“Mental Evolution in Animals”

The correspondent seems to think that I had some particular spite against his skate, and quotes my indulgence to a bear as proof of inconsistency, but the two cases are very different, and under the conditions, the seizure of the food at the proper moment can only be ascribed to the sense of smell.

Abstract

YOUR correspondent seems to think that I had some particular spite against his skate, and quotes my indulgence to a bear as proof of inconsistency. But the two cases are very different. Even apart from the unconscious corroboration to which he alludes (and which as evidence of a fact I consider better than even verification by the same observer), we must remember that the stirring of water for a long time in the same direction with its paw is not quite so habitual an action on the part of a bear as is the ordinary swimming movement on the part of a skate. As for any difficulty which the skate may have had in seeing the food approach its mouth, surely the fact of its opening its mouth when the food was near enough to grasp is no better evidence of design than of accident. In either case, under the conditions, and more especially the "attitude," described, the seizure of the food at the proper moment can only be ascribed to the sense of smell, which in the skate is so highly developed. Lastly, why does your correspondent begin by saying that verification would have been desirable, and end by arguing that it would have been of no use? Even if the experiment had failed on repetition, he says, his inference would not thereby have been negatived. If this is so, assuredly there would have been no object in repeating the conditions. I once told a terrier to fetch me the ace of hearts from a pack of cards, and he did it. I happened previously to have known that the ace of hearts was the top card. Suppose I had repeated the experiment fifty times, and the dog had every time brought the wrong card, should I have been justified in attributing the first success to a "happy thought"?