LETISIMULATION
The feigning of death by certain animals for the purpose of deceiving
their enemies, and thus securing immunity, is one of the greatest of the
many evidences of intelligent action on their part.[108] Letisimulation
(from _letum_, death, and _simulare_, to feign) is not confined to any
particular family, order, or species of animals, but exists in many,
from the very lowest to the highest. The habit of feigning death has
introduced a figure of speech in the English language, and has done much
to magnify and perpetuate the fame of the only marsupial found outside
of Australasia and the Malayan Archipelago. "Playing 'possum" is now a
synonym for certain kinds of deception. Man himself has known this to be
an efficacious stratagem on many occasions. I have only to recall the
numerous instances related by hunters who have feigned death, and have
then been abandoned by the animals attacking them. I have seen this
habit in some of the lowest animals known to science. Some time ago,
while examining the inhabitants of a drop of pond water under a
high-power lens, I noticed several rhizopods busily feeding on the
minute buds of an alga. These rhizopods suddenly drew in their hair-like
cilia and sank to the bottom, to all appearances dead. I soon discovered
the cause in the presence of a water-louse, an animal which feeds on
these animalcules. It likewise sank to the bottom, and, after examining
the rhizopods, swam away, evidently regarding them as dead and unfit for
food. The rhizopods remained quiet for several seconds, and then swam to
the alga and resumed feeding. This was not an accidental occurrence, for
several times since I have been fortunate enough to witness the same
wonderful performance. There were other minute animals swimming in the
drop of water, but the rhizopods fed on unconcernedly until the shark of
this microscopic sea appeared. They then recognized their danger at
once, and used the only means in their power to escape. Through the
agency of what sense did these little creatures discover the approach of
their enemies? Is it possible that they and other like microscopic
animals have eyes and ears so exceedingly small that lenses of the very
highest power cannot make them visible? Or are they possessors of
senses utterly unknown to and incapable of being appreciated by man?
Science can neither affirm nor deny either of these suppositions. The
fact alone remains that, through some sense, they discovered the
presence of the enemy, and feigned death in order to escape.
[108] Instinct does not preclude intelligent ideation. In the lower
animals death-feigning is undoubtedly instinctive; yet the recognition
of danger, which sets in motion the phenomena of letisimulation, is
undoubtedly due, primarily, to intelligent ideation in a vast majority
of animals. Otherwise this earth would be a lifeless waste.--W.
There is a small fresh-water annelid which practises letisimulation when
approached by the giant water-beetle.[109] This annelid, when swimming,
is a slender, graceful little creature, about one-eighth of an inch
long, and as thick as a human hair; but when a water-beetle draws near,
it stops swimming, relaxes its body, and hangs in the water like a bit
of cotton thread. It has a twofold object in this: in the first place,
it hopes that its enemy will think it a piece of wood fibre, bleached
alga, or other non-edible substance; in the second place, if the beetle
be not deceived, it will nevertheless consider it dead and unfit for
food. I do not mean to say that this process of ratiocination really
occurs in the annelid; its intelligence goes no farther, probably, than
conscious determination. In the beetle, however, conscious determination
is merged into intelligent ideation, for its actions in the premises are
self-elective and selective.
[109] _Dyticus marginalis._ Vide Furneaux, _Life in Ponds and
Streams_, p. 325; foot-note for orthography.--W.
Letisimulation in this animal is by no means infrequent, for I have seen
it feign death repeatedly. Any one may observe this stratagem if he be
provided with a glass of clear water, a dyticus, and several of these
little worms. The annelid is able to distinguish the beetle when it is
several inches distant, and the change from an animated worm to a
seemingly lifeless thread is startling in its exceeding rapidity.
Even an anemone, a creature of very low organization indeed, has
acquired this habit. On one occasion, near St. John's, Newfoundland, I
noticed a beautiful anemone in a pool of sea-water. I reached down my
hand for it, when, presto! it shrivelled and shrunk like a flash into an
unsightly green lump, and appeared nothing more than a moss-covered
nodule of rock.
Very many grubs make use of this habit when they imagine themselves in
danger. For instance, the "fever worm," the larva of one of our common
moths,--the Isabella tiger-moth,--is a noted death-feigner, and will
"pretend dead" on the slightest provocation. Touch this grub with the
toe of your boot, or with the tip of your finger, or with a stick, and
it will at once curl up, to all appearances absolutely without life.
A gentleman[110] recently told me that he saw the following example of
letisimulation: One day, while sitting in his front yard, he saw a
caterpillar crawling on the ground at his feet. The grub crawled too
near the edge of a little pit in the sandy loam, and fell over,
dragging with it a miniature avalanche of sand. It immediately essayed
to climb up the north side of the pit, and had almost reached the top,
when the treacherous soil gave way beneath its feet, and it rolled to
the bottom. It then tried the west side, and met with a similar mishap.
Not discouraged in the least by its failure, it then tried the east
side, and reached the very edge, when it accidentally disturbed the
equilibrium of a corncob poised upon the margin of the pit, dislodged
it, and fell with it to the bottom. The caterpillar evidently thought
the cob was an enemy, for it at once rolled itself into a ball and
feigned death. It remained quiescent for some time, but finally "came to
life," tried the south side with triumphant success, and went on its way
rejoicing. This little creature evinced conscious determination and a
certain amount of reason; for it never tried the same side of the pit in
its endeavors to escape, but always essayed a different side from that
where it had encountered failure.
[110] Mr. George Mattingly, Owensboro, Kentucky.
Many free-swimming rotifers practise letisimulation when disturbed or
when threatened by what they consider impending danger. If a "pitcher
rotifer" (_Brachionus urceolaris_) be approached with a needle point, it
will cease all motion and sink; the same is true of the "skeleton
rotifer" (_Dinocharis pocillum_) and numerous others of this large
family. Again, if a bit of alga on which there is a colony of "bell
animalcules" (_Vorticellæ_) be placed in a live box and then be
examined with a moderate power, they can be seen to feign death. The
rapidly vibrating cilia which surround the margin of the "bells" give
rise to currents in the water which can be easily made out as they sweep
floating particles toward the creatures' mouths and stomachs. If the
table on which the microscope rests be rapped with the knuckles, the
colony will disappear as if by magic. Now, what has become of it? If the
microscope be readjusted, a group of tubercles will be observed on the
alga; these are the vorticellæ. They have simply coiled themselves upon
their slender stems, have drawn in their cilia, and are feigning death.
