The Project Gutenberg eBook of The intelligence of invertebrate animals
    
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.

Title: The intelligence of invertebrate animals

Author: Maynard Shipley

Editor: E. Haldeman-Julius


        
Release date: May 4, 2026 [eBook #78604]

Language: English

Original publication: Girard: Haldeman-Julius Company, 1924

Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/78604

Credits: Tim Miller, Sam Lamb and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net


*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE INTELLIGENCE OF INVERTEBRATE ANIMALS ***




 LITTLE BLUE BOOK NO. 720
 Edited by E. Haldeman-Julius


 The Intelligence of
 Invertebrate Animals

 Maynard Shipley


 HALDEMAN-JULIUS COMPANY
 GIRARD, KANSAS




 Copyright, 1924
 Haldeman-Julius Company


 PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA




 THE INTELLIGENCE OF INVERTEBRATE
 ANIMALS




CONTENTS


                             Page
 Introduction                  5
 Earthworms                   14
 Starfish                     17
 Sea-Anemones                 18
 Mollusks                     19
 Octopi                       20
 Crustacea                    21
 Hermit-Crabs                 22
 Horseshoe Crabs (Limulus)    24
 Spiders and Insects          25
 Spiders                      25
 Beetles                      35
 Wasps                        36
 Bees                         43
 Ants                         48
 Termites (“White Ants”)      54
 Conclusion                   55




THE INTELLIGENCE OF INVERTEBRATE ANIMALS




INTRODUCTION


No one doubts today that all Vertebrates, from the Fish to Man,
possess more or less intelligence--namely, the power of forming memory
associations and of learning by experience. But when we come to the
study of Invertebrates (e. g., Insects, Spiders, Mollusks, Worms),
we meet with much divergence of opinion among the authorities. Many
competent investigators have been led to the conviction that the
capacity to learn by experience, to form memory associations, leading
to intelligent adjustment of behavior to environment, resides only
in those animals which possess a true cerebrum and central nervous
system, such as is found only in the Vertebrates. Below these forms,
they conclude, lie only “instinctive reactions” to stimuli--“purposeful
action without consciousness of purpose” (Hartmann). With increasing
complexity of the nervous system, arises the neural mechanism for
memory association, the basis of intelligence; and to “inherited habit”
(instinct) is added deliberate (intelligent) purposeful adaptation
of conduct to a consciously desired end, the underlying motive being
avoidance of pain and the attainment of pleasure, or satisfaction.

A simple illustration of the modification of mere instinct by
associative memory, plus pleasurable or painful effects, is afforded by
Lloyd Morgan’s experiments with chicks.

As is well known, no sooner is a young chick hatched than it begins--by
instinct--to peck at all sorts of objects of about a certain size,
whether they are edible or not. If, however, one of these objects
happens to be a caterpillar of nauseous taste, upon meeting a similar
caterpillar a second time the chick appears to remember its first
painful experience, and refrains from pecking at it, and may even
scrape its bill on the ground as if to wipe off the bad-tasting
substance, so vividly is it recalled. This is an example of associative
memory and “learning by experience,” avoiding the repetition of acts
previously attended by pain or displeasure. “What distinguishes
intelligence from instinct is,” says Professor Holmes, “that in
the latter the connections between acts are based upon hereditary
organization, whereas in the former they are established through
experience.... We have in this modification of instincts through
the pleasurable or painful effects they produce the beginning of
intelligence.”

Such notable psychologists as Mach, Loeb, Holmes, Thorndyke, Morgan,
Whitman, Baldwin, and many others accept as a criterion of intelligence
in animals this capacity for memory association, constituting what the
metaphysicians call _consciousness_.

For most modern psychologists, _an interruption of consciousness is
merely an interruption of the activity of associative memory_. They
speak of the extent of associative memory in the animal kingdom instead
of the extent of consciousness among animals.[1]

If an animal possesses the mechanism for associative memory, then it
possesses, unquestionably, the mechanism for intelligence. Just what
this necessary mechanism is, and in what group of animals it appears in
its simplest form, is at present a debatable question--not to say an
unsolved problem.

On the positive side, we may assume that if an animal can “learn
by experience”--associate the memory of a previous experience with
a present situation, and profit by this association--it possesses
intelligence.

On the other hand, failure on the part of an experimenter to train an
animal to react in a desired way does not afford proof of the absence
of intelligence--of associative memory. It may only prove that wrong
methods have been employed by the experimenter.

Some authorities have found evidences of intelligent reaction to
stimuli, not only in such Invertebrates as the Crab, Crayfish and
Horseshoe Crab, but also in the Octopus, Starfish and even among the
lowly group familiarly known as “Worms.”

Binet went farther and wrote a learned work on “The Psychic Life of
Micro-organisms,” in which considerable intelligence was attributed to
Infusorians. But that was thirty years or more ago.

While no competent writer would assert today that psychic life is
entirely absent in the Protozoa (one-celled animals), it is now
generally conceded that no adequate proof of intelligent response to
stimuli among unicellular animals has so far been forthcoming.[2]

In the opinion of the late Dr. Jacques Loeb, the claim of a number of
investigators that associative memory and therefore of intelligence
as here defined, is possessed by even such multicellular forms as
Worms, Starfish, Sea Urchins, Actinians, Medusae and Hydroids, is
unwarranted by the experimental data. “Claims for the existence of such
memory in these groups of animals,” remarks Loeb, “have frequently
been made, but such claims are either plain romance or due to a
confusion of reversible physiological processes with the irreversible
phenomena of associative memory. The less a scientist is accustomed to
rigid quantitative experiments, the more ready he is to confound the
reversible after effects of a stimulus--e. g., the effects due to an
increase in hydrogen ion concentration--with indications of associative
memory. Learning is only possible where there exists a specific organ
of associative memory, the physical mechanism of which is still
unknown.”

Loeb admitted that associative memory “exists in most mammals,” also
in birds. In the lower Vertebrates this capacity, he thought, was only
_occasionally_ found: “Tree-frogs, for example, can be trained, upon
hearing a sound, to go to a certain place for food. In other Frogs,
_Rana esculenta_, for instance, no reaction is as yet known which
proves the existence of associative memory. Some Fishes evidently
possess memory; in Sharks, however, its existence is doubtful. With
regard to Invertebrates, the question is difficult to determine. The
statements of enthusiasts who discover consciousness and resemblance to
man on every side should not be too readily accepted.”

We must now add, that equal caution should be used in regard to
those authors who contend that intelligence does not exist among
Invertebrates, but only “instinctive reactions to stimuli.” To describe
an act as “instinctive,” moreover, does not explain much. G. Bohn asks:
“What is instinct?” and answers: “A word.”

Mr. Garrett P. Serviss recently received a letter from a citizen of
Philadelphia from which I quote the following paragraph:

“You speak of the intelligence of the Spider. Understanding and
reasoning go hand in hand with intelligence; there is no intelligence
without reasoning or understanding, hence it can be applied to Man.
How do you apply it to the Spider? So, as regarding the Bee and the
Ant, would you not think that their intelligence is simply ‘instinct,’
peculiar to their species for self-preservation?”

Mr. Serviss replied (in part) as follows:

“I see no reason for denying intelligence to animals ranking below Man
in the scale. Both the lower animals and the human species possess what
are called instincts, which are said to act spontaneously, without the
aid of reasoning. No animal, indeed, possesses a greater number of
instincts than Man.

“But if the distinction between instinct and intelligence is to be
based on the employment of conscious reasoning or intelligence, this
faculty cannot be denied to the lower animals, because I believe that
many of them do exercise a power of reasoning, i. e., of drawing
conclusions from observation.

“Natural history books are full of instances of exhibitions of
intelligence by Dogs, Cats, Elephants, Horses and many other
creatures. It is true that some naturalists insist that all of the
apparently intentional and reasoned acts of such creatures are merely
manifestations of instinct, or unconscious responses to external
stimuli, but all naturalists are not of that opinion.”

No, they are not.

Prof. S. J. Holmes says: “Psychologists nowadays with comparatively few
exceptions agree in regarding intelligence not as a faculty standing in
sharp contrast to instinct, as was formerly taught, but as one resting
on a foundation of instinct, and gradually growing out of behavior of
the purely instinctive type. The term intelligence is used here in the
wider sense as embracing all those forms of profiting by experience
through the formation of associations. It therefore includes psychic
activity ranging from simple associative memory to complex trains of
reasoning.”

Paley, in his “Natural Theology,” defines instinct as “a propensity
prior to experience and independent of instruction”; while Spencer
(“Principles of Psychology”) states that instinct is a “compound reflex
action,” which is terse, if not explanatory.

