442 Our Six-footed Rivals. [Odlober, 
over in single file, and treble the time would have been 
consumed.” 
Again, Eciton legionis, according to Mr. Bates, when 
digging mines to get at another species of ant whose nests 
they were attacking, the workers are divided into parties, 
“ one set excavating and another set carrying away the 
grains of earth. When the shafts became rather deep the 
mining parties had to climb up the sides each time they 
wished to cast out a pellet of earth, but their work was 
lightened for them by comrades who stationed themselves 
at the mouth of the shaft and relieved them of their bur- 
dens, carrying the particles with an appearance of foresight 
which quite staggered me, a sufficient distance from the 
edge of the hole to prevent it from rolling in again.” 
What, then, are we to learn from these somewhat incon- 
sistent cases ? Are we to conclude that Sir John Lubbock, 
Mr. Beit, Mr. Bates, and Mr. Tennant must be careless and 
incompetent observers ? Assuredly not. Are we to believe 
that ants are stupid, irrational creatures, and that when 
they do anything right it must be regarded as an accident 
or ascribed to that convenient phantom, instindt ? Still less ; 
the well-established cases which are on record agree badly 
with either of these suppositions. The true explanation of 
the difficulty is that, like all finite intelligences, ants are not 
equally wise on all occasions. Sometimes they hit upon the 
best expedient for evading or overcoming an obstacle, but 
sometimes, under circumstances not more complicated, they 
fail. This is doubtless the case with man himself. If con- 
templated by some being endowed with higher reasoning 
powers, would he not be pronounced a most curiously incon- 
sistent mixture of sagacity and stupidity, now solving 
problems of no small difficulty, and now standing helpless 
in presence of others even more simple ? That such is in 
reality the case with man is proved by the history of disco- 
veries, and of their reception. Do we not always say when 
we hear of any great step, whether in scientific theory or 
in the practical arts, “ How simple, how natural !” Yet, 
simple and natural as it is, all sorts and conditions of men 
lived for centuries without opening their eyes to it. To 
those who, on the score of incidental blunders and stupid- 
ities, deny the rationality of animals, we would hold up the 
ever-memorable “ egg ” of Columbus, and exclaim “ What, 
gentlemen, do you expedt the ant to be more uniformly and 
consistently intelligent than your erudite selves ?” 
Concerning the language of ants no small diversity of 
opinion has prevailed ; but among adtual observers the 