In a few seconds one, and then another, will erect its stem; finally,
the entire colony will "come to life" and resume feeding until they are
again frightened, when they will at once resort to letisimulation.
Death-feigners are found in four divisions of animal life; viz., among
insects, birds, mammals, and reptiles. Indeed, the most gifted
letisimulants in the entire animal kingdom are to be observed in the
great snake family. The so-called "black viper" of the middle United
States is the most accomplished death-feigner that I have ever seen; its
make-believe death struggles, in which it writhes and twists in seeming
agony and finally turns upon its back and assumes _rigor mortis_, cannot
be surpassed by any actor "on the boards" in point of pantomimic
excellence.
I do not know of any fish which has acquired this strategic habit, but
the evidence is not all in, and some day, perhaps, death-feigners may be
found even among fishes.[111]
[111] Letisimulation, apparently, is not confined to animals; we see
that certain plants have acquired a habit that is strikingly like
death-feigning. We are apt to regard the plants as being non-sentient,
yet there is an abundance of evidence in favor of the doctrine that
vegetable life is, to a certain extent, percipient. Darwin has shown
conclusively that plant life is as subject to the great law of
evolution as animal life; he has also demonstrated, in his
observations of insectivorous plants--the sun-dew (_Drosera
rotundifolia_) especially--that these plants recognize at once the
presence of foreign bodies when they are brought in contact with their
sensitive glands;[A] he has likewise shown that plants, in the
phenomenon known as circumnutation, evince a percipient sensitiveness
that is as delicate as it is remarkable.[B] Hence, we need not feel
surprised when we find, even in a plant, evidences of such a
widespread stratagem as letisimulation. The champion death-feigner of
the vegetable kingdom is a South American plant, _Mimosa pudica_. In
the United States, where in some localities it has been naturalized,
this plant is known as the "sensitive plant." A wild variety, _Mimosa
strigilosa_, is native to some of the Southern States, but is by no
means as sensitive as its South American congener. The last-mentioned
plant is truly a vegetable wonder. At one moment a bed of soft and
vivid green, the next a touch from a finger and, in the twinkling of
an eye, it has changed into an unsightly tangle of seemingly dead and
withered stems. In this case death-feigning seems absolutely
successful as far as protection is concerned; for surely no
grass-eating animal would touch this withered stuff, especially if
there were other greens in the neighborhood. Death-feigning in plants,
and kindred phenomena, are not due, however, to conscious
determination; they are, in all probability, simply the result of
reflex action.
[A] Darwin, _Insectivorous Plants_, Chap. V. _et seq._
[B] Darwin, _Power of Movement in Plants_, pp. 107-109.
Recently, I saw this stratagem perpetrated by a creature so low in the
scale of animal life, and living amid surroundings so free from ordinary
dangers, that, at first, I was loath to credit the evidence of my own
perceptive powers; and it was only after long-continued observation that
I was finally convinced that it was really an instance of
letisimulation.
The animal in question was the itch mite (_Sarcoptes hominis_), which is
frequently met with by physicians in practice, but which is rarely seen,
although it is very often felt, by mankind, especially by those
unfortunates who are forced by circumstances to dwell amid squalid and
filthy surroundings. _Sarcoptes hominis_ is eminently a creature of
filth, and is primarily a scavenger living on the dead and cast-off
products of the skin. It is only when the desire for perpetuating its
race seizes it that it burrows into the skin, thereby producing the
intolerable itching which has given to it its very appropriate name. It
is only the females that make tunnels in the skin; the males move freely
over the surface of the epidermis. The females make tunnels or
_cuniculi_ in the cuticle, in which they lay their eggs, and they can
readily be removed from these burrows with a needle. While observing one
of these minute _acarii_ through a pocket lens, as it crawled slowly on
the surface of the skin, I wished to examine the under surface of its
body. When I touched it with the point of a needle in attempting to
turn it upon its back, it at once ceased to crawl and drew in its short,
turtle-like legs toward its sides. It remained absolutely without motion
for several seconds, and then slowly resumed its march. Again I touched
it, and again it came to a halt, and took up its onward march only after
several seconds had elapsed. Again and again I performed this experiment
with like results; finally, the little traveller became thoroughly
chilled, and, after a fruitless endeavor to again penetrate the skin,
ceased all motion and died.
Many of the coleoptera are good letisimulants. The common tumble-bug
(_Canthon lævis_), which may be seen any day in August rolling its ball
of manure, in which are its eggs, to some suitable place of interment,
is a remarkable death-feigner. Touch it, and at once it falls over,
apparently dead. It draws in its legs, which become stiff and rigid;
even its antennæ are motionless. You may pick it up and examine it
closely; it will not give the slightest sign of life. Place it on the
ground and retire a little from it, and, in a few moments, you will see
it erect one of its antennæ and then the other. Its ears are in its
antennæ, and it is listening for dangerous sounds. Move your foot or
stamp upon the ground, and back they go, and the beetle again becomes
seemingly moribund.
This you may do several times, but the little animal, soon discovering
that the sounds you make are not indicative of peril to it, scrambles
to its feet and resumes the rolling of its precious ball. The habit of
making use of this subterfuge is undoubtedly instinctive in this
creature; but the line of action governing the use of the stratagem is
evidently suggested by intelligent, correlated ideation.
Some animals feign death after exhausting all other means of defence.
The stink-bug (_pentatomid_) or bombardier bug (not the "bombardier
beetle") has, on the sides of its abdomen near its middle coxæ ("hip
bone"), certain bladder-like glands which secrete an acrid,
foul-smelling fluid;[112] it has the power of ejecting this fluid at
will.
[112] Comstock, _The Study of Insects_, p. 145.
When approached by an enemy, the stink-bug presents one side to the foe,
crouching down on the opposite side, thus elevating its battery, and
waits until its molester is within range; it then fires its broadside at
the enemy. If the foe is not vanquished (as it commonly is), but still
continues the attack, the bombardier turns and fires another broadside
from the opposite side. If this second discharge does not prove
efficacious (and I have rarely known it to fail), the little insect
topples over, draws in its legs, and pretends to be dead.