Hartmann’s “purposeful action without consciousness of the purpose” is
a contradiction in terms. “Purpose” implies consciousness of end in
view. One cannot readily believe that when an Orang-utan builds its
platform or “nest” in the boughs of a tree in the jungle it does not
purpose (_intend_) to rest and sleep on it; or that when a Beaver cuts
down a tree in such wise that it invariably falls in the direction of
its _need_ it does not _know_ that it is constructing a hut to live in
that will meet the requirements of the situation in a running stream.

Dr. Wm. T. Hornaday, in his authoritative recent work, “The Minds and
Manners of Wild Animals,” (1922) says:

“Instinct is the knowledge or impulse which animals or men derive
from their ancestors by inheritance, and which they obey, _either
consciously or subconsciously_[3] in working out their own
preservation, increase and betterment. Instinct often functions as a
sixth sense.”

Again: “While avoiding the folly of idealism, we also must shun the
ways of the narrow mind, and the eyes that refuse to see the truth.
Wild animals are not superhuman demigods of wisdom; but neither are
they idiots, unable to reason from cause to effect along the simple
lines that vitally affect their existence.... Some animals have more
intelligence than some men; and some have far better morals.”

Nevertheless, it is still “correct” to say: “Man alone possesses
reason.” Fundamentalists, and even many scientists, find this
phrase acceptable. The “Age of Reason” began with the appearance
of Man on earth, according to orthodox views. “Instinctive
behavior” explains--for many scientists--all acts even of such
highly organized creatures as Ants, Bees and Wasps. Below this come
“tropisms”--obligatory movements made by the organism as a whole in
response to the varied stimuli of its environment.

Then we have the category of “purely reflex” actions of the
organism--the definite but unconscious reaction of the organism to
stimulation of certain nerve-cells.

In the higher microscopic organisms it is admitted that any one of
several reactions to a given stimulus might _occur_, the organism
“trying” (unconsciously) one reaction after another, on the hit or
miss, or “trial and error” method. Man, of course, learns by some
faculty other than “trial and error”--maybe.

Finally, and lowest in the scale of animal evolution, we come to the
Amœba, a unicellular organism apparently lacking even in a rudimentary
nervous system. But this microscopic speck of carnivorous protoplasm
seeks and _pursues_ its zigzagging prey!

While there is no proof that psychic life begins only with
pluricellular animals, thus denying any sort of consciousness of
purpose to even the highest groups (Ciliata) among unicellular
organisms (Protozoa), it must be admitted that no conclusive evidence
of the presence of mind in these lowly organisms has yet been
presented. I shall therefore turn at once to the Metazoa (many-celled
animals) for examples of the intelligence of Invertebrates; beginning
with the lowest in which manifestations of mind are said to appear,
namely, the Earthworm.


FOOTNOTES:

[1] Cf. Loeb, Jacques, “Comparative Physiology of the Brain and
Comparative Psychology,” New York, 1900.

[2] For an excellent discussion of this problem see Holmes, Prof. S.
J., “The Evolution of Animal Intelligence,” Pages 63-89, New York,
1911; and Jennings, Prof. H. S., “Behavior of Lower Organisms,”
New York, 1906. See also, Day and Bentley, “A Note on Learning in
Paramœcium,” _Journal of Animal Behavior_, 1, 67, 1911; and Watkins, G.
P., “Psychical Life in Protozoa,” _American Journal of Psychology_, 11,
166, 1900.

[3] Italics mine.




EARTHWORMS


In the preceding introduction it was stated that a certain degree of
intelligence had been attributed to animals as low in the scale of
evolution as Earthworms. No less an authority than Charles Darwin was
responsible for this conclusion.[4] This great naturalist had observed
that these lowly creatures had developed the peculiar habit of plugging
up their burrows with dead leaves. He noted that leaves were drawn
into the burrows by methods best suited to their particular shape. For
example, linden leaves were drawn in by their tips, while no attempt
was made to pull in leaves of the rhododendron by this method, these
leaves being larger at the tip than at their base. On the other hand,
pine needles, which frequently occur in pairs, with a common base, were
never seized by the small end, since the separated ends of the needles
would cause trouble. They were invariably attacked at the compact basal
end, which is smaller than the mouth of the burrow.

“Instinct” may guide Worms in this nice discrimination. But Darwin
tested them with materials unknown to them or to their ancestors. He
cut up paper into triangular forms and placed it at the disposal of the
Worms. To his astonishment the brainless creatures almost invariably
seized the bits of paper by the most acute angle in carrying them to
their burrows. Darwin therefore concluded that an intelligent choice
of means to end had been made. Similar experiments were later made
by Hanel, and Darwin’s results were verified; but the apparently
intelligent reactions of the Worms were interpreted as “more or less
complex reflexes in relation to the form and chemical nature of the
objects drawn in.” As to which of these two interpretations is more in
harmony with the observations, I leave to the reader’s own judgment.

Generally speaking, it is probably best to accept the guiding principle
formulated by Prof. Lloyd Morgan, namely, “In no case may we interpret
an action as the outcome of the exercise of a higher psychical faculty,
if it can be interpreted as the outcome of one which stands lower in
the psychological scale.”[5]

Darwin’s conclusion seems to be justified by some experiments quite
recently carried out by Professor Heck of the University of Prague, who
gathered together for his purpose some five hundred Worms. The Worms
were introduced into a passage shaped like a capital T, carved from a
block of wood, and covered with a glass plate so that the movements of
the animals might be watched. When they came to the junction, about
half of them turned one way and half the other. Then the apparatus was
arranged so that those Worms which took the left-hand passage received
a mild but probably disagreeable shock. At first they did not seem to
know what to make of this; but after they had all been through the
experience about 200 times, they nearly all took the right-hand turn.
When the electrodes were then moved to the right-hand passage, the
Worms learned to shift to the left-hand after only 65 trials--evidently
showing something beyond the operation of mere chance.

Commenting on this attitude of Earthworms to learn by experience, a
writer in _The Scientific American_ (April, 1924) remarks:

“In the human sense, Earthworms have no brains; their nervous systems
consist of a series of little ganglions, or nerve centers, on the
under side of the Worms and connected with each other by nerve fibers.
If the Worms were cut in two, the fragments still showed the ability
to distinguish between the safe and the unpleasant road to travel,
indicating that the Earthworm remembers in every one of its ganglions,
and that it is able to learn and profit by experience.”

In other words, the phenomena of associative memory, hence the
capacity to learn by experience, seems to occur not only in animals
devoid of cerebral hemispheres--long regarded as the sole seat of
intelligence--but in organisms possessing no cerebro-spinal nervous
system. In Invertebrates the mechanisms which allow associative memory
“will probably be found in the supra-œsophageal ganglion” (Loeb).

“The Earthworm has no specialized sense organs, it has neither eyes to
see, nor nose to smell, nor ears to hear with. Still, although it is
apparently deaf, it is not devoid of the power of appreciating those
stimuli which in us excite the sensation of sight or smell. A strong
light suddenly turned on the anterior end of the body will cause the
Worm instantaneously to withdraw into its burrow, and Worms readily
recognize the presence of such favorite food as onions and raw meat.
Their sense of touch is well developed and they are very sensitive to
vibrations; for instance, a stamp of the foot on the ground will cause
all those in a certain radius to disappear into their burrows. It is
further possible that Earthworms possess other senses with which we are
totally unacquainted.”[6]

It is quite evident, from what has been said above, that remarkable
responses to environmental stimuli are made by animals quite devoid
of a brain and lacking in those sense organs popularly assumed to be
necessary to such responses of the organism as have just been described.


FOOTNOTES:

[4] See his classical work, “The Formation of Vegetable Mould Through
the Action of Worms, with Observations on Their Habits,” New York, 1883.

[5] Cf. Morgan. Prof. C. L., “Animal Life and Intelligence,” 1891;
“Habit and Instinct,” 1896; “Animal Behavior,” 1900.

[6] Shipley and MacBride, “Zoology,” 4th Ed., 1920.




STARFISH


Memory, according to Romanes, begins with the Echinoderms--e.g.,
Starfish, Sea-anemones, etc.; and Preyer’s extensive experiments
with Starfish led him to believe that he had “discovered indubitable
indications of intelligent action” in the case of Ophiurus (“brittle
star”). The question is still under debate, with the weight of
authority on the side of Loeb, Jennings, Gaser and others, whose
experiments led them to the opposite conclusion.

Thomson finds that Starfish learn to meet new difficulties in new ways.
If they cannot surmount their difficulties one way, they will try
another.[7]

Starfishes are nearly always hungry and they consider Sea-urchins a
delicacy. But Sea-urchins are armed with small but sharp “three-bladed
screws” on their backs. Knowing this, the Starfish deliberately strip
these blades away and proceeds to devour the Sea-urchin with its
elastic mouth.

Holmes observes that “the behavior of Echinoderms is certainly complex
and plastic to a remarkable degree,” but he concludes that the power of
forming associations in this group is very doubtful.


FOOTNOTES:

[7] See Thomson, Prof. J. Arthur, “Secrets of Animal Life,” 1919.




