392 A Handful of “ Nuces Zoologies ” [July, 
animals counterfeit death ? Here we have a variety of 
theories more or less ingenious. In the fox and the opossum 
such conduct is generally pronounced a stratagem, con- 
sciously and intentionally adopted in the expectation that 
their captors or enemies, human or brute, may be thrown off 
their guard, and may thus allow the victim a chance of 
escape. I am not prepared to deny that this may be at 
times actually the case. But in a majority of instances 
“ sham death ” finds, as will be seen below, a simpler ex- 
planation. 
With inseCts, many naturalists still take refuge in the 
cabalistic word “ instinCt.” The stratagem has been, it is 
contended, either Divinely implanted in these creatures for 
their protection, or else it has been developed in them by 
“ natural selection.” But does it protect ? The inseCt 
which drops apparently lifeless from a twig or flower may 
certainly escape an approaching bird, and is quite as likely 
to fall into the web of a spider, where its death-like attitude 
will avail it little. It has been said that rooks, magpies, 
jays, and the like, will not pick up a dead beetle, and that 
these inseCts may often be left unnoticed by their taking the 
attitude of death. This supposition, if it ever holds good, 
is not universally correct. When conducting some experi- 
ments at the Leeds Sewage Works, in the summer of 1876, 
I saw a dead Geotrupes stercorarius lying on the ground near 
one of the tanks, with his legs extended as ungracefully as 
the limbs of a mediaeval saint in an illuminated manuscript. 
I picked him up, satisfied myself that he was really dead, 
and threw him down again. Soon afterwards I saw a flight 
of rooks parading about near where the dead beetle was 
lying, and on again making the circuit of the tanks I saw 
that his dead body had been pecked to pieces, and that all 
the soft parts had been eaten. Hence I conclude that rooks 
will eat dead beetles, and that as against them “ shamming 
death ” is not of the slightest use as a means of protection. 
I submit therefore that the “ protective instinCt” theory does 
not hold good. 
There are certain other admitted faCts which often do duty 
not as proofs of animal intelligence, but of its very anti- 
thesis — animal stupidity. It has been proved, by a number 
of authenticated cases, that animals placed in great and 
unwonted danger seem to lose all traces of their ordinary 
sagacity, and instead of taking a very easy way of escape 
they remain rooted to the spot, or even rush headlong into 
destruction. Many painful instances have shown how diffi- 
cult it is to get horses out of a burning stable : so far from 
