EVIDENCES OF THE EVOLUTION OF MENTAL POWERS
From what has been said in the foregoing pages it is evident that not
only our bodily equipment but also our mental manifestations――which
latter are often regarded as abstract, and merely concomitant with
changes in the brain-substance rather than physically the direct
outcome of such changes――these have a deeply rooted origin in the
remote beginnings of living things. Space has permitted me to approach
the faculty called _memory_ only from the developmental standpoint.
I have selected it because, while we have evidence to show that
_memory_ is not confined necessarily to the workings of the Brain
alone (the other cells of the ‘_soma_’ or body, participating in the
manifestations of this phenomenon), and therefore while its supposed
purely mental origin in embryonic existence may be considered as
incomplete, nevertheless the conscious mental workings of this
marvellous faculty after birth are of primary importance in connection
with the rise and advancement of morality. Subservient, and revolving,
so to speak, around Memory, as the plants round a solar system, are
[Sidenote: _Psycho-biological analysis of mental faculties_]
such emotions as _Joy_, _Sorrow_, _Fear_, _Anger_, _Love_, etc., and
some of these we have already touched upon from the developmental point
of view. Other expressions of mental activity of great importance
and complexity, such as _Curiosity_, _Imitation_, _Imagination_,
_Admiration_, etc., have also evolved, and their presence can be
traced far down the trunk of the ancestral tree. But the evidence
of their evolution must for the most part be assumed; for even a
comparison of these faculties with the same in man is a subject which
I cannot here touch upon, except in some of the cases which have come
under my personal notice. If the reader wishes to pursue this subject
further let him glean from the pages of Darwin’s _Descent of Man_, and
he will see, in the chapter on this theme, an array of marshalled facts
which leaves no room for doubt.
I will confine my attention to observations which I have made on the
powers of _Imitation_, _Attention_, _Imagination_, and _Admiration_
among some of the lower animals. My subjects have been pigeons, hawks,
dogs, cats, and horses, all of which except the last were at one time
or another my own particular pets. And I would add that in each case
the particular faculty in question has been strongly developed during
the animal’s tenure of captivity. I shall also recount a few more
[Sidenote: _Hawks: faculty of Attention_]
cursory observations on animals in Zoological Gardens. I have always
had a particular fancy for hawks. Attracted by their beauty of form,
bold, fearless, and honest expression of eye, their hardiness of nature
together with the rough and ready way in which, when one has gained
their confidence and love, they will exhibit affection, are points to
which I have paid much attention. I have kept a succession of hawks
ever since my boyhood, and have noticed on many occasions remarkable
instances of the development of a faculty which should be capable of
expansion in them, namely _Attention_. This I say because the brain of
a hawk may be well described as an _eye-brain_, the sense of sight
being developed altogether out of proportion to the other senses.
One of my Kestrels, which was a female, would attend so eagerly to a
sudden rush and bark of a little dog when near the cage that I could
lift up one foot, gently close the bird’s talons, and shake ‘hands.’
The reason of this concentrated attention was that the hawk associated
the sudden barking with the presence or possible approach of a black
cat which periodically came round and tried to purloin the meat, an
action usually checked in the nick of time by the canine custodian.
The bird loved music; a soothing lullaby, constantly repeated, would
call forth so marked contentment (as the bird gazed with steadfast
look into one’s face) that one could stroke her feathers, a proceeding
much objected to under ordinary mental conditions. A friend staying
on a visit, who has a passionate love for animals, took a great
fancy to my pet, and this was strongly reciprocated. One evening as
the bird stood on a table, she lent over her and in whispering tones
commenced a soft lullaby. So charmed, I might say almost mesmerized
became the listener that she took no notice of a miniature doctor’s
gown, of bright red and blue material being laid across her shoulders;
and it was not for several minutes afterwards, when she awoke from her
reverie at the cessation of the music, that she beheld her strange
guise, and then with a swift stroke of her claws pulled off the garb.