Many a man has acted in like manner. He has fought as long as he could;
then, seeing the odds against him, he has feigned death, hoping that his
antagonist would abandon him and cease his onslaughts. The stink-bug in
this seems to be governed and directed by _reason_, though the means
used for defence must come under the head of instinct. Many a blind,
instinctive impulse in the lower animals is, in all probability, aided
and abetted by intelligent ratiocination when once it has made its
appearance.
I have seen ants execute a like stratagem when overcome either by
numbers or by stronger ants. They curl up their legs, draw down their
antennæ, and drop to the ground. They will allow themselves to be pulled
about by their foes without the slightest resistance, showing no signs
of life whatever. The enemy soon leaves them, whereupon the cunning
little creatures take to their feet and hurry away.
The most noted and best known letisimulant among mammals is the opossum.
I have seen this animal look as if dead for hours at a time. It can be
thrown down any way, and its body and limbs will remain in the position
assigned to them by gravity. It presents a perfect picture of death. The
hare will act in the same way on occasions. The cat has been seen to
feign death for the purpose of enticing its prey within grasping
distance of its paws. In the mountains of East Tennessee (Chilhowee) I
once saw a hound which would "play dead" when attacked by a more
powerful dog than itself. It would fall upon its back, close its eyes,
open its mouth, and loll out its tongue. Its antagonist would appear
nonplussed at such strange conduct, and would soon leave it alone. Its
master[113] declared that it had not been taught the trick by man, but
that the habit was inherited or learned from its mother, which practised
the same deception when hard pushed.[114]
[113] Mr. George Griffiths, Griffiths' Cove, Chilhowee, Blount County,
Tennessee.
[114] In the case of the cat and dog the use of this stratagem is not
instinctive; it is the rational use of means to obtain a certain
desired end. The fact that the dog "inherited the act" from its mother
is not a proof of inherited instinct. Instincts are not formed in a
single generation.--W.
Most animals are slain for food by other animals. There is a continual
struggle for existence. The carnivora and insectivora, with certain
exceptions, prefer freshly killed food. They will not touch tainted meat
when they can procure the recently killed, blood-filled bodies of their
prey. The exigencies of their surroundings in their struggle for
existence, however, often compel them to eat carrion.
Dogs will occasionally eat carrion, but sparingly, and apparently as a
relish, just as we sometimes eat odoriferous and putrid cheeses, and the
Turks, assafoetida.
Carnivora and insectivora would much prefer to do their own butchery;
hence, when they come upon their prey apparently dead, they will leave
it alone and go in search of other quarry, unless they are very hungry.
Tainted flesh is a dangerous substance to go into any stomach, unless it
be that of a buzzard. Heredity and environment have made this bird a
carrion-eater, hence, like the jackal, the hyena, and the alligator,
companion scavengers, it can eat putrid flesh with impunity. Other
flesh-eating animals avoid carrion when they can, for long years of
experience have taught them that decaying meat contains certain
ptomaines which render it very poisonous; hence, they let dead, or
seemingly dead, creatures severely alone. Again, these creatures can see
no object in mutilating an animal which, in their opinion, is already
dead.
In this discussion of the means and methods of protection that are to be
observed in the lower animals, I have brought forward only those in
which mind-element was to be discerned. Mimicry and kindred phenomena
hardly have a place in this treatise, for they are, undoubtedly,
governed and directed by unconscious mind, a psychical phase which, as I
intimated in the introductory chapter of this book, would be discussed
only incidentally.
CONCLUSION
Judging wholly from the evidence, I think that it can be safely asserted
and successfully maintained that mind in the lower animals is the same
in kind as that of man; that, though instinct undoubtedly controls and
directs many of the psychical and physical manifestations which are to
be observed in the lower animals, intelligent ratiocination also
performs an important rôle in the drama of their lives.[115]
[115] Kirby and Spence, _Entomology_, p. 591.
The wielders of the instinct club bitterly deny that any of the lower
animals ever show an intelligent appreciation of new surroundings, that
they ever evince intelligent ratiocination. They close their eyes even
to the data collected by the chiefs of their tribe, Agassiz, Kirby,
Spence, _et al._, and go on their way shouting hosannas to omniscient,
all-powerful Instinct! When one of the lower animals evinces unusual
intelligence, or gives unmistakable evidences of reason, they account
for it by saying that "it is only instinct highly specialized, or, at
least, a so-called 'intelligent' accident."
So far from being "intelligent accidents" are the ratiocinative acts of
some of the lower animals (that is, lower than man), that I think that
it can be demonstrated analogically that some of these acts are incited
by one of the highest qualities of the mind--abstraction.
I do not mean that abstraction which renders the civilized human being
so immeasurably superior to all other animals, but rather that primal,
fundamental abstraction from which the highly specialized function of
man has been developed. The faculty of computing in animals is one
evidence of the presence of this psychical trait in its crude and
undeveloped state. The quality of abstraction in such ideation is not
very high, it is true, yet it _is_ abstraction, nevertheless.
Man possesses two kinds of consciousness--an active, vigilant,
coördinating consciousness (the seat of which is, probably, in the
cortical portion of the brain) and the passive, pseudo-dormant, and, to
a certain extent, incoherent and non-coördinating consciousness (the
so-called sub-liminal consciousness) whose seat is in the great ganglia
at the base of the brain (_optic thalami_ and _corpora striata_), and in
other ganglia situated in the spinal cord and elsewhere in the body. My
fox terrier has a brain which, in all essential details, does not differ
from that of man, and my observations teach me that his mind is the same
in kind as that of man as far as memory, emotions, and reason are
concerned; then why deny him the possession of abstraction in some
degree? I do not mean that abstraction which enables a man to soar into
realms of thought infinitely above any effort of ideation to be attained
by any of the lower animals, but abstraction in its embryonic state. I
am convinced, by actual experimentation, that this dog falls into "brown
studies" just as man does; may he not then claim one kind of
abstraction, if not another?
The elephant, unquestionably, is able to formulate abstract ideas, the
quality of which is very high, indeed. Jenkins wrote to Romanes as
follows:--
"What I particularly wish to observe is that there are good reasons for
supposing that elephants possess abstract ideas; for instance, I think
it is impossible to doubt that they acquire through their own experience
notions of hardness and weight, and the grounds on which I am led to
think this are as follows:--
"A captured elephant after he has been taught his ordinary duty, say
about three months after he has been taken, is taught to pick up things
from the ground and give them to his mahout sitting on his shoulders.
