Chapter III (4)

I have now read your admirable book, and my only objection
to it is that it seems in such large measure to anticipate
the publication of my own course of lectures on the theory of
Evolution which I am now giving at the Royal Institution. But,
on the other hand, this will relieve me of the necessity of
printing a good deal of my matter, as it will be sufficient to
refer to your book in mine when the two cover common ground. It
is needless to add that I am very glad to note you think so well
of physiological selection.

Yours very truly,
G. J. ROMANES.

The theory of the Non-Inheritance of Acquired Characters, with which Professor Weismann's name is inseparably connected, was now coming to the front.

Mr. Romanes was, of course, intensely interested, and set himself _not_ to dispute so much as to examine and to test it.

He devoted a large part of his last year at the Royal Institution to lecturing on Prof. Weismann's theory, which lectures he worked up into his book, 'An Examination of Weismannism,' published in 1892.

He devised many experiments to test that theory, experiments which have a pathetic interest for those who love him, for they occupied his mind up to the very day of his death.

Of this theory it may safely be said that since the promulgation of Mr. Darwin's great doctrine, no problem has interested the world of science so profoundly.

For the most part the younger English naturalists have accepted Professor Weismann's theory, which, by the way had long ago been anticipated by Mr. Francis Galton, and Mr. Romanes was not much supported in his opposition, or, rather, his non-adherence to Weismannism.

Linnean Society, Burlington House, London, W.: March 21, 1890.

My dear Dyer,--I have come to the conclusion that anything
published in 'Nature' might as well never have been published at
all; and therefore have come here to-day in order to look through
the back numbers of 'Nature,' with a view to republishing as a
small book the various things that I have contributed during the
past twenty years. Thus it is I find that the explanation which
I gave to Herbert Spencer _re_ Panmixia and his articles on the
'Factors of Organic Evolution,' appeared in August 25, 1887, and
showed that his whole argument was in the air.

I have also read my own article on Panmixia, written about two
mouths ago, and published last week. The result is to satisfy
me that your 'intelligent' friends must have had minds which
do not belong to the _a priori_ order--_i.e._ are incapable of
perceiving other than the most familiar relations. Such minds
may do admirable work in other directions, but not in that of
estimating the value of Darwinian speculations. A few years
ago they would have thought the cessation of selection a very
unimportant principle, and one which could not possibly sustain
any such large question as that of the transmissibility of
acquired character. And a few years hence they will wonder why
they raised such an ado over the no less obvious principle of
physiological selection.

Yours very truly,
G. J. ROMANES.

He writes to his brother:

18 Cornwall Terrace, Regent's Park, N.W.: Sunday.

My dearest James,--This theory, of the Non-Inheritance of
Acquired Characters, is that nothing that can happen in the
lifetime of the individual exercises any influence on its
progeny; effects of use or disuse, for example, cannot be
inherited, nor, therefore, can any adaptation to external
conditions which are brought about in individual organisms.
Natural selection thus can only operate in spontaneous variations
of germ-plasm, choosing those variations which, when 'writ large'
in the resulting organisms, are best suited to survive and
transmit.

This is the most important question that has been raised in
biology since I can remember, and one proof of an inherited
mutilation would settle the matter against Weismann's theory. I
am therefore also trying the mutilation of caterpillars at the
Zoo, in the hope that a _mutilation_ during what is virtually an
embryonic period of life will be most likely to be transmitted,
seeing that _congenital_ variations are so readily transmissible,
and that these are changes of a pre-embryonic kind.

All well and with much love, yours ever,

GEORGE.

Have you got the 'Contemporary Review' for June with my article
on Darwinism? If not, I will send it.

Another bit of work was an investigation into the intelligence of the chimpanzee 'Sally' at the Zoological Gardens, which the following letter describes:

SAVAGE VERSUS BRUTE.

_To the Editor of the 'Times'_ (_Sept. 19, 1888_).

Sir,--In connection with the correspondence on the powers of
counting displayed by savages, it may be of interest to narrate
the following facts with regard to similar powers as displayed by
brutes.

One often hears a story told which seems to show that rooks
are able to count as far as five. The source of this story,
however, is generally found to have been forgotten, and therefore
the story itself is discredited. Now, the facts stand on the
authority of a very accurate observer, and as he adds that
they are 'always to be repeated when the attempt is made,' so
that they are regarded by him as 'among the very commonest
instances of animal sagacity,' we cannot lightly set them aside.
The observer in question is Leroy, and the facts for which he
personally vouches in his work on animal intelligence are briefly
as follows:

'The rooks will not return to their nests during daylight should
they see that anyone is waiting to shoot them. If to lull
suspicion a hut is made below the rookery and a man conceal
himself therein, he will have to wait in vain, should the birds
have ever been shot at from the hut on a previous occasion. Leroy
then goes on to say: 'To deceive this suspicious bird, the plan
was hit upon of sending two men into the watch-house, one of
whom passed out while the other remained; but the rook counted
and kept her distance. The next day three went, and again she
perceived that only two returned. In fine, it was found necessary
to send five or six men to the watch-house in order to throw out
her calculation.'

Finding it on this testimony not incredible that a bird could
count as far as five, I thought it worth while to try what might
be done with a more intelligent animal in this connection.
Accordingly, about a year ago, I began, with the assistance of
the keeper, to instruct the chimpanzee at the Zoological Gardens
in the art of computation. The method adopted was to ask her for
one, two, three, four, or five straws, which she was to pick
up and hand out from among the litter in her cage. Of course,
no constant order was observed in making these requests, but
whenever she handed a number not asked for her offer was refused.
In this way the animal learnt to associate the numbers with their
names. Lastly, if more than one straw were asked for she was
taught to hold the others in her mouth until the required number
was complete, and then to deliver the whole at once. This method
prevented any possible error arising from her interpretation of
vocal tones, an error which might well have arisen if each straw
had been asked for separately.