[Sidenote: _Hawks: faculty of Imagination_]
This hawk was strongly imaginative, as the following incident will
illustrate. On approaching her coop with a hard black felt hat on my
head, she never recognized me, and exhibited considerable dread of my
presence. I cannot say that I have quite discovered the reason, but it
would appear that she conjured up in her mind a vague mental picture
of something animate or otherwise which she had probably once upon a
time seen and which frightened her, and that she associated its form
with my harmless head-gear. The timidity can hardly be the outcome
of inherited experience, for no natural enemy that I know bears a
semblance to the rim of my hat, which I think is the part she feared
[Sidenote: _Fear associated with Imagination_]
most. Rooks and especially ravens often mob and drive away from the
cliff this species of Hawk, but I fear it would be far-fetched for
me to entertain the notion that my hat appeared as an effigy of one
of these swarthy combatants, especially as my bird never saw either
cliff or raven in its life. Indeed the _colour_ of my hat was not the
real cause of alarm, as is seen by the fact that a person dressed
entirely in black without the hat on, approaching instilled no fear.
And so, as an ultimate suggestion, I ask, _was the colour coupled with
the form of my hat_ conceived as resembling the feline lurker above
referred to?――and, if we admit this, we must allow for considerable
elasticity of the bird’s imaginative faculty. At all events, whatever
was her cause of fear, it seemed unwarranted, for I have never tried to
induce fright――in fact, when wearing the hat, I have sought to distract
attention by the offer of food; but this has been of no avail.
[Sidenote: _Pigeons: faculty of Attention_]
Most of us are aware that in pigeons both sexes take on the task of
incubation. But sometimes the female will leave her eggs for a short
period in order to obtain food, when she will return for another spell
on the nest before exchanging duties with her mate. When she is on the
ground, the male usually feeds for a short time with her; but, if she
delays too long, he hunts her back to the nest. Among my own pigeons I
have observed how a female which remained off her eggs too long, after
several offences drew the attention of her mate so markedly that, on
attempting to come off her eggs again he immediately flew after her
and, pecking at her vigorously, succeeded in sending her back at once
to her maternal duties――in fact he showed distinctly that he did not
intend to allow her to leave the nest until it was time for him to take
on his share of incubation.
[Sidenote: _Cat: faculty of imitating voice-sounds_]
Illustrative of the faculty of imitating voice-sounds I cite the
following: In a large male tabby-cat which showed great aptitude for
performing tricks I managed to develop a curious double call-note. I
incidentally noticed this strange sound, which the cat first made when
he had a severe throat affection. Unable to produce the usual prolonged
‘_mew_’ when about to receive his saucer of milk, he endeavoured to
show me his wants by two little ejaculations resembling the barks of
a puppy. During his illness he made these sounds at very frequent
intervals of the day, and it occurred to me that, if I gave him milk
each time he uttered them, he might associate this generosity on my
part with the abnormal sounds he produced. As the cough passed away,
and the normal prolonged single-syllabled ‘_mew_’ returned, I used to
hesitate before putting the saucer to the ground. At first there was
no response, but soon the bitter disappointment which seemed to enter
the feline mind at being refused its drink in response to many a
plaintive ‘_mew_’ seemed to awaken in his memory recent associations
of ideas suggestive of the repetition of the double note. The moment I
heard this I placed the saucer of milk on the floor and thus after some
difficulty I succeeded in developing a permanent double call-note in
this domestic pet. Here it would appear that the cat learned to retain
by imitation an abnormal sound which emanated from himself originally;
though I must have helped on the power of this faculty by my own
mimicry of the abnormal sound which I often repeated when bribing the
animal.