Now the first few months it is dangerous to require him to pick up
anything but soft articles, such as clothes, because things are often
handed up with considerable force.
"After a time, longer with some elephants than others, they appear to
take in a knowledge of the nature of the things they are required to
lift, and the bundle of clothes will be thrown up sharply as before,
but heavy things, such as a crowbar or a piece of iron chain, will be
handed up in a gentle manner; a sharp knife will be picked up by its
handle and placed on the elephant's head, so that the mahout may take it
by the handle. I have purposely given elephants things to lift which
they could never have seen before, and they were all handled in such a
manner as to convince me that they recognized such qualities as
hardness, sharpness, and weight."[116]
[116] Romanes, _Animal Intelligence_, pp. 101, 102; see also Kemp,
_Indications of Instinct_, pp. 120, 130.
Mr. Conklin, the celebrated elephant trainer, once told me that his
elephants not only recognized such qualities as weight, sharpness, and
hardness, but also _volume or dimension_.
The kinship of mind in man and the lower animals is indicated also by
the phenomenon of dreaming which is to be observed in both. When the
active consciousness is stilled by slumber, subconsciousness or
ganglionic consciousness remains awake, and sometimes makes itself
evident in dreams. I have repeatedly observed my terrier when under
dream influence, and have been able to predicate the substance of his
dreams from his actions. Like man, the dog is sometimes unable to
differentiate between his waking and dreaming thoughts; he confounds
the one with the other, and follows out in his waking state the ideas
suggested by his dreams.
This, with normal man, is always a momentary delusion; with the dog,
however, it may last for some little time. Thus, I have seen my dog
chase imaginary rats around my room after having been aroused while in
the midst of a dream. His chagrin when he "came to himself" and saw me
laughing was always strikingly apparent.
The brains of the lower animals are susceptible to the action of drugs,
whose effects on them are identical with the effects noticed when the
human brain is under drug influence. Alcohol, chloroform, ether, opium,
strychnine, arsenic, all produce characteristic symptoms when they are
introduced into the circulatory system of the lower animals. Even the
very lowest animalcules give this evidence as to the kinship of nerve
and ganglionic or brain elements in man and the lower animals.
I have repeatedly noticed the action of alcohol on rhizopods. When small
and almost inappreciable doses were exhibited, the little creatures
became lively and swam merrily through the water; but, when large doses
were given, they soon became stupefied and finally died. I have seen
drunken jelly-fish rolling and tacking through the alcohol-impregnated
water for all the world like a company of drunkards.[117] They soon
became sober, however, when they were placed in fresh water, but
remained listless and inert for some time afterward.
[117] Compare Romanes, _Jelly-Fish, Star-Fish, and Sea-Urchins_, p. 227.
Coleoptera, hymenoptera, diptera, in fact, all insects exhibit the
characteristic effects of alcohol when under its influence. Horses,
dogs, cats, monkeys--all mammals are affected characteristically by
alcohol, and it not infrequently happens that they willingly become
drunkards.[118]
[118] Lindsay, _Mind in the Lower Animals_, pp. 81-93.
Animals also appear to become cognizant of the fact that certain
substances are medicaments, and they will voluntarily search for and
take such substances when they are ill. Bees are perfectly aware of the
astringent qualities of the sap of certain trees, notably the dogwood
and wild cherry, and, when afflicted with the diarrhoea, can be seen
biting into, and sucking, the sap from the tender twigs of such trees.
Dogs, when constipated, will search for and devour the long, lanceolate
blades of couch-grass (_Triticum repens_); horses and mules, when they
have "scours," eat clay; cattle with the "scratches" have been seen to
plaster hoof and joint with mud, and then stand still until the healing
coating dried out and became firm; and elephants have been known, time
and again, to plug up shot holes in their bodies with moistened
earth.[119]
[119] Romanes, Skinner, Sir R. Tennent, Bingley, Forbes, _et al._
Again, the recognition of the rights of property cannot be attributed to
instinct, neither can it fall under the head of "intelligent accidents,"
yet many animals lower than man recognize, to a certain extent, the
rights of property. For instance, in 1879, two very intelligent
chimpanzees were on exhibition at Central Park. One of these animals
claimed as her property a particular blanket, and, notwithstanding the
fact that there were other blankets in the cage in which they were
confined, always covered herself with this blanket. She would take it
away from her companion whenever she wished to use it. Again, two
turkeys on my place deposited their eggs in the same nest. The hen which
first built and used the nest regarded the spot as her individual home;
therefore, whenever she found the other hen's egg in the nest, she would
break it with her beak, and then carry it some distance away. This I
have seen her do repeatedly.
Many dogs, cats, and other animals regard certain rugs, cushions, etc.,
as their own property, and resent any interference with them. It seems
to me that in all such instances these animals regard themselves as
individuals; that they recognize the psychical as well as the physical
difference between the _Ego_ and the _Tu_ as soon as they begin to
recognize the rights of property.
Those who hold that instinct governs all actions of the lower animals,
usually claim that man is the only tool-user. This is a gross
mistake--elephants, when walking along the road, will break branches
from the trees and use them as fly-brushes;[120] these creatures also
manufacture surgical instruments, and use them in getting rid of certain
parasites;[121] monkeys use rocks and hammers to crack nuts too hard for
their teeth; these creatures also make use of missiles to hurl at their
foes;[122] chimpanzees make drums out of pieces of dry and resonant
wood;[123] the orang-utan breaks branches and fruit from the trees and
hurls them at its foes;[124] the gorilla and chimpanzee use cudgels or
clubs as weapons of offence or defence;[125] monkeys make use of sticks
in order to draw objects within their reach;[126] spiders suspend
pebbles from their webs in order to preserve stability,[127] etc.
[120] Peal, _Nature_, Vol. XXI. p. 34; quoted also by Romanes.
[121] Peal, _Nature_, Vol. XXI.
[122] Romanes, _Animal Intelligence_, p. 485 _et seq._
[123] Lindsay, _Mind in the Lower Animals_, Vol. I. p. 410.
[124] Wallace, _Malayan Archipelago_, p. 41.
[125] Lindsay, _loc. cit. ante_, p. 413.
