2Q0 
Analyses of Books . [May, 
they should not bear the same name. To talk of a cat’s having 
instindt to pull a bell when desirous of going out at the door 
would be to use words at random.” 
Agassiz, also a Theist and a Christian, holds (“ Natural History 
United States, I., i., p. 60) “ that it is impracticable to draw any 
definite boundary between the faculties of a young child and 
those of a baby chimpanzee.” 
Cuvier, who is even accused by certain modern thinkers of an 
over-strained deference to theological tradition, says of the 
brutes : — “ Leur intelligence execute des operations du meme 
genre ” — i.e. f as human adtions. 
Milton, an excellent logician, a profound student of and a firm 
believer in the Scriptures, puts in the mouth of an archangel 
these words — “ They also reason not contemptibly.” 
Prof. Max Muller — no friend, be it remarked, of the dodtrine 
of Evolution — writes, in his “ Ledtures on the Science of Lan- 
guage ” (i., p. 402): — “ Instindt, whether mechanical or moral, 
is more prominent in brutes than in man, but it exists in both as 
much as intellect is shared by both.” 
Lord Brougham, a writer on Natural Theology and editor of 
Paley, says, in his “ Dialogues on Instindt ” (Dialogue IV.) : — - 
“ I know not why so much unwillingness should be shown by 
some excellent philosophers to allow intelligent faculties and a 
share of reason to the lower animals.” 
Such examples of Theists and Anti-Materialists, who refuse to 
explain the adtions of brutes by the catch-word Instindt, might 
be multiplied indefinitely. On the other hand, everyone must 
have met with Atheists who rejedt with the utmost scorn the 
notion of reason in the lower animals. We regret, therefore, to 
be compelled to say that Dr. Schi'itz has put himself out of court 
by his Preface, which is either a proof that his acquaintance 
with the subjedt is deficient in thoroughness, or else a deliberate 
appeal to the odium tlieologicum. 
The author’s contention is summed up by himself in five so- 
called fadts. He declares, first, “ The animal does not refledt, 
does not need to refledt, and indeed never does refledt.” This 
fadt, we reply, is a gross error. Animals have in many cases 
been observed to refledt or consider, — to take extraordinary steps 
and measures under especial circumstances ; they arrange stra- 
tagems available only at some particular time and place. Rats 
cannot long be caught by means of the same kind of trap. 
Birds avoid a scarecrow for a few days, and then discover its 
harmlessness. Prof. Leukart (Graber, “ Organismus der In- 
sekten,” p. 249), in order to keep away ants from a colony of 
Aphides, besmeared the stem of the plant all round with tobacco- 
juice. These little creatures were not long checked by the 
abomination. They carried up grains of earth, and built a cause- 
way upon which they could pass and repass at pleasure. 
Prof. Gredler, of Botzen (“ Der Zoolog. Garten,” xv., p. 434), 
