i88o.] 
Instinct and Mind. 
439 
erroneous, and that the only answer to the phantom he has 
set up should be one of negation. 
When a subject is treated upon general principles, parti- 
cularisations, unless for the purposes of illustration, are 
generally avoided ; and had I said, when speaking in illus- 
tration of the particular instincts of animals, as dogs, &c., 
that of course I do not mean that each individual has the 
exa Ct sagacity of every other individual of the species, — 
had I adopted this course I should have felt that I was 
needlessly ignoring the common intelligence of your readers : 
but as there appears to be one among them who cannot, or 
will not, understand plain and terse reasoning, I will endea- 
vour to particularise. 
When I speak of the aptitude of varieties or species to 
work in a given direction, which I term tribal instinct, I 
neither say, infer, or mean to say, that there are not different 
exemplifications of the particular potence or sagacity. If it 
were not so, what would be the use to animals of the dis- 
criminative capacity (instinctive mentality) I ascribe to 
them ? Dogs and other creatures possess character in ex- 
pression and in adt. I do not say, or mean to say, that all 
have the same aptness, i.e., that the charadteristic which is 
applicable to the variety has received the same development 
in each individual of the variety or species. Dogs and other 
creatures vary as much as men do, the difference to be 
found with them being one of degree ; e.g ., all men possess 
the power of abstract reasoning, but all men do not exem- 
plify it in the same degree. The varieties of birds build 
their nest in the same pattern, but all are not equally neat 
in the display of the constructive faculty. 
In the article in question, when speaking of tribal in- 
stincts, I generalised, and it seemed to me the cultural 
power which makes the difference between individuals of the 
same class would have been understood ; therefore, in the 
face of the unfounded assumptions of R. N. M., one of two 
things must be assumed, — either that I am wanting in 
common observation, or that he is incapable of compre- 
hending the argument he attacks. As to dogs, every person, 
not sportsmen only, knows that there is a broad distinction 
between the sagacity of one sporting dog and another ; but 
this does not imply a variation in the characteristics of the 
particular species. One dog, according to its adaptability 
for its particular purpose, may be worth a large sum of 
money, whilst another dog with the same characteristics, 
but without the same development, may for the particular 
purpose be worthless. It is the same with shepherd’s dogs 
