« PreviousContinue »
poor brute, muzzled and chained, had been walked ten miles, from London to a country village, on a hot day; and was made to perform a number of antics on the green before a public house for the amusement of the yokels, myself among the number. The discipline and docility exhibited by this animal, whether he had been indoctrinated by the red hot iron or a thick stick, indicated to my mind no mean powers of reflection. The keepers at the Zoological Gardens have taught their charges many show tricks. For instance, one of them will turn somersaults at command in different directions, and in feeding the Malayan sun bears the man says this is for so and so, and that for so and so, the individual named taking the piece of food assigned to him, while his companion quietly waits his turn.
In the Clifton Zoological Gardens, a Polar bear was observed by Mr. T. G. Grenfell to behave in a very intelligent manner. A cocoanut having been thrown into the tank, floated out of the bear's reach, when it immediately began to make a current in the water, which soon brought the prize within reach. She then tried to break the nut by leaning her whole weight on it with one paw. Not succeeding in this, she raised herself on her hind legs, clasping the nut in both paws, and threw it against the railings of the den, a distance of a few feet. Again leaning her weight on it to ascertain whether it was broken, and finding it was not, she threw it once more against the bars, and succeeded in her object.
It is scarcely possible to have a better instance of reflection. The bear, not being grown up when this habit was acquired, would probably have had a difficulty in getting so large an object as a cocoanut between her molar teeth, and would thus be led to try some other expedient. Whether the act of throwing originated in accident or design, it could only be continued with a full knowledge of the consequences. The tendency of Polar bears to throw, however, would seem to be natural to them in a wild state. Dr. John Rae remarks: “ This circumstance was told me by an eyewitness, a very truthful and honest Eskimo of Repulse Bay. He said: 'I and two or three other
Bears using Missiles.
Innuit were attempting to approach some walrus in winter lying on the ice close to the water kept open by the strong current in Fox's Channel. As we were getting near we saw that a large white bear was before us. He had reached in the most stealthy manner a high ridge of ice immediately above where the walrus were lying. He then seized a mass of ice in his paws, reared himself on his hind legs, and threw the ice with great force on the head of a half-grown walrus, and then sprang down
The instances of animals making use of missiles, though rare, assuredly raise them. high in the scale of intelligence.
The following sustains Dr. Rae's high estimate of the intelligence of bears. Mr. J. M. Hayward, in a letter to Nature, says : * The following was narrated to me by Mohl's brother, on whose estate (in Russia) it took place. The carcase of a cow was laid out in the woods to attract the wolves, and a spring trap was set. Next morning, the forester found there the track of a bear instead of a wolf on the snow; the trap was thrown to some distance. Evidently the bear had put his paw in the trap and had managed to jerk it off. The next night the forester hid himself within shot of the carcase to watch for the bear. The bear came, but first pulled down a stack of firewood cut into seven-foot lengths, selected a piece to his mind, and, taking it up in his arms, walked on his hind legs to the carcase. He then beat about in the snow all round the carcase with the log of wood before he began his meal. The forester put a ball in his head, which I almost regret, as such a sensible brute deserved to live.”
The Dog the Friend and Companion of Man-Difference of
Character and Disposition in the Wild and Domesticated State - Origin of the Dog—the Effect of Selection-Sheep Dogs in the Australian Bush—Evidence of Early Domestication from Egyptian Monuments, Peruvian Graves, etc.—Some Effects of Domestication.
we may suppose, will dispute that, of all the animals we have domesticated, the dog is entitled to fill the highest place in our esteem, and is alone worthy to take rank
Friend of Man.” Of the numerous animals which have fallen permanently under our control, some have become necessary to us' as beasts of burden, others supply us with food and clothing, and the sweet songsters of the grove delight us with their music and lovely plumage-albeit, they are, for the most part, unwilling ministers to our pleasure. But there is one only among the “ lower animals” who has been raised to the dignity of the guardian of our homes and flocks, and has become the playfellow of our children, and our constant and faithful companion in everyday life. He is no respecter of persons, no seeker after ease and comfort. Whether his master be prince or pauper, we find in him the same devotion, the same cheerful obedience and constant readiness to sacrifice himself, while sharing the fortunes of the one human being to whom he may have attached himself. Darwin very truly says:
scarcely be doubted that
The Dog's Love of Man.
the love of man has become instinctive in the dog." Uninterrupted association for many generations with human kind has impressed upon his nature a sentiment of trustful affection, that shows itself as soon as the puppy opens its eyes on a world in which the first creature it beholds except its mother is a man. The young of our domestic dogs wag their little tails and lick our hands as soon as they are able to roll about on their short legs. These comical little fellows betray not the slightest fear of us. They seem to have known us ages ago in some far-off land, or in a previous existence, and to have come back to welcome us as old acquaintances and friends. Here is the subtle effect of inheritance, that potent influence to which so large a part of the mental and moral character is due. The mother through a long line of ancestors unconsciously gives her progeny this birthright—the love of man, and confidence in his friendship. Among the awakening perceptions of the puppy there is nothing incongruous. All that he sees and hears ought to be there, just as it is, for him, the heir of civilization, the co-partner with man in a common heritage. He trembles not when the children seize him, and, struggling for possession, bear him aloft in their arms, while the mother looks on with equanimity, confident in the security of her young.
How different is the behaviour of the whelps of the wolf. Those I have taken from the nest when about three weeks old have snarled and snapped at my fingers with all their might, and striven their utmost to escape from my hands, in spite of every effort to soothe their angry feelings. To them I was a strange, wild, and fearful creature, to be treated
an enemy—the embodiment, perhaps, of all their inherited vague apprehensions of danger, for the first time presented to their perceptions in a concrete form. When those whelps grew to maturity they might remorselessly hunt me down and tear me to pieces without the slightest consciousness of that almost sacred tie which can subsist between their species and mine when domesticated.
Of this section of the carnivora—the Cynoidea—there appears to be no more than four genera, viz., the genus Canis, including a number of varieties of wolf, dog, and fox; Megalotis, or the long-eared fox; Lycaon, or the hyæna dog; and Nycterentes, or the raccoon dog. From this group appear to have sprung all the wonderful varieties of hybrids known, which are completely, or almost completely, fertile inter se and with both parents. If, as there is every reason to believe, all the existing varieties of dogs are the descendants of a few wild stocks, resembling one another in about the same degree as do the living species of wolf, we cannot account for the immense prevailing differences, except by invoking the influence of conscious and unconscious selection on the part of man.
There are two questions to be asked in examining the pedigree of our domestic dogs. Do any wild species still exist, or are any known to history bearing their characteristics ? Does any fossil species throw any light on their origin ? Taking a general view of the domestic varieties, we are impelled to ask whether the marked differences in them are original, or whether they are the result of long-continued selection. For instance, glance at the animals on the benches at any general dog show. Are the short-faced, under-hung bulldogs, the bandy-legged, long-eared dachshunds, the massive St. Bernards, the slim Italian greyhounds, and the wheezing pugs with their tongues lolling out of their mouths, the direct representatives of any wild dogs possessing these very distinct characters? To this we are able to reply pretty confidently, that these special physical features are not original. We know of no wild species with any resemblance to these particular forms, neither does history or tradition support the conclusion that such have ever existed in a state of nature. The answer, too, is confirmed by palæontology. The fossil members of the genus Canis present substantially unaltered the aspect of existing wolves and jackals in their straight legs, and long, sharp, muzzles, and this is the type associated with the earliest remains of man in pre-historic times,