SEA-ANEMONES


Some authors find evidences of intelligence in the Cœlenterata, which
includes Hydroids, Jelly-fish, Sea-anemones, etc. The Sea-anemone,
possessing no nerve-ganglia, when dislodged from its partnership with
the Hermit-crab will quickly attach itself to the Crab’s leg and again
climb up on to the back of the shell, in which the crustacean makes its
“home.”

Professor J. Arthur Thomson observes that the Sea-anemone “is in some
cases more than quiescent in regard to the partnership,” and adds that
while responsiveness to the touch of the Hermit-crab may have come
to be ingrained in its early constitution, “it is difficult to think
clearly of its racial establishment.”

The behavior of some Cœlenterata, as Holmes remarks, “is often highly
plastic and capable of being modified in many ways as the result of
previous experience.” This is true also of the Vermes (“worms”) and
Echinodermata. “We do not intend to deny the existence of intelligence
in the groups mentioned; we think it not improbable that intelligence
of a primitive sort may be discovered, at least in the more highly
developed members of these divisions; but at the present time we can
only grant the Scotch verdict of ‘not proven’.”[8]


FOOTNOTES:

[8] See, on this phase of the subject, Holmes, “The Evolution of Animal
Intelligence,” Chapter IX, 1911.




MOLLUSKS


Among the Mollusks, not only the highly organized Cephalopods
(Cuttle-fish, Octopus, etc.), but even the lowly Oyster, and the more
active Snail and Slug appear to possess associative memory.

Prof. A. H. Cooke (Cambridge Natural History, Vol. III), declares that
Oysters can learn from experience. Says he:--

“As soon as an Oyster is taken out of the sea, it closes its shells,
and keeps them closed until the shock of removal has passed away, or
perhaps until the desirability of a fresh supply of water suggests
itself. The men take advantage of this to exercise the Oysters,
removing them from the sea for longer and longer periods. In time this
has the desired effect; the well-educated Mollusk learns that it is
hopeless to ‘open’ when out of the water, and so keeps his shell closed
and his gills moist, and his general economy in good condition.”

A certain degree of intelligence has been attributed to Snails. Miss
Elizabeth Lockwood Thomson, for example, experimented extensively with
these Mollusks and found that they are educable--that they can learn by
experience.[9]


FOOTNOTES:

[9] Miss Thomson’s experiments are described in “Behavior Monographs,”
Vol. III, No. 3, 1917, Cambridge, Mass.




OCTOPI


Schneider, Uexküll and Kollman all testify that the Octopus possesses
at least a rudimentary intelligence. Romanes agrees with these
authorities in attributing to this Mollusk “unmistakable evidences of
consciousness and intelligence.”[10]

“That Loligo (Octopus) and related higher Cephalopods have an extreme
agility, resourcefulness, and caution is already fully recognized by
naturalists, though abundant observations and experiments are still
much needed,” says Prof. John Muirhead Macfarland, in his “The Course
and Causes of Evolution” (1917).

A young Octopus in the Naples aquarium was seen by Schneider to
attack a Hermit-crab living within a shell upon which were several
Sea-anemones. Upon approaching the Crab the Octopus was stung by the
Anemones and quickly retreated. Thereafter it avoided contact with the
Crab. It had learned by experience that Anemone-protected Hermit-crabs
are “good things to let alone.” In the course of time, however, Octopi
learn to extract the Crabs from their shells without being stung by the
nettling cells of the Anemones. They also learn to capture large Crabs
and Lobsters without getting pinched.


FOOTNOTES:

[10] Romanes, C. J., “Animal Intelligence,” 8th Ed., Page 29, 1904.




CRUSTACEA


Romanes finds in the Arthropoda evidences not only of intelligence,
but also (in the Crustacea) of reasoning. Bethe, on the other hand,
denies that either associative memory or consciousness exists in any of
the Arthropoda (Crabs, Spiders, Insects, etc.) The admittedly complex
behavior of these forms is ascribed by Bethe entirely to “reflex
action,” wholly devoid of psychic elements.

“This opinion,” says Holmes, “is in part based on _a priori_ deductions
from the organization of the nervous system and it is held to
chiefly by morphologists and physiologists whose observation of the
behavior of animals is limited and warped by preconceptions.” Bethe’s
experiments were “obviously inadequate.” As Loeb facetiously puts it,
“his conclusions are based upon a few spankings he gave a Crab which
obdurately rushed into a dark corner (its instinctive action when
frightened) despite the presence there of a Devil-fish (Edolene), the
Crab’s natural enemy.”

Yerkes and Huggins, Cowles and other observers have found that Crabs
and Crayfish are both capable of learning by experience; while
Spaulding has demonstrated the capacity of Hermit-crabs (Pagurus
longicarpus) to form associations.




HERMIT-CRABS


The Hermit-crab deliberately seeks a partner-Anemone if one has not
chanced to attach itself to its adopted shell-home. Grasping an
Anemone with its claw, it places it upon the back of the Mollusk
(e.g., Periwinkle, Whelk) shell which it had appropriated for its
residence, and then adds a second and a third Anemone until it is
completely “camouflaged.” If the Crustacean has occasion to remove to
a new shell (which it does after each moult), it sometimes carries
a partner-Anemone on its great claw, as a form of protection. The
Anemone is, indeed, a sort of outer defense, being richly endowed with
batteries of stinging cells. Thomson remarks that the Hermit-crab’s
behavior is “suffused with an appreciative awareness of what he is
doing.”

Recent experiments conducted by Mr. S. Mikhailoff, of the Oceanographic
Institute at Monaco, on the Hermit-crab proved conclusively that a
complex neuro-psychical activity in animals having neither a cerebrum
nor a central nervous system is possible. The animal was able to
distinguish differences in shades of red, “refusing to respond to
anything except the color which was the ‘educating’ stimulus, even
when shades of red very near this were employed.” In Man the power to
distinguish between colors and their shades is located in the gray
matter of the cerebrum. The Hermit-crab has no cerebrum.

An important conclusion derived by Mr. Mikhailoff from his extensive
experiments is that it is a mistake to compare the ganglionic nervous
system of invertebrate animals to the sympathetic system of vertebrate
animals. He also proved by the experiments in question that it is
possible to establish an associated reflex “in response to any external
stimulus whatever.”[11]

It is interesting to note in this connection that Crabs, like Birds
and other animals, have their own peculiar homing instincts. Carry a
shore-crab back from the beach, lay it down, and unerringly it starts
back in the right direction, straight for the sea.

“Some land-crabs of the West Indies and North America combine in large
swarms to travel to the sea and to deposit therein their spawn; and
each such migration implies concert, co-operation and mutual support,”
remarks P. A. Kropotkin (“Mutual Aid,” 1902).


FOOTNOTES:

[11] A resume of Mikhailoff’s experiments, translated from the _Revue
Général de Science_ (Paris), January 15, 1921, may be found in _The
Scientific American_ for April, 1921. Cf. Morgan, C. L., “Animal
Behavior,” 1900.




HORSESHOE CRABS (LIMULUS)


In reference to Horseshoe-crabs Kropotkin says: “I was struck (in 1882,
at the Brighton Aquarium) with the extent of mutual assistance which
these clumsy animals are capable of bestowing upon a comrade in case
of need. One of them had fallen upon its back in a corner of the tank,
and its heavy saucepan-like carapace prevented it from returning to
its natural position, the more so as there was in the corner an iron
bar which rendered the task still more difficult. Its comrades came
to the rescue, and for one hour’s time I watched how they endeavored
to help their fellow-prisoner. They came two at once, pushed their
friend from beneath, and after strenuous efforts succeeded in lifting
it upright: but the iron bar would prevent them from achieving the
work of rescue, and the Crab would again heavily fall upon its back.
After many attempts, one of the helpers would go in the depth of the
tank and bring two other Crabs, which would begin with fresh forces
the same pushing and lifting of their helpless comrade. We stayed in
the Aquarium for more than two hours, and, when leaving, we again came
to cast a glance upon the tank: the work of rescue still continued!
Since I saw that, I cannot refuse credit to the observation quoted by
Dr. Erasmus Darwin--namely, that ‘the common Crab during the moulting
season stations as sentinel an unmoulted or hard-shelled individual
to prevent marine enemies from injuring moulted individuals in their
unprotected state’.”




SPIDERS AND INSECTS


Manifestations of intelligence are much more numerous among Insects and
Spiders than in the Crustacea and Mollusca. Forel goes so far as to
attribute to Insects an “ability to instinctively draw inferences from
analogy.”[12]


FOOTNOTES:

[12] Forel, A., “The Senses of Insects,” (Translation) London, 1908.




