124 
very rough reasoning— a kind of reasoning the processes of which we cannot 
follow, hut which is certainly intellectual so far as it goes. Certainly the 
paper before us does not deny that view in strictness of language, because 
Mr. Morshead speaks of the distinction between the psychology of man and 
the psychology of the lower animals being the classification of two very 
different mental operations. One of the quotations read by Captain Fish- 
bourne very nearly hit the matter on the head, but did not quite work it out. 
An animal has its instincts limited to a very small circle of actions ; and it is 
of little consequence to us whether or not there is a kind of reasoning asso- 
ciated with those instinctive operations, if we establish the fact that those 
operations do not travel beyond a certain limit. You find, for instance, that 
a bee performs marvellous things, and so does the spider ; but you never see 
the bee attempting anything like the work of the spider, or the spider 
attempting anything like the work of the bee. The bee does marvellous 
work in its own line, far transcending the work of the human intellect in a 
similar direction ; thus furnishing abundant testimony to the existence of 
that Supreme Intellect which has furnished it with the means of working so 
well. Take any bird you like — say a blackbird or a thrush — and you find 
that each builds its nest in a way peculiar to itself. Or take a beaver, and 
you find that it has a wonderful power in. its own particular line of work 
which man does not possess, because man has to acquire all his arts gra- 
dually, but the animals are bom with theirs. We possess that most perfect 
and complete gift of an intellect, which the animal has not ; and yet the 
lower animals can perform work which it is beyond our power to imitate or 
to analyze. This subject might further be followed out, and we might well 
have another very interesting paper upon it. I recollect, when a paper by 
Mr. Pike was discussed in the Anthropological Society, that Mr. Wallace 
mentioned the case of a fish having a piece of pork presented to it over the 
side of a boat ; and he proceeded to say that that fish went to the other 
fishes, and communicated to them the intelligence that they also might 
possibly be fed with pork if they followed the boat. (Laughter.) But it 
was ingeniously urged in reply, that the first fish, after swallowing the pork, 
had returned to its companions, and that they had been informed of what it 
had eaten simply by the smell of the pork, and that so in turn they made 
their way to the boat. And now I should like for a moment to defend the 
commencement of Mr. Morshead’s paper, the accuracy of which has been 
impugned by Professor MacDonald, because I think it is very important in 
such papers to have the beginning well and accurately laid down. Mr. 
Morshead states that, physically, man, although superior to the lower animals, 
is neither more nor less than an animal ; and in controverting that I think 
Professor MacDonald is both wrong and unorthodox in his views, because 
Solomon has told us that there are certain things which we ought to consider 
for the express purpose of knowing that we are but animals ourselves. 
Shakespeare, again, speaks of man as “a worm — a god,” putting the phrase 
in the mouth of Hamlet ; and that corresponds with the expression of the 
patriarch Job, who also calls man a worm. In regard to all those things 
