LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.
ANIMAL INTELLIGENCE.
[To THE EDITOR Or THE " SPECTATOR."]
Sia,-0 wing to my distance from town, my attention has only just been called to your review of my book on "Animal Intelli- gence," and I desire to say a few words in reply, for the sake of those among your readers who do not see the other periodicals in which notices have appeared.
Your reviewer begins by objecting to the "unnecessary re- finements " of my psychological definitions, and appears to think that in attempting a philosophical treatment of animal intelligence, I should not have sought to distinguish between. reflex action, instinct, and reason. To a psychologist so com- petent, I feel it is no wonder that my preliminary definitions should appear needlessly refined, or that they should collectively be found by him to refer to "the many singular phenomena which are due to what Dr. Carpenter tells us to call unconscious cerebration.'" But while readily bowing to the voice of authority, as expressed in "these recondite considerations," I regret that the profundity of his thought should have pre- vented your reviewer from reading all that I have written. Thus, after quoting from me the words, "No doubt, it is often difficult, or even impossible, to decide whether or not a given action implies the presence of the mind-element," he asks,. "Why have definitions at all, if we are still to be in doubt as to the category to which a particular action or class of actions is to be referred ?" Yet immediately following the words of mine which he quotes, this question is answered as clearly as I am capable of answering it. For I say," But this is altogether a,. separate matter, and has nothing to do with the question of defining instinct in a manner which shall be formally exclusive on the one hand of reflex action, and on the other of reason. As Virchow truly observes, 'It is difficult or impossible to draw. the line between instinctive and reflex action;' butt, at least, the difficulty may be narrowed down to deciding, in particular cases, whether or not an action falls into this or that category of definition ; there is no reason why the difficulty should arise on account of any ambiguity of the definitions themselves. Therefore, I endeavour to draw, as sharply as possible, the line, which, in theory, should be taken to separate instinctive from
reflex action." And the same considerations are subsequently • enforced with regard to the distinction between instinct and reason.
The next objection raised by your reviewer is, that my work is "disfigured by alleged facts that rest on slender evidence, or, if substantiated, that are, in several cases, open to the charge of • misinterpretation." The instances adduced to substantiate this charge I find to be six in number, and as to their quality, con- sidering the number of facts which my book contains, I feel that I ought to express my. obligation to your writer for the considerate manner in which this selection has been made. Thus, the first on the list is a quotation from Mr. N. J. Carter, F.R.S., published in The Annals anti Magazine of Natural History, as presenting observations made by himself. The next is, to quote your reviewer, " a venerable story related to Yarrell,"' the credibility of which he allows to be a matter of judgment. In the third case, it is shown that I have taken wrong notes, while
a correct reference to a fact stated in four lines. In the fourth case, it is shown that while correctly rendering the pub- lished observations of one author, I was not aware that another author had subsequently called them in question. The fifth case• is, again, a matter of judgment, and was admitted by me on the. authority of five different persons (three well-known authors and two eye-witnesses), as one "which, perhaps, can hardly yet be said to have been definitely settled." The sixth and last case is also a matter of judgment on the admissibility of evidence, and as it concerns a fact of which "many proofs might be given" (viz., that monkeys act in concert), and as my critic himself allows "that the baboons had a leader, we can well understand," the criticism falls to the ground.
The next objection is that I have quoted such authors as Jesse and Buckland "with as much consideration as the scion- title witnesses." This statement I deny, and if your reviewer will turn to my preface, he will see the grounds on which I deny it. In accordance with the principles there stated, I give facts which stand on the authority of "scientific witnesses," whether. or not they appear unlikely, and whether or not they have been corroborated by other observers. This I have not done in the case of Jesse, Backhand, &c.; nor, I may add,. in the case of the Spectator itself, from which, now that my attention is directed to the subject, I find that I have not drawn a single fact, although I have had. occasion to read, many stories of animal intelligence in its pages. And here I may remark that your reviewer shows a strange inconsistency, for in the very paragraphs where he most loudly objects to me for stating
facts that rest on slender evidence," he says, "we should have expected him to say something of the maternal affection attri- buted to certain star-fishes."
Next, there are three matters of fact, which I state in as many lines, concerning the habits of birds, and which my critic says "have long ago been proved. to be false," Not having access to books just now, I cannot here test the validity of his criticism ; but even if he is right, three errors of the kind which he asserts do not constitute a large per-centage, to find in a work where facts of natural history require to be handled by the thousand. • When I say that this is not a large per-ceutage to find, I mean by a man who is so minute an observer. It is not every one who has both the time and the good-will, while reviewing a book, to assume the function of a printer's reader, in the per- formance of which my friend seems to take a special delight. I can only say that I am much obliged to him, and that if ever he should have occasion to publish a book of the same size, I hope be will have the advantage of seeing it reviewed by some such microscopist as himself.
Lastly, I am quite ready to fall in with the concluding wish of your reviewer to "part on good terms," for I see no reason why we should not. On the one hand, he has certainly done me no injury ; and; on the other, even if the kindness of his heart, the clearness of his head, and the honesty of his purpose had been less conspicuous than they are, he would have conferred on me a lasting benefit, by so considerately recommending my work to the humane and intelligent readers of the Spectator.— [The insertion of this letter has been delayed. by accidental .causes. We are glad to publish what Mr. Romanes has to say, but we cannot admit that he overthrows any of the criticisms he impugns.—En, Spoctator.]
Previous page