SPIDERS


Macfarland places the Spiders as following the Cephalopoda in order of
intelligence, as does Sir A. E. Shipley. Says the latter:--

“The Arachnida, together with the Crustacea, Insects, Myriapods,
and Peripatus, make up the great phylum Arthropoda, a phylum which,
from the point of view of numbers of species and individuals, is the
dominant one on this planet, and from the point of view of intelligence
and power of co-operating in the formation of social communities is
surpassed but by the Vertebrata.”[13]

Spiders possess considerable skill as weavers, hunters, miners,
builders and aeronauts. Lacking ears, they “feel” sounds. With but
limited visual powers, they nevertheless unerringly pick out the
particular strand of the web in which a victim Insect has been trapped.
It has been said that the Spider must run to the center of the web
before she can know which strand to follow out and reach the entrapped
victim. Says Gustav Kafka, in his “Animal Psychology,” “Spiders seem to
be endowed with a very keen sense of touch, and know instantly along
which strand of their web to go in order to get to any Insect or other
object that may become caught in their trap.” The layman probably
will wonder why the Spider does not take the shortest path to get its
quarry, instead of first going to the center of the web, which involves
covering a double distance, perhaps on the very next strand of silk.
This is probably due to the Spider’s very limited eyesight, in spite of
the six to eight eyes which it possesses--so limited, in fact, that it
can see ordinarily for a distance of only a few inches.

Nature has provided the spider with an unusually sharp sense of touch,
and it can tell, by the vibration of the connecting strand of silk,
that some object has lighted on the web. It speeds to the center of
the web, from which, by means of its eight legs and this keen sense of
touch it can immediately ascertain by the vibration on which radiating
strand the object may have alighted. “That is why all Spiders go first
to the center of their web to catch a captive that may lie on the outer
radius of the web, and that they may even have passed on the way to the
center.”

One cannot but admire, says Prof. E. L. Bouvier, “the marvelous
vertical orb-web made by those gifted Spiders which are called
indifferently Acaneus or Epeira. Radii spaced at equal distances form
the framework and connect it with the helix where Insects are captured
and which adheres tenaciously to the radii. From the center where the
latter converge there starts a guide-line which connects them with the
ordinary retreat of the animal. Lurking at its post with one hand,
so to speak, upon the guide-line, the Spider perceives the slightest
tremor of the web. Has an Insect been caught in the net? If so, it runs
down the guide-line until it reaches it, binds it fast, and slowly
sucks its sweet juices, on the spot if it is small, but on its retreat
if it is strong.”

The sense of touch is developed in Spiders beyond all comparison with
other animals. “A female orb-weaver, at the center of her web, can tell
friend from foe, male from female of her species, an Insect suitable
for food from one not suitable, an Insect of a certain size from an
inanimate object of the same size, and she can also distinguish between
sizes of any two objects which happen to fly or be thrown into her web.
This is all accomplished by touch vibrations passing along the radii of
the orb on which the eyes of the female Spider rest. Moreover, during
courtship of Spiders this system of touch vibrations is utilized as a
means of signals to inform the male concerning the proper mood of the
female for mating--but pity the dwarfed male should he misinterpret her
signals, for instantly she pounces upon him and devours him without
showing the least mercy.”[14]

It has been demonstrated that these little creatures distinguish
colors and select a special shade of colors for a background of the
marvelously constructed webs. If the observer changes the colors
surrounding the web, the Spider inhabitant at once seeks a new location
and builds a new web. Spiders must have a sense of light and shade,
in order to conceal their webs as they do, and in the case of the
so-called “trap-door” variety, to camouflage the cleverly constructed
hinged entrances to their tunnel homes so as to resemble their
surroundings.

The olfactory pores of both Spiders and Insects are widely scattered
over the body, head and appendages. The more highly developed the
Insect, the more they are arranged in groups, “most of the groups being
found on the legs, wings and mouth parts. So far only a few olfactory
pores have been found on the antennæ, these being present on the bases
of the antennæ of Bees, Grasshoppers, Roaches and Crickets. Briefly
described, an olfactory pore is nothing more than a nerve passing
through a tiny hole in the ‘skin’ or chitin of the Insect” (McIndoo,
_Loc. cit._, Page 470). “The so-called gustatory sense in Insects is
only a phase of the olfactory sense.”

Spiders, according to the latest experiments, are deaf, and only a few
are able to make sounds. Most Insects can hear, but the Cicada is said
to be deaf, and the female both deaf and dumb. Modern research tends
to support Forel’s conclusion that Insects cannot “hear” in the sense
that we do. He compares this perception in them to that in deaf-mutes
who feel the rolling of a carriage at a distance. But nothing final can
at present be said on this question. Schon, for instance, has described
a structure in the tibiæ of Bees which he regards as an auditory
apparatus. Child thinks that he has discovered an auditory organ in
the Mosquito. Many of the experimental results obtained “indicate that
Insects can hear” (McIndoo).

The orb-weaving Spiders have no peers in the art of weaving. They
know how to fasten marvelously regular webs between the branches of
trees, how to pass over rivers on bridges of floating threads, and even
when still young, they know how to use similar threads to take flight
through the air as real aeronauts.

“The most difficult but not the most delicate work in the making of
an orb-web,” says Prof. E. L. Bouvier, “is the establishment of the
suspending cable which stretches between two points at a distance from
each other and supports the whole structure. Sometimes the Spider
fastens its thread at one of these points and then repairs to the
other where it stretches and fastens the cord which has issued from
its spinnerets during the course of its journey. But this process is
not applicable over all sorts of _terrain_ and is even practically
impossible when the two points are separated by a stream of water or
by any other insurpassable obstacle. In this case the Spider stations
itself or suspends itself at one of the points ... and emits a thread
which is carried by the wind until it attaches itself at another
elevated point. According to Fabre the process may differ somewhat,
however: the Spider may suspend herself but soon thereafter reascends
by her thread; the latter then forms a loop which is stretched out and
fastened by the wind as in the preceding cases. In any case the Spider
knows quite well when the attachment has occurred. She then stretches
her cable and runs back and forth across it several times in order to
multiply the number of threads and thus render the cable more firm. The
next thing is to establish another side to the framework: the Spider
suspends herself again, then reascends by means of her thread, follows
the cable to the opposite end, and then seeks a suitable point further
down where she stretches and fastens the thread emitted in the course
of the journey.

“In the same manner, or by simply walking from one point to another,
a diagonal thread is established which serves as the first radius of
the web. Upon this diagonal line a point is chosen to be the center
of the structure; the Spider attaches a second radius at this point
and then proceeds to walk to the framework where she fastens the other
extremity, after which she returns in the opposite direction to stretch
this thread and make of it a definite radius; the excess length is
reserved at the center to form a cushion. Now at one side and now at
the other, in order to render the structure more stable, the Spider
attaches new radii by the aid of those already established. When
finished the radii are spaced at equal distances; they vary in number
according to the species; Fabre counted twenty-one in the angular
Epeira and thirty-two in the fasciated Argiope.

“Resting upon the cushion the Spider now revolves repeatedly about her
own axis, attaching to the radii a central helix whose inter-radiary
elements are straight lines. Then she advances a little farther and
begins to establish a second similar helix which extends to the
framework. This second helix is permanent in the Nephilæ and temporary
in the Argiopæ, the Epeira and most other forms. Since it consists of
cylindrical threads it is not very suitable for purposes of capture.
Consequently as soon as it has carried it to the framework the animal
returns along this helix, placing between its spirals a new helix whose
elements are composed of threads bearing sticky globules. This helix
constitutes a marvelously effective trap. In establishing it the Spider
takes for a support and scaffold the auxiliary helix; but as the work
proceeds the latter is destroyed except among the Nephilæ, in which it
is retained to give more solidity to the structure.”[15]

Professor Bouvier does not credit the Arachnoidea with much
intelligence, and such as they possess he thinks is probably dominated
by a strict automatism. Yet he asks, “Is it possible to ascribe to pure
automatism or to mere reflex action so judicious a bit of architectural
scaffolding? Undoubtedly the psychology of Spiders offers a vast field
for observation and experiment.”

It is clear that the Spider is an amazingly good judge of distance,
and “can draw parallel lines or converging lines with the accuracy
of a draftsman who uses a drawing board and measuring instruments.”
It is also certain that they form memory associations and learn by
experience: “many examples show that they display a certain degree of
discernment when they establish the bases of their shell or nest. And
it is by making use of these faculties that they have been able to
display plasticity in their habits and undergo an evolution in their
industries.

At the present time they are doubtless quite as capable of evolution
as in former times, but this tendency escapes our notice because of
the automatism which dominates it. We are particularly struck by the
extraordinary rôle played by touch in their automatic manifestations.
Spiders nearly always perform their labors at night and it is merely
by touch that they are able to recognize whether their cables are
sufficiently taut, their radii properly spaced, and the spirals of the
helix regularly placed. With their legs and their palps they search for
contacts and measure distances and the sensitiveness of the spinnerets
reveals to them the moment when their silken thread is properly
attached. They seem to work as if blind, being largely guided by simple
tactile reflexes” (Bouvier).

