Page:Geological Evidences of the Antiquity of Man.djvu/513

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been validated.
CHAP. XXIV.
INTELLIGENCE OF LOWER ANIMALS.
493

'Differences of degree and differences of kind are, it is true, mutually exclusive terms in the language of the schools; but whether they are so also in the laboratory of Nature, we may very well doubt.'[1]

The same physiologist suggests, that as there is considerable plasticity in the human frame, not only in youth and during growth, but even in the adult, we ought not always to take for granted, as some advocates of the developement theory seem to do, that each advance in psychical power depends on an improvement in bodily structure, for why may not the soul, or the higher intellectual and moral faculties, play the first instead of the second part in a progressive scheme?

Intelligence of the lower Animals compared to that of Man.

Ever since the days of Leibnitz, metaphysicians who have attempted to draw a line of demarcation between the intelligence of the lower animals and that of Man, or between instinct and reason, have experienced difficulties analogous to those which the modern anatomist encounters when he tries to distinguish the brain of an ape from that of Man by some characters more marked than those of mere size and weight, which vary so much in individuals of the same species, whether simian or human.

Professor Agassiz, after declaring that as yet we scarcely possess the most elementary information requisite for a scientific comparison of the instincts and faculties of animals with those of Man, confesses that he cannot say in what the mental faculties of a child differ from those of a young chimpanzee. He also observes, that 'the range of the passions of

  1. Report of a Lecture delivered at the Royal Institution, by Professor George Rolleston, On the Brain of Man and Animals. Medical Gazette, March 15, 1862, p. 262.