[Sidenote: _Dogs: faculty of Imagination_]
Imagination is highly developed in Dogs. Their intellect is so bright
and their disposition so sympathetic that it is an easy matter to
beguile them into the belief that harmless inanimate objects may
possess ‘evil spirits.’ One of my small dogs always stole away from
me with uncoiled lowered tail if I showed her a black bottle, and this
dread of the uncanny is simply due to the fact that the first time
I showed the bottle I uttered a few remarks in a grave tone similar
to those which I would adopt if she put her muddy paws on my coat or
committed a like trivial offence. This fear is hardly comparable to
that displayed when a dog is shown the whip, for in the latter case
the animal has probably been on many previous occasions severely hurt
by the actual use of the lash. If a few gravely uttered sentences once
made were sufficient to deter the animal from approaching a certain
object, why did the same animal jump on my lap repeatedly with muddy
paws when the bottle was not visible? In the latter action correction
had been more repeatedly and stringently enforced――indeed I have often
shown annoyance, as one naturally would, at one’s new clothes being
smeared with mud. The answer to the question seems obvious. The dog
had acquired a permanent love for her master: she longed for petting
and caresses. When she saw him sitting on a chair, she, on entering
the room, bounded on his lap, forgetful in her excitement of previous
corrections. But a black bottle was an object concerning which she was
absolutely indifferent to originally, and would have passed it by in
the street without further ado. When, therefore, she saw her master
(whom she was wont to revere with almost complete religious-like
submission) introducing her in grave warning tones to this curious
object, her imagination began to expand, and her original indifference,
passing through phases of suspicion or curiosity, became lengthened
out into a _permanent superstition_.
[Sidenote: _Dogs: belief in Spirits_]
Several dogs that I have kept have indulged in the habit of uttering a
melancholy whine during moon-light. I used to think that the light shed
from the moon itself was the direct cause of such utterances, but it
has been pointed out that, as dogs stare not at the moon but at some
fixed point on the horizon, their “imaginations may be disturbed by
the vague outlines of the surrounding objects, and conjure up before
them fantastic images: if this be so, their feelings may almost be
called superstitions.” Returning to observations made on a pug-dog,
I may add that she was fully sensible of _Admiration_; by decking
her out with a bright blue or scarlet ribbon tied in a big bow round
her neck, by praising her with pleasing tones and friendly pats
(especially in the presence of a circle of human admirers), she would
sit up and start a sort of chattering conversation, often in little
ejaculations of two or three syllables; then pause; and then start the
[Sidenote: _Dogs: faculty of Admiration_]
same again, this being kept up for some time. Increase of conversation,
especially when addressed to the animal, would encourage this action,
which was accompanied with the fullest amount of facial expression
possible――indeed a faint incipient smile appeared as the upper lip was
softly raised and retracted. This expression was quite distinct from
the raised lip seen during a snarl; for, in the latter case, the other
facial muscles of combat were brought into action. This chattering
sound to which I have just referred had evolved from a few short sharp
barks impatiently emitted when I neglected to throw bits of biscuit
after asking the dog to “beg.” And instead of always throwing the bits
at once, and thereby stopping the barks, I used to address the dog in
somewhat similar tones to its own, but I added to the syllables: by
repeating this on many occasions when giving food, I managed to call
forth response. Ultimately I could set the chattering going by warm
adulation alone.
[Sidenote: _Dogs: faculty of Mimicry_]
While dogs are highly imaginative, I do not think they possess much
faculty for mimicry; yet there are some remarkable instances, cited
by observers of repute, illustrating to what a remarkable degree this
can be brought out. The instance which I have given regarding the
chattering, and which has been developed partially along the lines of
mimicry, is all I can recount in the case of dogs. But, curiously
enough, many instances are cited of dogs (which have been reared by
cats) licking their own paws and then rubbing their faces and ears
(such a well-known action of the cat). I had a cocker spaniel which
indulged in this habit quite frequently, though not exclusively, and
yet his only intercourse with cats has been to chase them off the
premises.