Says the same authority: “The Avicularidae and the closely related
Atypus possess in a very high degree the skill of the miner; they also
know how to construct masonry, for before weaving for their retreat
an envelope of silk they rough-coat it and make it impermeable by
means of a mortar made of earth and saliva.... Fabre has likewise
studied the manner in which the Lycosa of Narbonne builds the
bastion which surrounds the opening of its burrow. It forms it ‘of
little pebbles, bits of wood, scraps of dry leaves, etc., the whole
dexterously interlaced and cemented with the silk.’ And again it is the
_chelicerae_ which are employed. Many Lycosas, especially among the
American species, perform similar labors. McCook reports (1889) that
the Lycosa arenicola builds a bastion in the form of a chimney with
small bits of straw or wood and that ... at the base of this edifice
it builds a little wall of grains or quartz. More skillful still, the
Lycosa carolinenses executes a neat bit of basket work; it curves,
interlaces and fastens pine needles, so as to form a sort of bastion in
the shape of a bird’s nest upside down.”

In discussing the mystery of the Spider’s web-weaving dexterity, Prof.
J. Arthur Thomson, in his chapter on “Animal Intelligence,” (“The
Outline of Science,” vol. 2) says:

“To credit animals with reason, which means experimenting with general
ideas, is, in all probability, too generous. To try to reduce them to
the level of automatic machines is certainly too stingy. The fact is
that the behavior of animals is often intelligent, often instinctive,
and often a subtle mingling of the two. But it is necessary to attach
precise meanings to these terms.

“A young Spider, which never made a web before, may make its
masterpiece true to the specific pattern the very first time. It
does it without any model to copy, and with no trace of the prentice
hand. Sometimes it can make the web in the dark, or in the course of
a forenoon. This is instinctive behavior, depending on hereditary
prearrangements of nerve-cells and muscle-cells, though never without
its psychical aspect--a suffused awareness and a background of
endeavor. But apart from theory, the fact of observation is certain
that inexperienced animals suddenly blossom out into extraordinary
intricacies and niceties of behavior, perfect the very first time, not
requiring to be learned. This is instinct.”

“With reference to the intelligence of Spiders,” remarks Mr. Garrett P.
Serviss, “I find among Mr. Belt’s records an account of the terrible
panics caused by the advance of armies of Ants through the forest, all
sorts of Insects fleeing wildly before them. But a Spider sometimes
escaped by running out to the end of a branch and suspending itself
from a single thread of silk, between the enemies above and the enemies
below.

“There is exhibited an extraordinary repugnance by many people against
admitting that any living being on this earth has been furnished with
anything in the slightest degree resembling the peculiar gifts that
assure to our race its immensely superior status. This seems to me a
petty jealousy. When we dissect the motives of the human heart do we
discover any reason why Man should be the exclusive possessor of sparks
of Divine light?”


FOOTNOTES:

[13] Cambridge Natural History, IV (1909).

[14] McIndoo, Dr. N. E., “The Senses of Insects,” Annual Report
Smithsonian Institution for 1920, Washington, 1922.

[15] _Scientific American_, February, 1920.




BEETLES


Although the Burying Beetles (Necrophorus) live an isolated life,
generally speaking, they know how to call for help when it is needed,
and their appeals for assistance never go unheeded. As is well known,
they must have some decaying organic matter to lay their eggs in,
thus providing their larvæ with food. But the food must not decay too
rapidly, and in order to slow up the process of decay the Beetles bury
the corpses of all kinds of small animals.

Occasionally they find the corpse of a Bird or Mouse, which is too
heavy for them to “handle” unaided. They thereupon call on their fellow
Beetles for assistance, and from four to ten Beetles respond. Uniting
their efforts they transport, if necessary, the corpse to a suitable
soft ground, where together they bury it. When Gladitsch attached a
dead Bird to a cross made out of two sticks, or suspended a Toad to
a stick planted in the soil, “the little Beetles would in the same
friendly way combine their intelligence to overcome the artifice of
Man.” The same evidence of intelligent mutual aid has been noticed
among the Dung-beetles.




WASPS


Not many years ago it was confidently asserted that “Man is the only
tool-using animal.” Now we know that not only do members of the Ape
family employ sticks for weapons and even for crowbars, and also use
various objects for missiles, but even in the Insect world we find a
creature, the Solitary Wasp (Ammophila), which makes a door of soft
earth for its nest and then picks up a small pebble in its mandibles
and hammers the edges of the door more securely, just as a man would
use a pounding-iron. This phenomenon, observed by the Peckhams in
1898,[16] has been verified by other investigators.

“Before we could recover from our astonishment at this performance,”
wrote these now famous observers, “she had dropped her stone and was
bringing more earth, and in a moment we saw her pick up the pebble and
again pound the earth into place with it. Once more the whole process
was repeated, and then the little creature flew away.”

Professor Thomson came to the conclusion that the Wasp’s use of the
pebble for a mallet “is not part of the instinctive routine but is an
individual touch, probably with more vivid awareness than is associated
with the rest of the agency. The difficulty is to think of the origin
of either the routine or the finishing touch without postulating
intelligence or at least some appreciation of significance.”

Bouvier points out that the use of the little stone is not yet a fixed
habit with Ammophila urania, belonging “only to certain individuals
more highly endowed than others, and is perhaps only accidental even
with them. Maybe it will finally pass into the instinctive habits of
the species; for the present it belongs to the domain of individual
intelligent acts.”

It should here be noted that in the psychological history of the
Articulata we witness the gradual transformation of intelligent acts
into instinctive acts, whereas the path of evolution in the Vertebrates
seems to lead from instinct toward intelligence. It is reasonable to
infer, however, that the instincts of the Vertebrates were preceded by
an intelligent process and the establishment of new habits, “which by
heredity became part of the patrimony of instinct, modifying the latter
and constituting elements essential to its evolution.” (Bouvier, E.
L., “La vie psychique des Insectes.”) “It is intelligence,” continues
this same high authority, that “regulates by appropriate selection
all manifestations of race memory; intelligence again, in the sundry
forms of association and individual memory, that puts together the most
complicated mechanisms of instincts.”

We are still told by many writers that the Insects are mere reflex
machines, despite abundant evidences to the contrary. “This machine,”
says M. de Molostwoff, “has no capacity for reasoning and lives as its
body directs it to live. Man, however, is the only animal endowed with
a will to live according to his reason, [does he?] and he alone is
amenable for his actions to his Creator.”

The Wasp may, indeed, “live as its body directs it to live,” but this,
according to many modern thinkers, is precisely what Man himself does,
his “capacity for reasoning” being conditioned by heredity, largely
controlled by “instinct,” and by his bodily structure and internal
reactions--actions, reactions and interactions of the vegetative
organism (viscera, glands, etc.) as well as the cerebro-spinal system.
And just so the Ammophila Wasp may be a physico-chemical-biotic machine
and yet possess the “capacity for reasoning,” yet at the same time
“live as its body directs it to live”--its reasoning power being part
and parcel of its organism as a whole.[17]

Lacordaire, in his well known “_Introduction a l’Entomologie_,” says of
Insects:

“If all the instinctive acts of Insects bore constantly the evident
imprint of a blind necessity, there would be much less to admire in
them than one commonly does. What particularly excites our surprise
is that frequently they accommodate themselves to circumstances, and
that their acts take on then such an appearance of reason, that it is
necessary to look at them closely not to attribute them to a veritable
combination of ideas.”

“Insects are largely creatures of instinct,” remarks Professor Thomson,
“with inborn capacities for doing apparently clever things, but yet
with some degree of intelligence. In an animal’s behavior there is
often, no doubt, a mingling of different kinds of activities unified
in a way that baffles analysis. In many cases their behavior under new
conditions, their powers of effectively meeting new ends, go beyond
mere instinct.”

Prof. J. Lloyd Morgan was led to the conclusion that we have in the
case of the tool-using wasp “intelligent behavior rising to a level to
which some would apply the term rational. For the act may be held to
afford evidence of the perception of the relation of the means employed
to an end to be attained, and some general conception of purpose.”
Professor Holmes expresses a doubt on this question: “Does she really
perceive the relation of means to end? I am not so sure that she does.”

While it is certainly better to be over-cautious than to be inclined to
anthropomorphic interpretations where physico-chemical and mechanical
or other solutions meet the requirements of the case, there is,
nevertheless, such a thing as avoiding an interpretation involving the
recognition of a reasoning process in animals just for the sake of
“conservatism.” There is no more merit in referring all phenomena to
“instinctive behavior” in animals than there would be in attributing
all acts of Man to “reasoning.” As matters stand today, the pendulum
of thought has swung so far away from the “anthropomorphism of earlier
writers” that we are apt to throw a sort of intellectual smoke-screen
over a truly rational act by recourse to “the animal’s instinctive
actions.”

