physiognomy of the dog and certain of the Quadrumana in many respects resembles that of man. The beggar's dog returns thanks partly at least by its look (Murray). It has looks of enquiry as to the meaning of unfamiliar ceremonies or events, as to the nature or character of unknown things or persons. It throws pathos or plaintiveness into its look as much as into its howl. It has an abashed or apologetic look when, knowing it to be a fault, it soils a drawing-room carpet with its muddy feet (Houzeau). Its look—as well as the movements of the head or tail, or body as a whole, including its gait-convey the expression of pride or exultation at success, business importance, and many other feelings or mental states (Watson). Its look of friendly recognition is frequently equivalent to man's bow or nod to fellow-man. Houzeau speaks of its look of interrogation in difficulty and of the expressiveness of its mere glance. Dogs

says Southey.

Woo kind words by look,

Darwin refers to sporting dogs looking or waiting for further instructions from their masters when in doubt. A dog's look of shame when caught in a fault is notorious ('Animal World'). The eloquence both of its look and mien has been pointed out by Grenville Murray, who also describes its wistful, sad, or sorrowful looks and longingsits looks of gentleness, timidity, gratitude, eagerness of desire to please, or happiness.

The physiognomy of the lower animals-facial and general-has successfully engaged the talents of many gifted artists, such as the late Sir Edwin Landseer, and the living Rosa Bonheur, Joseph Wolf, and Harrison Weir; and it is one of the best possible proofs, on the one hand, of the reality of the close connection between mental states and facial or other forms of expression in other animals as in man, and, on the other, of the fidelity to nature of the painter's art, that he can depict on canvas the mental character of such animals as the dog, horse, ass, or monkey, which may sometimes be said in a sense to 'speak' from the painter's canvas. The attention of artists, however, has been attracted to what

may be fitly called the physiognomy of health; but another chapter shows that there exists among the lower animals, as in man, a less familiar, but not less eloquent or important, physiognomy of disease.

Unfortunately some of the lower animals have imitated from man certain of his most objectionable modes of expression-intimating their derision, for instance, as the masked callithrix (monkey) does, by putting its thumb to its nose (Cassell).

One of the most interesting forms of non-vocal language is that of touch, especially as it occurs among ants. By strokes of their antenna they intimate the presence of booty or of palatable food, point out suitable prey and the best places for foraging. Their antennæ give them the means of intercommunication of ideas-of holding conversation with each other of sending requests for aid (Houzeau, Watson, Smith). This exchange of thought or feeling includes the conveyance of intelligence or news-for instance, of discoveries. One animal can show the way to others. Mutual greetings and recognition take place after long separation (Franklin, Kirby and Spence). By such means they issue orders and invitations, and give advice (Figuier). Communication of ideas by means of antennæ, or analogous organs, occurs also among bees, and probably many other insects. The soldiers of the white ants signal to the workers by strokes of their pincers (Figuier). Thus we see that announcements of all kinds are not necessarily vocal.

Another of the most interesting forms of non-vocal language is the use made by certain learned' animals of man's alphabet-of letters-in the construction of words. Thus we are told that the performing dog Minos, by means of a double alphabet of separate letters, writes or constructs words.'

CHAPTER XV.

LAUGHTER AND WEEPING.

THERE are certain modes of expression of the feelings that deserve special consideration from their having hitherto been generally considered essentially or peculiarly human— as confined exclusively to man. Of these the most interest

ing and important is laughter.

But, in the first place, as regards man himself, it is not generally borne in mind that there are whole races who do not laugh, and that in those who do laughter is not necessarily or always associated with, nor does it proceed from, a perception of the absurd or ridiculous. The American Indians and the Cingalese Veddas are illustrations of races that do not laugh. And we know, on the other hand, as well as the poet, that there is the laugh

That speaks the vacant mind—

that means nothing, that is utterly inane and apparently causeless-that characterises the human idiot, lunatic, or

fool.