[126] Belt, _Naturalist in Nicaragua_, p. 119.
[127] Büchner, _Geistesleben der Thiere_, p. 318.
I could prolong this list to a much greater length, but think it hardly
necessary. I think that I have demonstrated that man is not the only
tool-user.
Even such dyed-in-the-wool creationists as Kirby and Spence are forced
to admit the presence of reason in insects.
"Such, then, are the exquisiteness, the number, and the extraordinary
development of the instincts of insects. But is instinct the sole guide
of their actions? Are they in every case the blind agent of irresistible
impulse? These queries, I have already hinted, cannot, in my opinion,
be replied to in the affirmative; and I now proceed to show that though
instinct is the chief guide to insects, they are endowed also with no
inconsiderable portion of _reason_."[128]
[128] Kirby and Spence, _Entomology_, p. 591.
Studied both objectively and subjectively, insects present indisputable
evidence of reason. Not the higher abstract reason of the human being,
however, but reason in its primal, fundamental state.
The difference between instinct and reason is not generally understood,
and, as I believe that most readers can comprehend an illustration much
quicker than an explanation, I will use the former in order to bring out
this difference.
The hen which sits three weeks on a china egg is influenced by blind
impulse--instinct; while the turkey which discovers the eggs of her
rival in her nest, and destroys them, is directed by something
infinitely higher--by reason. The using of a common nest never occurs
among these birds in a wild state, neither is it of so frequent
occurrence among domesticated turkeys as to have formed an instinctive
habit.
Again, the honey-making ants which left their patrol line in order to
slay the wounded centipede may have been, and probably were, influenced
by instinct; another and wholly different psychical trait, however,
impelled them to fill up the trench dug with my hunting knife. This
accident could not have occurred, perhaps, to them in a state of nature,
or if by any possibility it had ever occurred before, the chances are
that such occurrences were few in number, and that they happened at long
intervals of time, thus precluding the establishment of an instinctive
habit. Nor do I think it possible for this action to come under the head
of "specialized instinct," for the same reason. By the very nature of
things there can be no such thing as an "intelligent accident"; the term
is itself a contradiction, therefore the performance of these ants must
be considered an act of intelligent ratiocination.
In this discussion of mind in the lower animals I have endeavored to
show that the psychical traits evinced by them indicate that their
mental organisms, taken as a whole, are the same in kind as that of
man.
* * * * *
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bates. _The Naturalist on the River Amazon._
Belt. _The Naturalist in Nicaragua._
Büchner. _Geistesleben der Thiere._
Carter. _Annals of Natural History._
Clark. _Mind in Nature._
Comstock. _The Study of Insects._
Darwin. _The Descent of Man_; _The Origin of Species_; _Insectivorous
Plants_; _Formation of Vegetable Mould_; _The Expression of the
Emotions_; _Power of Movement in Plants_.
Dewar. _Physiological Action of Light_, Nature, 1877.
Figuier. _Reptiles and Birds._
Furneaux. _Life in Streams and Ponds._
Gibson. _Sharp Eyes._
Haeckel. _History of Creation_; _Evolution of Man_.
Hartman. _Anthropoid Apes._
Hickson. _The Fauna of the Deep Sea._
Huber. _The Natural History of Ants._
Huxley. _The Study of Zoölogy._
Kemp. _Indication of Instinct._
Kirby and Spence. _Entomology._
Lindsay. _Mind in the Lower Animals in Health_; _Mind in the Lower
Animals in Disease_.
Lubbock. _Origin and Metamorphoses of Insects_; _Ants, Bees, and Wasps_;
_The Social Hymenoptera_; _The Senses, Instincts, and Intelligence of
Animals_.
Luys. _The Brain and its Functions._
Mantagazza. _Physiognomy and Expression._
Maudsley. _The Physiology of Mind_; _Body and Will_.
Miller. _Four Handed Folk._
Peschel. _The Races of Man._
Pettigrew. _Animal Locomotion._
Peal. _Nature_, Vol. XXI.
Quatrefages. _The Human Species._
Reclain. _Body and Mind._
Romanes. _Animal Intelligence_; _Mental Evolution in Animals_; _Mental
Evolution in Man_; _The Jelly-Fish, Star-Fish, and Sea-Urchin_.
Roscoe. _Life of Leo the Tenth._
Schmidt. _The Mammalia._
Schneider. _Thierische Wille._
Semper. _Animal Life._
Tuke. _Influence of the Mind upon the Body._
Van Beneden. _Animal Parasites and Messmates._
Wallace. _Island Life_; _The Malay Archipelago_.
Whitney. _Life and Growth of Language._
White. _A Londoner's Walk to Edinburgh._
Yarrell. _British Fishes._
* * * * *
INDEX
A
ACINETA MYSTACINA, amoeba catches and devours an, 50.
ACTINOPHRYS, power of differentiation in A. Eichornii, 7;
Brachionus captured by, 7;
uric acid crystals and sand grains in an experiment with, 9;
taste in, 9;
sight in, 11;
memory of locality in, 49, 52;
lying in wait for, and devouring the young of, a _pythium_, 49;
love of pastime in, 123;
death-feigning by, 201;
effect of alcohol on, 219.
ADELOPS, homing sense in blind, 196;
author's experiments in demonstrating homing sense of blind, 196.
ALBINISM, axolotl affected by, 182;
difference between etiolation and, 182, 184.
ALCIOPE, eyes of, 17.
ALGA, stentor feeding on spores of, 47.
AMOEBA, young acineta caught by, 51.
ANEMONE, Romanes' experiment with, 42;
death-feigning by, 205.
ANERGATES, parasitic, 156, 157.
ANGLEWORM, differentiation between light and darkness by, 54;
experiments with light on, 55;
ocelli of, 55;
Darwin's theory as to deafness in, 55;
organs of audition in, 56;
author's experiments with, 56;
conscious choice in, 56;
taste in, 56, 57.
