127 
ON THE MIGRATION OF BIRDS. 
By Peter Rylands, Esq. 
Ip there were nothing else to lead me to esteem The Naturalist higher than 
the other Magazines devoted to the same sciences, the attention paid in its pages 
to Comparative Phrenology would be sufficient (see p. 110). Being a subject 
of great importance to all zoologists, its neglect by the other Natural History 
periodicals manifests either a total ignorance of, or wilful inattention to it, on the 
part of the Editors, which cannot be too severely condemned. 
The investigation of the mental constitution of the lower animals is highly 
interesting and instructive, and cannot, surely, be deemed irrelevant in our ob¬ 
servations of their actions. Phrenology throws a light upon this inquiry which 
all naturalists would do well to profit by. 
It is evident, when we carefully observe the actions of animals, that they 
result from certain propensities, or inclinations, similar in kind to, although from 
various causes their manifestations differ from, those of Man. The action of 
the propensities in Man is considerably modified by his possession of moral and 
intellectual organs ; the former being entirely absent, and the latter very slightly 
developed in the lower animals. Two men having the same inclination will 
gratify it in different manners, owing to the influence of the organs just men¬ 
tioned. While, on the contrary, each species of animal having definite propensities 
—-without this modifying influence—-all the individuals of such species will 
manifest their desires, in most cases, in exactly similar modes of action. This 
constitutes only an apparent, and not a real difference between the two. In 
both cases the primitive feeling is essentially the same. Philosophers, however, 
misled by this appearance of distinctness, have separated them, giving to one the 
appellation of reason , and to the other that of instinct. Here allow me to 
enter my protest against the use of this term “ instinct.’’ Associated with it, in 
most instances, are very erroneous and contradictory ideas. The unanimity 
shewn by authors in the adoption of it cannot be an argument for its continued 
use. An examination of their works will prove that each has given to it a 
distinct meaning of his own, and that most have made it a cloak for their ignor¬ 
ance of the nature of the phenomena which it denoted. In fact, from the use 
which ha» been made of it, the term “ instinct ” is now rendered useless. And 
if perspicuity of language, or definiteness of argument be desired, it ought to be 
at once abandoned by all. 
When we consider that Phrenology demonstrates that the propensities of the 
lower animals are the same as those of man—that it also points out the organs 
of these propensities—its importance in discussing the cause of the migration of 
