110 
at the same time of material assistance to detective officers. 
The only point of resemblance between a caw and a whistle 
is that they both mean nothing ; directly we attach a conven- 
tional meaning to a whistle, the resemblance ceases. If one 
thief whistles to another, he may mean “ there is some one 
coming/-’ or “ there is no one coming/-’ or “ it is all right/* 
or “ it is all wrong/* according to previous arrangement. An 
arrangement of this nature is alluded to by Burns — 
“ 0 whistle, and I’ll come to you, my lad.” 
Are we to suppose that the signification of a caw is settled 
by a preliminary discussion amongst the rooks ? or, if not, 
why is it classed in the same category as a whistle ? A sym- 
bol conveying a complete thought is a step in advance of 
language, and there is nothing to support even the probability 
that a rook possesses the gift of language in the most rudi- 
mentary degree. The expression “look of the lover** does 
not convey a very definite idea, but I think it will be univer- 
sally agreed that the look, in order to be effectual, must be 
entirely spontaneous ; and if a lover should attempt to express 
his affection by a voluntary pose of his features, the effect 
will probably be diametrically opposite to what he intends. 
Between the look of the lover and the whistle of the thief 
there are the characteristic differences which I have previously 
specified; one is involuntary, the other is deliberate; one is 
natural, the other is conventional; one is the expression of 
feeling, the other of thought. It is not very clear, therefore, 
what Mr. Pike means by the statement that “ brutes make use 
of symbols in communicating ideas of food, danger, game, 
&c.** But it is perfectly clear that brutes do not express either 
complete thoughts or simple ideas by means of symbols, and 
the only proof Mr. Pike adduces to substantiate his opinion, 
viz., his having “impressed upon a dog the meaning of the 
general name cat ** is worth nothing. 
He answers Max Muller* s assertion that “ brutes neither 
know nor name anything/* by a quotation from Milton — 
“ Knowest thou not 
Their language and their ways ? They also know, 
And reason not contemptibly.” 
Unfortunately, however, for Milton*s infallibility as an 
authority on the subject of comparative psychology, a writer 
in the Anthropological Review, whose arguments, if they proved 
anything, would prove that brutes are greatly superior to man 
both intellectually and morally, quotes, for the purpose of 