ANT, memory of locality in the, 62;
memory of friends (kindred) in the, 65;
Huber's observations, 66;
author's experiments with _Lasius niger_, 66;
claviger beetles recognized and petted by, 73;
gray matter in the brain of, 99;
nerve-cells and nerve-filaments in the brain cortex of, 99;
Lubbock's experiments (chloroform and alcohol) with, 99;
sympathy evinced by, 100;
parental care of worker ants for young, 103;
love of amusement in the, 125;
author's observations of _L. flavus_, 125, 126;
_Claviger foveolatus_ fondled by, 126;
Huber's observations of _pratensis_, 125;
Lubbock's observations of _Beckia_, a pet of, 126;
author's observations of _Podura_ in the nests of _F. fusca_ and
_F. rufescens_, 126;
evidence of reason in the, 152;
funeral of an, 153;
battle between, 153;
author's verification of Huber's experiment with slave, 155;
degeneration in, 155;
Lubbock's summary of degeneration in, 156;
homing sense in the, 197;
death-feigning in the, 212.
ANTHROBIA, eyeless, 11.
APE, cat affectionately treated by an, 83.
APHIS, ants domesticate the, 73.
ARGIOPE, mason wasps for food prefer the spider, 170.
ATROPIA, sympathetic nerves paralyzed by, 191.
AXOLOTL, color-changing in, 184;
Paul Bert's experiments with, 184;
Semper's experiments with, 184;
Kölliker's experiments with, 184.
B
BALANCERS, of _Tabanus atratus_, 34;
of _Chrysops niger_, 33;
of _Diplosis resinicola_, 33.
BASCANION CONSTRICTOR, recognition of individuals by, 75;
bird decorates its nest with skin of, 127.
BASS, parental affection in, 138;
homing sense in black, 200.
BECKIA, ants domesticate and pet, 126.
BIRD, memory of individuals in, 76, 77;
gratitude in, 77, 93;
homing sense in, 199.
BOMBARDIER BUG, death-feigning in, 211.
BRACHIONUS, actinophrys captures, 7.
BRACHIONUS URCEOLARIS, death-feigning in, 206.
BUMBLEBEE, revenge and anger in, 71;
recognition of a certain dog by, 71.
BURYING BEETLE, homing sense in, 197.
BUTTERFLY, suitable food for larva selected by, 103;
age of tropical, 137;
Miranda's observations, 137, 138.
C
CALOTIS, third eye of, 27.
CANTHON LÆVIS, death-feigning in, 210.
CAPUCHIN MONKEY, surgical operation on a, 95;
faith in man's ability to aid evinced by a, 96.
CARABIDÆ, auditory vesicles of, 37;
memory of locality in, 64.
CAT, pride of offspring in a male, 142;
idea of time shown by a, 177.
CATFISH, parental affection in, 138, 139.
CERAMBYX, sense of hearing in, 36;
Will's experiment with, 36.
CHACMA, cat chosen as friend by, 83;
author's test for memory of individuals in, 84.
CHAMELEON, educated, 75;
recognition of individual by, 75.
CHICK, pigment cells in embryonic, 186, 187.
CHIMPANZEE, laughter and smiles evinced by, 89;
faculty of computing in, 177;
recognition of property rights by, 221.
CHRYSOPS NIGER, balancers of, 33;
organs of hearing in, 33.
CICINDELIDÆ, auditory vesicles of, 37;
memory of locality in, 64.
CLAVIGER FOVEOLATUS, ants make a pet of, 73.
COCCINELLÆ, peculiar assemblages of female, 126, 127.
COCK, friendship between a drake and a, 78;
fondness for violin music in a, 122.
CONSCIOUSNESS, definition of, 43;
time element in, 44;
the probable location of active, 216;
the probable location of the sub-liminal, 216.
CORYDALIS, auditory rods of, 30.
COW, dog the guardian and friend of a, 80.
CRAB, Pouchet's experiment on the chromatophores of, 189.
CRAYFISH, eyes of, 21;
power of vision in, 23;
pugnacity of, 23.
CRICKET, ears of, 31.
CYMOTHOE, eyes of fresh-water, 13.
D
DETERMINATION, the origin of conscious, 40.
DINOCHARIS POCILLUM, death-feigning in, 206.
DIPLOSIS RESINICOLA, balancers of, 33.
DIPTERA, ears of, 33;
love of pastime in, 125.
DOG, cow chosen as a friend by a, 78;
laughter in, 90;
fondness for certain musical keys in the, 112;
author's experiments with the, 113;
origin of musical discrimination in the, 114;
knowledge of the echo in the, 115;
author's observations of an echo-loving, 115;
parental affection in the, 141;
abstract idea of numbers in the, 173, 174;
phenomenon of dreaming in the, 218;
medication by sick, 220.
DROSERA ROTUNDIFOLIA, insectivorous, 208.
DUCK, friendship between bantam cock and, 78;
hawk attacked and killed by, 78;
sense of direction in, 199.
DYTICUS MARGINALIS, auditory rods of, 30;
death-feigning in a fresh-water annelid when approached by, 204.
E
EAGLE, recognition of individuals by, 76.
EAR, Dyticus, 30;
corydalis, 30;
grasshopper's, 31;
Tabanus, 34.
EARWIG, method of incubation practised by, 105;
care of young by, 105;
M. Geer's experiment with, 105;
love of offspring in, 106;
author's experiments in testing parental affection in the, 136.
ECITON HAMATA, ants of the same species rescue an imprisoned, 100;
Belt's experiments in testing the sympathy of, 101.
ELEPHANT, abstract ideation in the, 217;
Conklin's testimony as to abstract ideation in, 218;
mud used to stop bullet holes by, 220;
a branch of a bush used as a fan by, 221.
EPIPONE SPINIPES, method of supplying larva with fresh food used by, 104;
differentiation in the amount of food for male and female grub, 104.
ETIOLATION, definition of, 184, 185.
EUPLOCINÆ, length of life in tropical, 137.
EYE, flounder's, 9;
plaice's, 9;
sole's, 9;
mole's, 10;
fresh-water _Cymothoe's_, 13;
OEquorea's, 15;
sea-urchin's, 16;
oyster's, 17;
_Alciope's_, 17;
snail's, 19;
crayfish's, 21;
_Gyrinus'_, 23;
_Periophthalmus'_, 25;
_Onchidium's_, 26;
calotis', 27.
F
FISH, phosphorescent and pigmented, 13;
parental affection in, 138;
sense of direction in, 200.
FLEA, memory in the, 86;
dancing and military evolutions by, 86;
method of educating the, 87.
FLOUNDER, the origin of unilateral eyes in, 9.
FORMICA FUSCA, sympathy in, 100;
species of _Podura_ domesticated by, 126.
