, high up beneath, the 
leaden clouds, in a widely scattered column of invasion, 
about the 1st of November, proclaims the advent of 
wintry storms. Here he does not cultivate the social 5 idti 
of his environment, but kcep 3 himself aloof from the 
people of the land and resorts to the deep woods, whejJH 
many berries grow, where he addresses himself solely to ( 
the business of gettitfg fat; and though he does not com- 
mend himself as a game bird to any but the small boy ami 
Sambo, because he is too easy a target for the sportsman,! 
yet as a gastronomic subject he is "out of sight.' h\ 
my younger days I have shot robins and. broiled theni 111 
the woods when they were so covered with fai that 
the drippings put out the coals in which they were 
broiled. 
Now, in the entire absence of any such social and 
domestic relations as subsist between Cock Robin and 1 
his Northern summer neighbors, the people of the South- 
ern States can hardly be just objects of censure for pick- 
ing up such a delicious morsel as a fat robin, from I 
simple culinary range of contemplation, even as they avai' 1 
themselves of the luscious oyster and highly esteemed 
terrapin. 
The attitude of the robin, as between North and South 
has its counterpart to some degree in that of the befll 