Again, our “experiments” with animals are by no means a safe guide
to accurate estimates of their mental attainments. Measurement of
an animal’s real mental endowment may be far more safely made by
observation of its behavior in its natural environment. That this
is true is fully recognized by scientists who deplore the tendency
of some observers to draw conclusions before becoming thoroughly
acquainted with the general behavior of the forms observed. “On the
other hand,” says Professor Holmes, “one is tortured by the feeling
that our experimental methods often fail to give us a true measure
of an animal’s possible attainments, and that it is just in meeting
exceptional situations which occur in the animal’s natural course of
life that the highest manifestations of its intelligence are reached.”

Wasps of the genus Eumenes are said to mould tempered earth into
pottery of the most artistic design.

Fabre tells us that the ringed Calicurgus Wasp first stings its
captured Spider in a spot near the mouth, paralyzing the poison claws.
This precaution being taken, it proceeds to pick out the thinnest part
of the Spider’s armor, between the fourth pair of legs, driving in its
poison needle with a skilled surgeon’s precision.

The Two-banded Scolia Wasp lays up as food for its larva a Rose-chafer
grub. A single grub is the sole provender for the larva for the several
weeks from its hatching until its entrance into the cocoon stage. It
has frequently been stated that the “head of game” must remain fresh
all the time the Wasp larva is feeding on it, or the Wasp larva dies.
To remain fresh it must stay alive until the larva takes its last
mouthful.

To insure this, a complicated course must be followed with delicate
precision by both the mother Wasp and the larva. With a single and
seldom-erring stroke of its sting Scolia paralyzes the nerve-centers
which control motion on the Rose-chafer grub--a stroke which must reach
a buried nerve-center no more than a fiftieth of an inch across, and
which must at the same time miss the nerve-center which keeps life in
the victim.

The infant Scolia must then, to keep its food fresh to the end, so eat
its living but paralyzed grub that the vital parts are left to the
last meal. Accordingly, the Scolia lays its egg always at the precise
spot on the Rose-chafer grub where the Wasp larva must take its first
mouthful. There the larva inserts its head and never withdraws it until
the grub is completely devoured. Fabre found by repeated experiment
that if he disturbed the larva the chances were even that it lost the
clue to its selective meal, killed its “game” and died of ptomaines. If
he moved the recently hatched larva to another starting-place on its
food supply it was infallibly lost. So it was also when Fabre gave it
as food another grub, even though closely related to the Rose-chafer.
It tried to eat the strange nutrient, but somehow never succeeded.
Hence, according to most authorities at least, it is a prerequisite to
the survival of Scolia that the mother Wasp select only the Rose-chafer
grub, capable of being paralyzed in such a way as to leave the grub
alive but without power to move. In all, there are four critical
conditions to be met in order that the progeny survive: and they are
met.

In their studies of the Mason Wasp, Odynerus parietum, the Peckhams
found that, contrary to Eimer, the grubs stored for food for the
larvæ were by no means all paralyzed, and that in most nests several
caterpillars died. In some cases all the grubs died, yet the Wasp larvæ
fed upon them without apparent injury or dissatisfaction.

Holmes remarks that while we may not be compelled to admit that
Wasps have “ideas,” it must be granted, he thinks, “that a Wasp
which after cutting a caterpillar in two and carrying away one part,
came back and searched diligently for the remainder” retained,
somehow, “an impression of the missing part and its location. If
out of sight it was not out of mind.... If the Wasp does not have
an idea of its prey it has something which plays a rôle similar to
that of ideas in ourselves.... If there is something representing
‘part-of-caterpillar-among-leaves’ that leads the Wasp on its
hunt, we may conclude that there is something corresponding to
‘part-of-caterpillar-now-in-nest’ which prevents further search.”


FOOTNOTES:

[16] Peckham, G. W. and E. G., “Wasps, Social and Solitary,” Boston,
1905.

[17] Cf. Loeb, Jacques, “The Organism as a Whole,” New York, 1916, and
“The Dynamics of Living Matter,” New York, 1906; and Berman, Louis,
“The Glands Regulating Personality,” New York, 1921.




BEES


Sir John Lubbock long ago declared that “if we judge animals by their
intelligence as evidenced in their actions, it is not the Gorilla and
the Chimpanzee, but the Bee, and above all the Ant, which approach
nearest to Man.”

While Bees, Ants and Termites indisputably possess some degree of
intelligence, as distinct from what we are pleased to call “instinct,”
it is doubtful if any naturalist or comparative psychologist of today
would agree with the eminent British scientist in this generalization.
Yet Man has, perhaps, more to learn from the example of Bee life than
from the more intelligent activities of the simian world.

Prof. W. F. Wilson, of the University of Wisconsin, in a recent
lecture, remarked that a Bee knows when it has had enough, and is
satisfied to work in a self-selected domain before it “grabs for more.”
For instance, if a Bee settles itself to work in one corner of a field,
it will not leave that corner until it has exhausted the nectar in all
flowers in that corner. It will not fly to another corner after having
found one flower deficient. Neither will it quit one plant until it has
tried its tongue in all the flowers of that plant. This has been proved
by releasing Bees with different colored powder spread on them and then
watching them at work.

Professor Wilson stated that another experiment demonstrated that Bees
have some mathematical ability. In this experiment it was found that
the Bees realized when a sufficient number were working on one apple
tree and no more tried to get on it.

Another peculiarity noticed by Professor Wilson is this: While Bees
are at work they will not change from a flower of one color to one of
another color until the nectar has been exhausted in the flowers of the
first color. That is, if the Bee begins work on a blue aster, it will
not go next to a red one, but always seeks a blue one again. This fact
was noted by Aristotle in the fourth century B. C., though the belief
is still widely prevalent that Bees “fly about from flower to flower in
a haphazard way.” As a rule “Bees keep to a single species of flower
for collecting pollen and nectar.”

Nevertheless, Bees are partially color-blind, as is evidenced by the
experiments of two German biologists, Prof. F. Frisch and Lothar
Tirala. “These investigators have shown that to the Bee, red and black
look alike, orange and yellow look the same as green, and that there
is no difference in the appearance of blue, violet and purple. But
Bees have one advantage over Man; they can see the rays of ultraviolet
light, which are invisible to our eyes.

“It was also discovered that the mysterious guiding influence by which
the Bee is brought back to its hive is nothing more than experience.
It has long been known that Bees find their way home sooner the longer
they have lived in their hive. To test this common-sense view Bees
were put to sleep by ether, taken to a new hive, and moved some twelve
yards away. None of them could find their way back to the hive until
the third day afterward, when 30 per cent got home. By the eighth day,
however, 90 per cent of them had learned to find their way back to the
hive.”[18]

Some experiments by Professor Young, of Geneva, antedating those of
Professor Frisch, also showed that Bees “build up a knowledge of
the country about the hive.” On the other hand, it seems to be well
established that Bees, like most animals, have a true homing sense, or
sense of direction. “Even Bees with their eyes obscured have been known
to make a ‘bee-line’ for the hive from considerable distances,” says
Thomson.

When, by exception, Bees build their nest in the open, they invent
arrangements which are new and in the true sense intelligent to meet
the new conditions (Bergson). In the face of cumulative evidence, the
great Fabre was forced to modify his theory of immutable instinct,
and grant to Insects a modicum of “discernment,” since they have the
capacity of learning by experience.

Professor Frisch published in the Munich _Medizin Wochenschrift_ some
observations upon the means of communication employed by Bees. “He
placed a dish of sugar solution on a table by an open window. Shortly
after a chance Bee had noted this and flown off with booty therefrom,
the dish was crowded with Bees. When it was removed they quickly
disappeared, save for an occasional reconnoiterer. When a fresh dish
was set out they quickly reappeared in quantities. By touching the back
of each Bee with a spot of color, the experimenter then perceived that
subsequent Bees had been sent, and not escorted.

“The conduct of the rediscoverer on her return to the hive was next
noted. She first gave over her plunder to the workers, and then
executed a curious dance, describing circles and other figures. Her
audience watched her attentively and attempted to touch her. When one
of the marked Bees succeeded in doing this, the latter at once made her
exit and flew to the feeding place; but the unmarked Bees soon ceased
to pay her any attention. It appears that there is here some means
of communication based upon touch rather than upon sight or hearing;
and that it is adequate for giving information as to the presence or
absence of food, but inadequate to give its location unless it be
already known to the recipient of the message.

“Experiments with two dishes of food at a considerable distance apart
verified this. As before, after they had once been discovered the
dishes were removed and ultimately replaced; but when replaced, the
‘white’ dish only was filled, the ‘yellow’ one being left empty. The
‘white’ dish was rediscovered by a ‘white’ Bee; and when the latter
returned to the hive not only the ‘white’ but also the ‘yellow’ Bees
responded to her dance, left the hive and flew to their respective
dishes, the ‘yellow’ Bees of course having the search in vain. As
before, unmarked Bees ignored the dancer.