FORMICA RUFA, sympathy evinced by, 102.
FORMICA RUFESCENS, pet beetles in the nest of, 126.
FORMICA SANGUINEA, slave-making habit in, 155;
sympathy evinced by, 102;
Lubbock's observations of a sick, 102.
FROG, tinctumutation in the, 182;
chromatophores of, 182;
Heincke's observations, 183;
location of color-changing sense in, 190.
G
GADFLY, selection of suitable spot for oviposition by, 103.
GILT CATFISH, _gyropeltes_ make the toilet of, 130;
color-changing in, 183;
author's experiments on the color-changing function of, 191.
GOBIUS RUTHENSPARRI, tinctumutation in, 183.
GOGGLE-EYE PERCH, love of offspring in, 138;
homing sense in, 200.
GOOSE, homing sense in the, 199.
GORILLA, use of cudgel by, 222.
GRASSHOPPER, ears of, 30.
GYRINUS, indifference to seasons shown by, 23;
eyes of, 24.
GYROPELTES, health of gilt catfish dependent on, 130.
H
HELICONIDÆ, length of life in, 138.
HELIX POMATIA, love of amusement in, 123;
author's observations, 124.
HEMIPTERA, organs of audition in, 29.
HOG, friendship between a dog and a, 81.
HONEY BEE, recognition of impending calamity by, 90;
consternation and dismay manifested by, 90;
remarkable engineering feat by, 91;
joy evinced by, 91;
grief shown by, 91, 92;
Huber's experiment demonstrating reason in, 178.
HORSE, love of offspring in the, 143;
seeking man's aid when in trouble, 144;
self-medication by, 220.
HOUND, death-feigning by, 212.
HUMMING-BIRD, decorative instinct in, 128.
HYDRA, water-louse feeding on the buds of, 52.
HYDROZOA, nerve-tissue in, 41.
HYMENOPTERA, recognition of kindred in social, 69.
I
ICHNEUMON, method of ovipositing in the bodies of caterpillars used
by, 104.
INSTINCT, definition of, 147, 148.
J
JAY, parental love in the, 142;
battle between cat and, 143.
JELLY-FISH, anatomy, physiology, and psychology of, 4;
nerve-ring in nectocalyx of, 5;
"eyes" of, 5;
manubrium or "handle" of, 5;
sensitiveness of nervous system in, 5;
pulsing of nectocalyx in, 5;
intoxicated, 15;
light sought by, 15;
effect of the excision of the marginal bodies of, 52;
conscious determination in, 52;
effect of alcohol on, 219.
K
KATYDID, color-changing function in, 191, 192.
L
LAND TERRAPIN, memory of locality in, 65;
homing sense in, 65;
author's experiments with, 65.
LASIUS FLAVUS, author's experiments with, 67;
slow in recognizing kin, 67;
ants of the same species disinter buried, 101.
LASIUS NIGER, memory of kindred in, 66.
LEPIDOPTERA, organs of hearing in, 35.
LETISIMULATION, definition of, 202;
origin of, 206.
LIMPET, homing sense in, 194;
Romanes on the homing sense in, 195.
LIOTHE, fowls cleaned by, 129.
LIZARD, Ada Sterling's account of Kate Field's music-loving, 119;
fondness for music in the tree, 119;
Chilhowie "singing," 120;
author's experiment with the piccolo on, 120.
LOBSTER, love of offspring in the, 137;
battle between monkey and gravid, 137.
LOCUST, love of cleanliness in, 130;
diamond mistaken for dewdrop by, 131;
carnivorous tastes in the, 131;
description of the toilet of a, 132.
LYCOSA, love of music in, 108;
tameness of, 110.
M
MAMMOTH CAVE, eyeless spider of, 11;
eyeless fish of, 11;
homing sense in the beetles of, 196.
MANDRIL, a revengeful, 95.
MEDUSA, intoxicated, 15.
MELANOPLUS, reënforcing auditory ganglia of, 32.
MEMORY, its discussion under four heads, 60.
MIMOSA PUDICA, death-feigning by, 208.
MIMOSA STRIGILOSA, death-feigning by, 208.
MIND, definition of, 1.
MOLE, degeneration of sight organs in, 10.
MONERON, non-differentiation of nerve-cells in, 3;
nervoid elements in, 3.
MONKEY, author chosen as a friend by, 82;
a laughing, 89;
sorrow and reproach manifested by, 97;
faculty of computing in the, 177;
use of hammer by a, 222.
MORPHOLOGY, its correlation with physiology, 2.
MOUSE, love of music in, 116;
musical discrimination in, 117;
Quigley's observations, 117;
Benedick's experiments with, 117;
author's observations and analysis of the song of "singing," 118;
Ada Sterling's observations of music-loving, 118, 119.
MULE, idea of time evinced by a, 175, 176.
MYRIANIDA, eyes of, 17;
reproduction in, 18.
MYRMECA RUGINODIS, memory of friends (kindred) in, 68;
experiments with, 68.
MYRMECOCYSTUS, the honey-making, 157;
natural history of, 158;
author's experiments in testing the reasoning powers of, 158, 159;
division of labor in a colony of, 161.
N
NECTOCALYX, marginal bodies in jelly-fish's, 51.
NERVE, transmission of impressions through, 41;
the power of discrimination in, 41;
the association of ideas (impressions) in, 43;
memory in, 43.
NEWT, tinctumutation in, 186;
author's experiments with, 186.
O
OEQUOREA, eyes of, 15.
OESTRUS EQUI, selection of foreleg of horse for oviposition by, 103.
ONCHIDIUM, cephalic eyes of, 26;
dorsal eyes of, 26.
OPOSSUM, letisimulation in the, 202, 212.
ORANG-UTAN, laughter in the, 89;
use of missiles by, 222.
OX, homing sense in the, 199, 200.
OYSTER, eyes of, 16.
P
PAPILIONINÆ, length of life in tropical, 137.
PERCH, love of offspring in the white, 138.
PERIOPHTHALMUS, habitat of, 25;
peculiar mode of life of, 25;
eyes of, 25;
food of, 26.
PIGEON, love of music in the, 122;
Lockman's account of a music-loving, 122;
musical discrimination in, 122.
PIPE-FISH, parental affection in the, 139;
Risso's observations, 139.
