the direction toward the other two sets of goals. 
It appears as though the nearness of Box 3 as a way 
station goal produced a sufficiendy strong attrac- 
tion to pull back the route of travel to conform 
with the previously existing route. Olfactory per- 
ception may have been operative in producing an 
exact conformity of the latter portion of the trail 
to Box 3. However, the fact that it was not 
initially operative indicates that kinesthetic — 
goal — directed behavior is dominant to the degree 
of olfactory perception possible under the present 
circumstances. 
B, C, and D. The leaving of Boxes 3 and 2 with 
eventual arrival at the next way station. The 
interesting thing about the trail as it leaves both 
Boxes 3 and 2 is that there is an initial continuation 
straight in front of the box for about 18 inches 
beyond the end of the drain tile before the trail 
bends back and approximates the previous trail. 
It was as though the rats were initially attracted 
by the Food Pen, but that as the barrier fence was 
approached its negative value as a goal, operating 
simultaneously with the positive goal value of the 
next harborage box, which serves as a way station, 
was sufficient to overcome the attraction value of 
the Food Pen goal and cause the rat to return 
toward the nearest positive goal. The nearly 
total lack of comformity of the subnivian trail 
with the preexisting trail indicates no importance 
to olfactory perception in this instance. 
E. Trail between Box 1 and Passage 1. The 
exact duplication of this arched trail presents a 
most puzzling situation. The easiest assumption 
is that olfactory perception of the previous trail 
was the single means of perception here operating. 
However, in the light of the indications of the 
previous orientations one might anticipate the 
direct orientation toward goals. One other possible 
speculation might be made. That is that the 
travel from Box 2 past Box 1 might be considered 
as inducing the rat to follow a trajectory route 
despite its goal directed attraction to Passage 1 or 
the Food Pen. 
F and H. Trail between Passages 1 and 5. 
Prior to the formation of the subnivian trails most 
of the animals had been traveling to the Food Pen 
from Passage 1 directly down Path 1 and around 
to Passage 8, although a few animals cut across 
and used the South Alley Burrow as a way station. 
Thus, there were two routes of travel from Passage 1 
to the food hopper and there were two goals. The 
primary goal was the food hopper whereas the 
secondary goal was the South Alley Burrow. The 
position of the subnivian trail indicates that the 
direction of travel was essentially toward the food 
hopper goal but that there was sufficient attraction 
toward the South Alley Burrow to cause a deflection 
from the previous route. This deflection caused 
the animal to make an initial orientation between 
the two goals or routes of travel. However, as 
soon as the subnivian trail encountered the Food 
Pen fence the rat merely had to follow along the 
edge of the fence by tactile perception until the 
Passage 5 was reached. At this point there was 
protection in the channel of the activity recorder, 
which presumably also gave the rat some orienta- 
tion toward the food hopper. 
G. Trails between the South Alley Burrow and 
Passage 5. Three attempts were made to cover 
this route. The first attempt produced a short 
blind tunnel which overshot this route in the di- 
rection of Area I. It will be recalled that the rats 
harboring in the South Alley Burrow have an 
affinity to Area I as a secondary location for 
harborage. It is, therefore, assumed that the 
deflection of this first attempt is a result of the at- 
traction toward this secondary goal. The second 
and third attempts, both essentially bisected the 
angle produced by the two prior routes to the 
Food Pen. 
The unsuccessful attempt showed a deflection 
toward the least traveled of these two routes, 
whereas the successful attempt showed a longer de- 
flection toward and parallel to the most used of 
these two routes. This indicates that the position 
of the preexisting trails are in themselves goals 
which influence orientation. 
J. Trails leading into or around the Food Pen 
from Passage 7 in a southeast direction. We shall 
begin our considerations with the condition that the 
rat is already at Passage 7 after having come from 
the North Alley Burrow. It appears as though the 
tunnels along either side of the Food Pen fence 
were directed toward the trail up Path 3 and 
around the East Alley. I find it difficult to under- 
stand how a rat was able to follow exactly the less 
used and longer route between Passages 7 and 6 
and yet become obviously confused in the shorter 
route from Passage 7 to the food hopper. 
K. Trails from hole 2, North Alley Burrow, to 
Passage 7. The interesting thing about the two 
trails leading from hole 2, is that the ones pro- 
77 