[Sidenote: _Horses: belief in Spirits_]
Returning to the question of the faculty of _Imagination_ culminating
in an elemental superstition in lower animals, I will just refer to
one of many cases which I have witnessed in Horses. A horse, yoked to
a light trap containing two occupants besides myself, was being driven
down an avenue. Peeping over a hedgerow of an adjacent garden was a
large sun-flower, which the animal observed some little distance off.
Drawing near, he watched it so steadily that several pulls of the
reins failed to turn his head. Arriving opposite the inflorescence, he
stopped momentarily, and, not in a fearful but rather in an intensely
curious way, stared at it. A slight breeze caused the plant to sway
forward, whereupon the animal commenced to bolt. The curiosity here
aroused, which ended in the animal’s short halt to investigate this
strange object, seems to me to indicate some dim idea in the animal’s
[Sidenote: _Horses: genuine fright at natural enemies_]
mind of the presence of something uncanny. The animal evidently
regarded the sun-flower as a fetish. I am led to believe this inasmuch
as such action differs markedly from the immediate stampede which even
a well-trained, quiet, and fully-grown horse will make at its natural
and real enemy, a lion or a tiger, should even only the head of one of
these beasts appear afar off.
In regard to the faculty of Imagination occurring in wild beasts
confined behind prison bars, it is quite amazing to observe what may
or may not present itself as a fetish. I placed a reflex camera with
a _large telephoto lens_ close to a cage tenanted by a lion and a
lioness. The camera was slung from my shoulders. I had hardly commenced
to manipulate the instrument when the animals, becoming conscious of
the uncanny stare of a cyclopean monster (lens), instantly stampeded,
performing a series of catherine-wheel actions round their den. In an
adjacent cage was a panther. On seeing “cyclops,” this feline retreated
to a corner and commenced to growl and hiss, changing corners as I
moved diagonally in front of the bars. Reflex cameras now-a-days are
used so extensively in zoological gardens and menageries that the
animals, unless freshly imported, take little notice of them; however,
it was not my camera alone which brought such consternation to the king
of beasts and his queen; it was the _unusually large lens_ (“the eye of
cyclops”) no doubt very seldom seen in a Zoo――which shocked them. The
uncanny may be something very small. On one occasion I saw a puma very
much frightened at the sight of a white mouse sitting on the back of a
man’s hand placed close to the cage; a similar case has been recorded
of a tiger being terrified when a mouse, tied by a stick, was inserted
into its cage, the great beast, crouching in a corner, trembled and
roared in a paroxysm of fear. We are superstitious of tiny creatures of
human form (Fairies). Perhaps the tiger entertained a similar mental
state of a fairy quadruped!
Having related these instances, and before leaving the question
regarding the mental powers as exhibited in the animal kingdom, I will
remark that the tendency to imagine Spiritual Essences in natural
objects evidently has had its origin in creatures below the human
race, a point of much importance in pursuing one’s inquiries into the
origin and value of the ethical code in relation to primitive and more
advanced theologies, and into the real value which we must endeavour to
attach to so-called right and wrong. When Charles Darwin’s dog, which
he describes as a full-grown and very sensible animal, growled fiercely
and barked at the open parasol on the lawn which the wind slightly
moved, having no knowledge of the cause, a dim ethical aspect of the
matter took possession of the animal’s mind: was it right or wrong
to permit such a strange ‘living’ agent to cause this movement? In
his ignorance, the dog condemned this cause of action, but ethically
he was wrong in so doing, for he gained nothing, nay rather expended
[Sidenote: _Ethics of effects in the ignorance of the causes_]
unnecessary energy in barking at the effects of the wind; and, for
aught we know, this uncalled-for expression of his feelings may have
disturbed the balance of nature’s equilibrium among the creatures which
lay around him. I cite this example because we see on a far larger
scale so many parallels of boisterous expressions poured forth not
only by ignorant savages but by civilized, nevertheless superstitious,
people, in their endeavours to solve the problems of supposed Right and
Wrong, the effects of which they witness but of the causes of which
they know nothing, and about which they often frame the wildest and
most fantastic conjectures.