PLAICE, the origin of unilateral eyes in the, 9;
absence of color-changing faculty in blind, 188;
Pouchet's demonstration of the color-changing function of the
sympathetic nerves in, 189.
PODURA, _F. fusca_ and _F. rufescens_ make pets of, 126;
author's observations of, 126.
POLYERGUS, lowering tendency of slavery shown by, 155, 156.
PRIONUS, author's experiments in locating organs of hearing in, 36.
Q
QUAIL, domesticated, 111;
love of caresses in, 111;
love of instrumental music in, 111;
fondness for the singing voice in, 112.
R
RAT, fondness for instrumental music in, 116;
power of musical discrimination in, 116.
REASON, definition of, 147;
difference between instinct and, 148.
RHIZOPOD, sense of direction in, 48;
Carter's observations of, 49;
memory in, 60.
ROBIN, homing sense in, 199.
S
SAND-WASP, memory of locality in, 62;
author's experiments with, 63.
SARCOPTES HOMINIS, death-feigning in, 209.
SATIN BIRD, æstheticism in the male, 128;
author's observations of, 128.
SEA-URCHIN, eyes of, 16.
SNAIL, eyes of, 19;
visual powers of, 19;
courtship of, 20;
location of sense of direction in, 194;
author's experiments with, 194;
author's experiments in demonstrating homing sense in the, 194.
SNAKE, love of young in, 140;
author's experiment in testing parental affection of, 140;
sense of direction and "homing instinct" in, 198;
author's observations of "homing instinct" in, 198.
SOLE, the origin of unilateral eyes in the, 9.
SONG-SPARROW, memory of individuals in, 77;
parental affection in, 143.
SPANIEL, a laughing, 89.
SPIDER, memory in, 72;
recognition of individuals by, 73;
love of music in the, 108;
author's experiments with piano on, 108;
author's experiments with pipe organ on, 109;
Reclain's observations on the love of music in, 109;
decorative instinct present in, 110;
peculiar web spun by, 110;
parental affection in, 135;
author's experiment in testing parental love of, 135;
use of implement (pebble anchor) by, 222.
SQUIRREL, memory in the, 70.
STENTOR POLYMORPHUS, nervous system of, 46;
observations of and experiments with, 47;
conscious determination in, 47;
ganglia of, 47.
STRONGALOGNATHUS, degeneration caused by the habit of slave-making in,
155, 156, 157.
T
TABANUS ATRATUS, balancers of, 33;
loss of equilibrium in, 33;
anatomy of balancers of, 34;
auditory hairs of, 34.
TERMES, kinds of individuals in a colony of, 161;
number of eggs laid by queen of, 162;
size of gravid queen, 162;
New Mexican, 163;
soldiers and workers of, 163;
instincts and reasoning powers of, 164.
TERRIER, love of music in, 113;
musical discrimination in, 113;
abstract ideation in, 216.
TINCTUMUTATION, definition of, 182;
location of color-changing sense centre in, 183.
TOAD, memory in the, 87;
a performing, 87;
parental affection in the Surinam, 140.
TRITICUM REPENS, sick dogs medicate themselves with, 220.
TURKEY, memory of individuals in the, 76;
recognition of property rights by the, 221.
V
VANESSA, tinctumutation in the larva of, 192.
VIPER, death-feigning in the, 207.
VOLITION, definition of conscious, 39;
physiological aspect of, 40.
W
WASP, memory in the, 62;
author's experiments in testing memory in the, 63, 69;
memory of kindred in the, 65, 69;
memory of locality and of events in the, 85;
knowledge derived from a single experience by a, 85;
length of life in the mud-dauber, 138;
evidence of reason in the mud-dauber, 149, 150;
psychic actualities of easy acquirement in the ant, the bee, and
the, 151;
faculty of computing in the mason, 169;
author's experiments in testing the computing faculty in the, 170;
method of preparing food for the male and female grubs used by the
mason, 170.
WATER-LOUSE, sense of direction in the, 194.
WREN, distress and grief evinced by, 93;
recognition of individuals by, 93;
gratitude shown by, 94.
* * * * *
ECONOMICS.
BY
EDWARD THOMAS DEVINE, Ph.D.,
_General Secretary of The Charity Organization Society of the City of
New York; Sometime Fellow in the University of Pennsylvania; and Staff
Lecturer of the American Society for the Extension of University Teaching._
* * *
16mo. Cloth. $1.00.
* * *
"Long experience in the popular exposition of the principles of
political economy has given Dr. Edward Thomas Devine peculiar
qualifications for the preparation of a text-book upon this subject, and
his recently published 'Economics' is an excellent book of its kind. It
may be warmly recommended."--_Dial._
"It is a lucid, and entertaining exposition of the subject."--_St. Louis
Globe-Democrat._
"Every young man and woman on the verge of the real life that comes with
gaining their majority should read a good work on this subject, and we
could recommend no better than this particular volume."--_Iowa State
Register._
"Mr. Devine's will undoubtedly be found a handbook suited to its
purpose."--_Milwaukee Sentinel._
* * *
THE MACMILLAN COMPANY,
66 FIFTH AVENUE, NEW YORK.
* * *
A HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY
WITH ESPECIAL REFERENCE TO
THE FORMATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF
ITS PROBLEMS AND CONCEPTIONS.
By DR. W. WINDELBAND,
_Professor of Philosophy in the University of Strassburg._
Authorized Translation by JAMES H. TUFTS, Ph.D.,
_Associate Professor of Philosophy in the University of Chicago._
8vo. Cloth. $4.00, net.
* * *
"The work commends itself to every student of philosophy."--_Boston
Transcript._
"As a book of reference it will not supersede Ueberweg's History, but it
is more readable and gives a much better view of the connection of
philosophic thought from age to age and of the logical relation of the
various schools and thinkers to each other. There is no other work
available in English which presents these aspects of a subject so well,
and both English and American students who do not read German will thank
Professor Tufts for giving them the book in their own language."--_Critic._
"No preceding history so fully occupies its field and answers its
purpose. It should have a place in the library of every student of
Philosophy."--_Chicago Tribune._
"We believe that this is as nearly perfect a book in the form of a
history of philosophy as has ever been produced."--_Boston Herald._
* * *
THE MACMILLAN COMPANY,
66 FIFTH AVENUE, NEW YORK.