them in a good situation low down near the ground ; but the fowls would 
persist in roosting in a high place, and though this comfortable spot was 
prepared for them, they neglected it and roosted in another place high up 
and open to the air, where they perched daily in the cold, although it is 
notorious that fowls like warmth, and that it is absolutely essential for them. 
The author shortly afterwards goes on to say, — • 
“ Thus it is, too, with unreasoning creatures, in regard to pairing, pro- 
creation, and every other instinctive proceeding. They appear to exercise 
mental power and discrimination, but that mental power and discrimination 
are not their own ; for, with regard to all alike, it may be asserted that 
education has not taught, and experience has not convinced. Their opera- 
tions, then, give evidence on every hand that the power which organized 
them, implanted in each organization such ideas as were necessary for its 
being, its happiness, and the preservation of its tribe. Their mechanism, 
whatever they construct, is more perfect in its way than man’s. Yet, as far 
as the creatures themselves are concerned, it displays no powder of contrivance 
and design. Perfect in itself for the purposes for which it was intended, and 
often surpassingly beautiful, it yet "exhibits no acquaintance with the 
principles of symmetry or beauty in its constructor, because that constructor 
only blindly carries out one implanted idea. Each displays what appears to 
be mental power in one particular manner only, each being only enabled 
to execute one design, though he executes that one with a perfection to 
which man cannot attain. Thus instinct is ‘ involuntary,’ and not governed 
by will. Its limits are fixed, and whatever may be the condition of the 
animal, it cannot travel out of them. From age to age, under every variety 
of circumstances, it preserves • the same beaten path, and never either 
retrogrades or advances. It is an unerring guide, but it is a blind one.” 
Then here is a very interesting case from Blumenbach with regard to an 
animal which we are told is in some degree related to man : — 
“ Thus Blumenbach’s ape, having got hold of a large work on insects, 
turned over the leaves with a very studious air, but he pinched out all the 
painted beetles and ate them, mistaking the pictures for real insects. His 
taste and touch did not serve to detect the deception of his eye, while under 
the excitement of appetite produced by the image of a thing #hich he 
naturally relished.” 
I think this really contains the whole point which is involved. Unless you 
take the animal under circumstances which do not involve the operation 
of his instinctive habits, unless you call upon him to perform some operations 
which are not in the direct ordinary line of his instinct, you cannot really 
estimate whether he is influenced in what he is doing by reason or not. 
I, therefore, do not think that the cases mentioned by Mr. Row bear upon 
the point at all. One of the great distinctions between man and the lower 
animals is language. Man has the power, which no animal possesses, of con- 
veying an embodiment of his ideas by symbols to other men. That distinc- 
tion really involves intellect to my mind, and short of that it seems to me 
that there is no intellect at all. (Hear, hear.) 
Mr. Reddie. — It is perhaps unfortunate that Mr. Morshead’s language has 
not been more definite, but I do not think he is quite open to some of the 
criticisms which have been passed upon him. Although he has used the 
phrases “ intellect ” and “ instinct,” and put them in antithesis, I don’t think 