“That there is a little more flexibility to the signal system than
this might indicate appeared when natural conditions were imitated,
linden and acacia blossoms being offered respectively to groups of
Bees accustomed to seek these. The dancing linden Bee now occasioned
excitement only among the linden Bees, and not among the acacia group.
The same distinction was made when two dishes of sugar were differently
perfumed, suggesting that scent rather than actual modification of
the signals may have been responsible. When blotting paper saturated
with sugar-water was used instead of the dishes, the Bees found some
difficulty in sucking the fluid up, and returned only half laden.
They did not then trouble to perform the dance, showing that this is
reserved for exceptionally rich finds.”[19]

The Bee is good-natured and even long-suffering, but there are limits
to its patience or generosity. So long as nectar is superabundant, the
Bee allows the drones to live in the communal hive without rendering
any service in return. “But one day the decree goes forth that those
who do not work shall not eat, indeed shall not live.... Vigorously and
pitilessly the long-suffering workers at last turn on the drones and
slay them all.”[20]


FOOTNOTES:

[18] _Scientific American_, April, 1924.

[19] _Scientific American_, April, 1922.

[20] “_The Outline of Science_,” Vol. II, edited by J. Arthur Thomson,
1922.




ANTS


Many scientists have asserted that, next to Man, Ants have the most
intelligence of any living creature. Charles Darwin said “the Ant’s
brain is one of the most marvelous atoms of matter in the world,
perhaps more so than the brain of Man.”

In the opinion of the present writer the anthropoid apes stand next
to man in intelligence. But it is quite true that in their social
organization and industrial activities Ant “civilization,” in some
respects, approximates human “civilization.”

Ants plant and harvest crops, domesticate animals, have a social
system which includes working slaves and a military caste, a police
force and jails. They perform astonishing feats of engineering. They
have efficiency, initiative, and productivity without profiteering.
Cooperation, individualism and “patriotism” exist side by side in a
real _commonwealth_. There is a division of labor, but no exploitation
of the many for the benefit of the few. All classes share equally in
the benefits of their common toil, if we accept the highly specialized
warrior ants as rendering military service equivalent to the work of
the so-called “slaves.”

Members of the military caste do not work, and are fed by the slave
population. But this is due to high specialization rather than to
imposition or snobbery. The erstwhile working mandibles of the soldier
have gradually become transformed into veritable sabres or bayonets.
They could obtain their own food if they so desired, but they have
become absolutely dependent on the “working class” for their daily
bread.[21] But in return they protect the colony, even at the sacrifice
of their own lives.

Each worker Ant finds its own task, and willingly contributes its
share. There are no slave-drivers. When one shift of workers has become
fatigued, or must stop to partake of food, its place is taken by
another shift of equally skillful workers. No time is lost.

If one of the workers becomes encumbered with dirt, its mates come at
once to its assistance with “first aid,” cleaning the unfortunate one
by brushing and washing. During their mining operations in digging
holes and removing stones, an Ant is often injured, whereupon others
rush to its aid and carry it to a quieter gallery, where it is by no
means neglected.

Above all animals of this planet, Ants know the value of mutual aid,
though co-operation is practised among Insects of many kinds.[22]

Forel points out how it is a common practice among many species of
Ants for one which possesses an abundance of food in its crop to share
it with any of its less fortunate comrades who may apply for it--that
is, with any member of the same nest or colony of nests. Approaching
each other, they exchange a few signals--movements--of the antennæ,
and, says Sir John Lubbock, “if one of them is hungry or thirsty ...
it immediately asks for food.” The well-supplied Ant sets apart its
mandibles, takes the appropriate position, and regurgitates a drop of
half-digested food--a transparent fluid--which is licked up by the
hungry Ant. Forel concluded that Ants possess a divided digestive tube,
the posterior part being for the special use of the individual, the
other, the anterior part, being used chiefly for the benefit of members
of the commune. Any Ant which, possessing a crop full of food, refuses
to feed a needy comrade, is treated as a “criminal” or outcast. During
“war times” such an Ant is treated as a “traitor,” and attacked by its
kinsfolk with greater fury than is exhibited toward the foreign enemies
of the species. On the other hand, if an Ant has fed an Ant belonging
to the enemy species, it will be treated by the kinsfolk of the latter
as a friend.[23]

It is well known that the most convincing evidences of intelligence are
to be found among the social Insects, where mutual aid is “the order
of” every day.

When the able naturalist, Thomas Belt, was superintending a gold
mine in Nicaragua, he kept close watch on the animal life about him,
large and small. He tells us that he once saw a wide column of Ants
attempting to pass along a crumbling, nearly perpendicular slope.

“They would have got very slowly over it, but a number having secured
their hold, and reaching to each other, remained stationary, and over
them the main column passed.

“Another time they were crossing a watercourse along a small twig, not
thicker than a goose-quill. They widened this natural bridge to three
times its width by a number of Ants clinging to it and to each other
on each side, over which the column passed three or four deep. Except
for this expedient they would have had to pass over in single file, and
treble the time would have been consumed.

“Can it not be contended that such Insects are able to determine by
reasoning powers which is the best way of doing a thing, and that their
actions are guided by thought and reflection?”

In 1921, it was discovered that the interior woodwork of the Livestock
Exchange Building in Wichita, Kansas, was being tunneled through
by Ants. Flypaper was placed across their line of march. The Ants
thereupon made sufficient sawdust to cover the sticky flypaper and went
on with their “industry.”

Ants domesticate animals, for the same reason that Man does.
Among other animals thus domesticated are herds of Plant-lice, or
“green-flies,” which are to them the equivalent of our dairy animals.
The Ants’ “cow” (Aphid) secretes a “honey-dew.” In order to increase
the supply of the sweet excretion the Ants gently stroke the Aphids.
When the sap supply for the Aphids fails, the Ants carry their “cows”
to new food plants, and when winter comes on both the adult Plant-lice
and the eggs are carried out of reach of frost into the Ant caverns
and carefully attended until spring, when they are again placed on the
swelling plant-buds.

The presence of certain little Crickets, Beetles, and a certain species
of Caterpillar in the nests of the Termites and the true Ants, who seem
to enjoy their presence, has recently been explained on the ground that
the Ants like the odor of these strange “guests.” It has been noted
that the Beetles give off more “fragrance” upon being caressed by the
Ants. “One species of Ants carries Mites about on the body, feeding
them and caring for them, but apparently deriving no benefit from them.
Evidently Ants are fond of keeping pets!” (Thomson).

Professor Thomson (in the “Outline of Science,” Vol. II) writes
delightedly of the varied activities of Insects, and concerning certain
species he says:

“The Tailor-ants, common in warm countries, make a shelter by drawing
leaves together, and their co-operative hauling is admirable; their
mandibles are their needles, if you like, but they have nothing to sew
with: what does each do but take a larva in its mouth so that the silk
secreted from the offspring serves as thread for the parents?”

Again: “A common Harvesting-ant of South Europe collects seeds of
clover-like plants, lets them begin to sprout so that the tough
envelopes are burst, exposes them in the sun so that the germination
does not go too far, takes them back underground and chews them into
dough, and finally makes this into little biscuits which are dried in
the sun and stored for winter use. Many ‘White Ants’ or Termites grow
mushrooms in extensive, specially constructed beds of chewed wood, and
some of the true Ants show a similar habit.”

That Ants have some means of communicating one with another goes
without saying, but our knowledge of Ant language is still very meager,
despite the long and patient labors of many myrmecologists. Some of
the actions considered to be involved in communication are striking
with the antennæ, butting with the head, opening the jaws, beating the
ground with the abdomen, and the production of sounds by various kinds
of apparatus for stridulation.

“While Ants may not be able to talk about things in their sign
language,” says Professor Holmes, “they apparently express their
different feelings and inclinations in ways which are intelligible to
other Ants. Wasmann has compiled a sort of vocabulary of signs made
by the antennæ--a ‘Wörterbuch der Fühlersprache,’ which is about as
extensive as Mr. Garner’s languages of Apes. According to the vigor
and frequency of the strokes of the antennæ, and the part of the body
stroked, the Ant which is addressed may be importuned for food, warned
of danger, or induced to co-operate with the communicants in various
activities.”


FOOTNOTES:

[21] Cf. Lubbock, Sir John, “Ants, Bees and Wasps,” 1883; Wasmann, E.,
“Comparative Studies in the Psychology of Ants and of Higher Animals,”
1905; Forel, A., “_Recherches sur les fourmis de la Suisse_,” Zurich,
1874; “The Senses or Insects,” 1908. See also Beebe, William, “The Edge
of the Jungle,” 1921.