As regards the lower animals, it can be shown that certain of them possess, on the one hand—

1. The facial, vocal, or other muscles, including the diaphragm, that are concerned in the physical phenomenon of laughter in man; and, on the other—

2. The emotions or ideas which in man give rise to laughter.

It is obvious that if it could be shown that the lower animals are devoid of the muscles whose action creates the expression or phenomenon of laughter, what has been called

laughter in them would have to be relegated to some other category than human laughter. In studying this subject of the physical manifestations in other animals comparable to laughter in man, I applied in the first place to two experienced comparative anatomists, enquiring whether and how far the lower animals, or certain of them, possess the various muscles concerned in laughter-that is, physical apparatus for its exhibition.

These authorities were Professor Macalister, of the University of Dublin, and Professor Morrison Watson, of the Owens College, Manchester. The replies received from both left me in no doubt that various animals do possess such muscular apparatus, and that, so far as it is concerned, there is no reason why certain of them should not laugh as well as smile, grin, or grimace. Macalister, for instance, demonstrates the presence of the facial muscles of laughter in the gorilla, while Darwin had previously pointed out that various monkeys possess the same facial muscles which in man are engaged in laughter. It is well known that all the Mammalia, in common with man, have a diaphragm capable of rapid alternations of contraction and relaxation, as well as of spasmodic or convulsive action.

In other animals, as in man, the physical phenomena of laughter include

1. Certain changes in facial expression.

2. Certain voice or other sounds; and

3. Certain convulsive or other movements of the chest or other parts of the body.

Changes in facial expression, of a kind comparable with those that occur and are characteristic of laughter, are met with also-in smiles, grins, and grimaces-in certain animals. Some monkeys and apes-such as the chimpanzeesmile (Darwin, Pierquin). The smile of the titi is described as a 'playful' one (Cassell). Smiling in the dog has been represented as occurring from the very different feelings of hypocrisy and good-nature. Grins and grimaces, again, are common among monkeys and apes, but are described also as occurring in the dog under the influence of pleasure or affection (Darwin). That broad grin' which is usually

associated with, or arises from, a sense of fun is developed in the orang, according to Romanes, who also speaks of grinning in a Skye terrier of his own as 'intended to imitate laughter.' It was the result of 'evident purpose;' the dog 'wished to be particularly agreeable,' and he imitated man's laughter even to'shaking his sides in a convulsive manner.' The soko too grins (Livingstone); and so does the orang, which smiles also when tickled (Darwin and Watson).

Among voice-sounds comparable with laughter-arising from the same kind of feelings or ideas are chuckling, giggling, and tittering, which have been described as occurring in certain animals. Thus chuckling, as a prelude to laughter, is producible in the chimpanzee by the action of tickling (Darwin). The parrot chuckles at the success of its own practical jokes (Darwin). Chuckling occurs also in certain monkeys. The soko giggles (Livingstone). Tittering occurs among monkeys when they are pleased (Darwin).

Various animals imitate, and successfully, man's laughter -that is, its outward expression. The parrot, for instance, can be taught to imitate its master's laughter, just as it learns to speak his verbal language and to pipe or whistle his tunes (Darwin). But the same animal is capable also of hearty and spontaneous laughter of fits or peals of laughter. It laughs at its own mistakes or mischief (Watson) Sir Wyville Thomson describes the loud, mocking laugh' of a Brazilian one at the success of a practical joke of its own. A writer in Chambers's Journal' describes a well-known Edinburgh parrot as a capital laugher,' and as laughing 'heartily.' White speaks of heartiness of laughter in the woodpecker. A pet magpie of Jesse's had a laugh that was 'so hearty, joyous, and natural, that no one who heard it could help joining in it.' Wood tells us that certain swallows, on the successful issue of a practical joke played by them on a cat, seemed each to set up a laugh at the disappointed enemy, very like the laugh of a young child when tickled.'

Laughter has been frequently described as occurring in the Quadrumana-including the orang and chimpanzee -when tickled (Darwin, Watson, Le Cat, Grant), and