Taking them one by one in the descending series, the orders of each class of the Mammalia that manifest the highest degree of intelligence are the

1. Bimana-higher man only, however.

2. Quadrumana, especially the larger anthropoid apes.

3. Carnivora, including especially the dog and cat.

4. Proboscidia, especially the elephant.

5. Ungulata, especially the horse, mule, and ass.
6. Rodentia, especially the beaver and rat.

The other orders of the (7) Monotremata, (8) Marsupialia, (9) Edentata, (10) Sirenia, (11) Cetacea, (12) Hyracoidea, (13) Cheiroptera, and (14) Insectivora are not distinguished for intelligence, so far as we yet know, though some of themfor instance, the two last-rank in the mere zoological scale above all animals save the Quadrumana and Bimana. The Insectivora include moles, shrew mice, and hedgehogs; while the Cheiroptera consist of the bats-none of them comparable, as regards intelligence, with the dog, elephant, or other animals that rank lower in the artificial systems of the zoological classificator.

Hitherto we have considered the psychical characters of subkingdoms, classes, orders, genera, and species. But another-perhaps more convenient and interesting-mode of studying comparative psychology is to take some one mental faculty or aptitude and trace its progress either downwards or upwards. For instance, we may take up the moral sense as it is developed in civilised man, and trace downwards its modifications, until it disappears in lower or savage man, in the Quadrumana, the dog, and other animals. Or we can take memory, volition, emotion, thought, and trace their dawnings in plants and the lowest animals up to their highest developments in cultured man. Both plans should be followed by the student; both have been followed throughout this work, which contains abundance of data for a preliminary study at least of such a kind.

For instance, let us take up obedience to a human master's orders, with all that it implies-such as the understanding of one or more forms of man's language. We find this occuring as low down as among bees (Percy Anecdotes') and

butterflies (Wood), fish-such as eels (Houzeau), cod, carp, gold-fish-serpents (Houzeau), and the toad (Wood). But the same performance or proceeding the obeying of an order or command of man-obviously varies in its character and in the nature and number of mental powers involved. In order to analyse such an apparently simple performance, we must consider, on the one hand, the variety of man's orders, and on the other the various forms of, and motives for, obedience. In the lower classes of cases man's order is simply a call to be fed, and he may use a whistle or a bell, or peculiar voicesounds of his own. This is common in the case of various tame fish, such as those of the Irrawaddy, described by Dr. John Anderson, of the Yunnan expeditions. In the higher class of cases man gives verbal orders, or a mere look or gesture suffices, and his dog undertakes complex and difficult commissions, which it executes with amazing promptitude and sagacity. In the lower class of cases there is usually an expectation to be fed, which is associated sometimes with a partiality for being caressed; while in the higher class of cases there is not unfrequently a sense of duty, a pleasure in giving gratification to man by the carrying out of his behests, without any immediate, or perhaps even ulterior, hope of reward, except that of a moral kind-the expression of human approbation.

CHAPTER VIII.

ANIMAL REPUTATION.

CERTAIN animals, like certain men, have reputations, based upon or connected with moral or intellectual qualities. These reputations are, as in man also, good or bad, deserved or undeserved, from which the animals to which they belong either derive advantage or suffer seriously. Reputation attaches itself either to the individual, as in the case of many dogs, cats, horses, and other domestic animals or home pets; or to the species or breed, as in the cat or dog, sheep, lion, tiger, camel, wolf, pig, mule, peacock, glutton, ox; or to the genus, as in the beaver, hyæna, toad; or to the class, family, or group, as in serpents, bees, wasps, bears, eagles, doves, or pigeons.

Individual animals-dogs, cats, horses, or elephants—have frequently a good reputation for honesty, docility, or other virtues, while others have as decidedly a bad one for theft, ferocity, or other vices. They may and do possess a good or a bad moral character' in the same sense in which such a

term is applied to man. Such reputations are usually local and limited, known only to the possessor or custodian of the animal and his friends within a limited circuit or district. But in other cases a wider fame is acquired, either1. By reason of their own noteworthy exploits or feats, as in the case of Greyfriars' Bobby,' Lady Davies's paroquet, the dog Minos, the gorilla Pongo, and many other performing animals; or—

2. In connection with the lives and doings of their masters, who were or are historical, literary, or other celebrities for instance, Sir Walter Scott's hounds, Byron's dog

Boatswain, Cowper's hares, Poe's and Dickens's ravens, Caligula's horse.

And, just as in man, fame in such cases becomes the subject of verse or story, and is rendered permanent and classical. Certain animals acquire celebrity; their achievements, their virtues, their mere companionship it may be, are recorded in pages that mankind will not willingly let die.

Man, however, is only too apt to form an erroneous idea of animal character, and it is on this erroneous, popular, frequently merely poetical, ideal that he bases his comparisons between human and animal character, and bases also certain epithets applied to himself. He regards certain animals as the incarnation or embodiment of certain moral or mental qualities that in himself constitute virtues or vices, and hence he makes use of the names of the animals in question, in popular as well as figurative language, as emblems of the said virtues or vices.

The difference or divergence between the real and the ideal character varies considerably. While certain animals, like certain men, possess and enjoy a much better reputation than they deserve, others suffer from a much worse one than the reality exhibits.

Thus man ascribes to the following animals the following qualities, or he adopts them as the emblems, types, or representatives of the following qualities or conditions in himself and his personal relationships :

We hear a great deal of the lion as the king of beasts' and of its alleged bravery. It figures on the coat of arms of England as the emblem of power and dignity, of all apparently that is good and great. But African travellers and sportsmen have exposed the pretensions of the lion, describing cowardice as its true character rather than courage. The Rev. Professor Haughton, of Trinity College, Dublin, says the lion is a 'pretentious humbug, and owes his reputation to his imposing mane. He will run away like a whipped cur under circumstances in which the tiger will boldly attack and kill.' It is not, however, without redeeming qualities. Thus we are told of the occasional attachments of the lion or lioness, or their cubs, to man or child, becoming their com