[22] The value of mutual aid as a factor in evolution was dimly divined
by Goethe, and was first expressed as a “law” by Professor Kessler in
1880, who was then Dean of the St. Petersburg (Leningrad) University.
Having read Kessler’s lecture in 1883, Prince Kropotkin began a series
of articles on the same subject, resulting in the publication in 1902
of his great work, “Mutual Aid as a Law of Nature and a Factor of
Evolution.”

[23] Cf. Huber, Pierre, “_Les fourmis indigènes_,” Geneva, 1861, and
Forel, loc. cit.




TERMITES (“WHITE ANTS”)


The organized social life of the “White Ants” or Termites is of unusual
interest for the student of animal intelligence. The Termites have
kings, queens, soldiers and workers.

Not related to the true Ants, the Termites are not unlike our Roaches
in the construction of their bodies. Though found in the United States
and in Europe, their main habitats are Africa and Australia. In the
latter countries their so-called nests are of prodigious dimensions,
exceeding sometimes five hundred times the length of the Insect (ten to
twelve millimeters), thus surpassing the tallest buildings constructed
by Man relative to the height of the builders. While the height of
Termite nests are sometimes more than 500 times the length of the
Insect, the Eiffel Tower is but 175 times as tall as the workers who
reared it. “The number of dwellers in these nests exceeds by count the
number of inhabitants of many large countries” (Molostwoff).




CONCLUSION


In view of the foregoing facts illustrative of the mental life of
Invertebrates, there remains little ground for denying to creatures
below the backboned phyla a certain modicum of intelligence, well
in accord with their needs. That any Invertebrate is capable of
the process of reasoning is, of course, a debatable question, but
the existence of mental processes in these groups is, apparently,
indisputable, and where there is _mind_ there is _intelligence_,
however limited it may be.

Forel attributes to Insects passions closely akin to those exhibited
by the higher Vertebrates, though these vary considerably with the
diverse species. Wasps, certain species of Ants, and a few Beetles, are
extremely irritable and pugnacious. Among the less intelligent species
no passions are manifest apart from hunger, thirst and sexual appetite.
The memory likewise varies according to the species, and, as might be
expected, is at a minimum in the small-brained forms and most highly
developed in the social Hymenoptera (Bees, Ants and Wasps).

“It must be admitted,” declares Forel, “that Insects are capable
of perceiving, of learning, of recollecting, of associating their
recollections and of utilizing them to accomplish their ends. They have
various emotions and their will is not purely instinctive, but offers
individual plastic modifications, adapted to circumstances.”

Although many authorities are inclined to think that Forel goes too
far in his estimates of Insect Intelligence, Bouvier’s[24] extensive
studies have led him to practically the same conclusions. He rejects
Bethe’s claim that Insects are mere reflex machines, because they
can adapt themselves to circumstances, acquire new habits, learn to
remember, and manifest discernment.

Comparing their organization with ours, McIndoo concludes that Insects
“have perhaps accomplished more than we have.... Furthermore some
Insects, for example Honey Bees and Plant-lice, have evolved methods
for controlling sex; this subject has probably puzzled Man as much as
life itself, yet Man can neither control sex nor knows how to control
it.... Let us cease looking with scorn upon Insects.”

“We prize so highly all our own aptitudes as to believe that they are
unequalled, even when inspired by the least commendable motives,” says
Bouvier. “Though bellicose ourselves, we think it strange that beehives
or ants-nests should engage in warfare. At times we revert to barbarism
by reducing our enemies to slavery, yet we exclaim with surprise at the
habits of slave-making Ants.”

There is nowhere any distinct break in the evolutionary series--no
fundamental distinction between the animal and the human mind.
Protoplasm is protoplasm, wherever found, and mind is mind wherever
it becomes manifest. There can no more be two totally distinct and
fundamentally different kinds of mind than there can be two or more
totally distinct kinds of protoplasm, one human, the other sub-human.
The Amœba and Man are both the product of protoplasmic differentiation,
and the primordial protoplasmic cell embodied in its substance all
potentialities of Life and Mind upon this planet.


FOOTNOTES:

[24] Bouvier, E. L., “_La Vie Psychique des Insectes_,” 1918.




Transcriber’s Note:


Text that was in italics is enclosed by underscores (_italics_).

The chapter “Horseshoe Crabs (Limulus)” was missing from the original table
of contents, so it was re-added.

Footnotes were moved to the ends of the chapters in which they appeared.

Minor punctuation errors have been changed without notice.

Spelling was retained as in the original except for the following
changes:

  Page 13: “we come to the Amoeba” to “we come to the Amœba”
  Page 19: “highly organized Cephelapods” to “highly organized
  Cephalopods”
  Page 27: “its post with o e” to “its post with one”
  Page 29: “through a tiny hold” to “through a tiny hole”
  Page 31: “establishing it the Spide”to “establishing it the Spider”
  Page 34: “remarks Mr. Garret P. Serviss” to “remarks Mr. Garrett P.
  Serviss”
  Page 41: “The Two-banded Scolla” to “The Two-banded Scolia”



*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE INTELLIGENCE OF INVERTEBRATE ANIMALS ***


    

Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will
be renamed.

Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright
law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works,
so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United
States without permission and without paying copyright
royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part
of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™
concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark,
and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following
the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use
of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for
copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very
easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation
of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project
Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may
do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected
by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark
license, especially commercial redistribution.


START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG™ LICENSE

PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free
distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full
Project Gutenberg License available with this file or online at
www.gutenberg.org/license.

Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg
electronic works

1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or
destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg electronic works in your
possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a
Project Gutenberg electronic work and you do not agree to be bound
by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person
or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.

1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be
used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few
things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg electronic works
even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See
paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project
Gutenberg electronic works if you follow the terms of this
agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg
electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.

1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection
of Project Gutenberg electronic works. Nearly all the individual
works in the collection are in the public domain in the United
States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the
United States and you are located in the United States, we do not
claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing,
displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as
all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope
that you will support the Project Gutenberg mission of promoting
free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg
works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the
Project Gutenberg name associated with the work. You can easily
comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the
same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg License when
you share it without charge with others.

1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are
in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States,
check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this
agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing,
distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any
other Project Gutenberg work. The Foundation makes no
representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any
country other than the United States.

1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:

1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other
immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg License must appear
prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg work (any work
on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the
phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed,
performed, viewed, copied or distributed:

    This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most
    other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
    whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
    of the Project Gutenberg™ License included with this eBook or online
    at www.gutenberg.org. If you
    are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws
    of the country where you are located before using this eBook.
  
1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg electronic work is
derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not
contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the
copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in
the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are
redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply
either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or
obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg
trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg electronic work is posted
with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any
additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms
will be linked to the Project Gutenberg License for all works
posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the
beginning of this work.

1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg
License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg.

1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg License.

1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including
any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access
to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg work in a format
other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official
version posted on the official Project Gutenberg website
(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense
to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means
of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain
Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the
full Project Gutenberg License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.

1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
access to or distributing Project Gutenberg electronic works
provided that:

    • You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
        the use of Project Gutenberg works calculated using the method
        you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed
        to the owner of the Project Gutenberg trademark, but he has
        agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project
        Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid
        within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are
        legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty
        payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project
        Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in
        Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg
        Literary Archive Foundation.”
    
    • You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
        you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
        does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™
        License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all
        copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue
        all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™
        works.
    
    • You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of
        any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
        electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of
        receipt of the work.
    
    • You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
        distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.
    

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than
are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing
from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of
the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set
forth in Section 3 below.

1.F.

1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project
Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may
contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate
or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other
intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or
other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or
cannot be read by your equipment.

1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right
of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
DAMAGE.

1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you
received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium
with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you
with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in
lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person
or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second
opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If
the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing
without further opportunities to fix the problem.

1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO
OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT
LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.

1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of
damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement
violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the
agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or
limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or
unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the
remaining provisions.

1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in
accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the
production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses,
including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of
the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this
or any Project Gutenberg work, (b) alteration, modification, or
additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg work, and (c) any
Defect you cause.

Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg

Project Gutenberg is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It
exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations
from people in all walks of life.

Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg’s
goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg collection will
remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
and permanent future for Project Gutenberg and future
generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see
Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.

Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation

The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit
501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification
number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by
U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.

The Foundation’s business office is located at 41 Watchung Plaza #516,
Montclair NJ 07042, USA, +1 (862) 621-9288. Email contact links and up
to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website
and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact

Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation

Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread
public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest
array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations
($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
status with the IRS.

The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations
where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND
DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state
visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.

While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
approach us with offers to donate.

International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.

Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation
methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other
ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To
donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.

Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg electronic works

Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
Gutenberg concept of a library of electronic works that could be
freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
distributed Project Gutenberg eBooks with only a loose network of
volunteer support.

Project Gutenberg eBooks are often created from several printed
editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in
the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not
necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper
edition.

Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org.

This website includes information about Project Gutenberg,
including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.