After a few weeks' continuous instruction the ape perfectly
well understood what was required of her, and up to the time
when I left town, several months ago, she rarely made a mistake
in handing me the exact number of straws that I named. Doubtless
she still continues to do so for her keeper. For instance, if
she is asked for four straws she successively picks up three and
puts them in her mouth, then she picks up a fourth and hands
over all the four together. Thus, there can be no doubt that
the animal is clearly able to distinguish between the numbers
1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, and that she understands the name for each.
But as this chimpanzee is somewhat capricious in her moods, even
private visitors must not be disappointed if they fail to be
entertained by an exhibition of her learning, a caution which
it seems desirable to add, as this is the first time that the
attainments of my pupil have been made known to the public,
although they have been witnessed by officers of the Society and
other biological friends.

I have sent these facts to you, Sir, because I think that they
bear out the psychological distinction which is drawn in your
leading article of the 17th inst. Briefly put, this distinction
amounts to that between sensuous estimation and intellectual
notation. Any child, a year after emerging from infancy, and not
yet knowing its numerals, could immediately see the difference
between five pigs and six pigs, and therefore, as your writer
indicates, it would be an extraordinary fact if a savage were
unable to do so. The case, of course, is different where any
process of calculation is concerned: _e.g._ 'each sheep must be
paid for separately; thus, suppose two sticks of tobacco to be
the rate of exchange for one sheep, it would sorely puzzle a
Damara to take two sheep and give him four sticks.' (F. Galton,
'Tropical South Africa,' p. 213.) But if the savage had to deal
with a larger number of pigs the insufficiency of his sensuous
estimation would increase with the increase of numbers, until a
point would be reached at which, if he were to keep count at all,
he would be obliged to resort to some system of notation, _i.e._
to mark off each separate unit with a separate _nota_, whether by
fingers, notches, or words. Similarly with the sense of hearing
and the so-called muscular sense. We can tell whether a clock
strikes 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 without naming each stroke, and whether
we have walked 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 paces without naming each pace,
but we cannot in this way be sure whether a clock has struck 11
or 12, or we ourselves have, walked as many yards.

Thus there is counting and counting, distinguishing between low
numbers by directly appreciating the difference between two
quantities of sensuous perceptions, and distinguishing between
numbers of any amount by marking each sensuous perception with
a separate sign. Of course, in the above instance of animals
counting it must be the former method alone that is employed,
and, therefore, I have not sought to carry the ape beyond the
number 5 lest I should spoil the results already gained. But
a careful research has been made to find how far this method
can be carried in the case of man. The experiments consisted
in ascertaining the number of objects (such as dots on a piece
of paper) which admit of being simultaneously estimated with
accuracy. It was found that the number admits of being largely
increased by practice, until, with an exposure to view of one
second's duration, the estimate admits of being correctly made up
to between 20 and 30 objects. (Preyer, 'Sitzungsber. d. Gesell,
f. Med. u. Naturwiss.,' 1881.) In the case of the ape it is
astonishing over how long a time the estimate endures. Supposing,
for instance, that she is requested to find five coloured straws.
She perfectly well understands what is wanted, but as coloured
straws are rare in the litter, she has to seek about for them,
and thus it takes her a long time to complete the number; yet she
remembers how many she has successively found and put into her
mouth, so that when the number is completed she delivers it at
once. After having consigned them to her mouth she never looks
at the straws, and therefore her estimate of their number must
be formed either by the feeling of her mouth, or by retaining
a mental impression of the successive movements of her arm in
picking up the straws and placing them in her mouth. Without
being able to decide positively in which of these ways she
estimates the number, I am inclined to think it is in the latter.
But, if so, it is surprising, as already remarked, over how long
a time this estimate by muscular sense endures. Should we trust
Houzeau's statement, however (and he is generally trustworthy),
it appears that computation by muscular sense may extend in some
animals over a very long period. For he says that mules used in
the tramways at New Orleans have to make five journeys from one
end of the route to the other before they are released, and that
they make four of these journeys without showing any expectation
of being released, but begin to bray towards the end of the
fifth.[67]

From this letter it will, I hope, be apparent that so far as
'counting' by merely sensuous computation is concerned, the
savage cannot be said to show much advance upon the brute. 'Once,
while I watched a Damara floundering hopelessly in a calculation
on one side of me, I observed Dinah, my spaniel, equally
embarrassed on the other. She was overlooking half a dozen of her
new-born puppies, which had been removed two or three times from
her, and her anxiety was expressive as she tried to find out if
they were all present, or if any were still missing. She kept
puzzling and running her eyes over them, backwards and forwards,
but could not satisfy herself. She evidently had a vague notion
of counting, but the figure was too large for her brain. Taking
the two as they stood, dog and Damara, the comparison reflected
no great honour on the man.' (Galton, _loc. cit._) But the case,
of course, is quite otherwise when, in virtue of the greatly
superior development of the sign-making faculty in man, the
savage is enabled to employ the intellectual artifice of separate
notation, whereby he attains the conception of number in the
abstract, and so lays the foundation of mathematical science.
Now, so far as I am aware, there is no trustworthy evidence
of any race of savages who are without any idea of separate
notation. Whether the system of notation be digital only, or
likewise verbal, is, psychologically speaking, of comparatively
little moment.

For it is historically certain that notation begins by using
the fingers, and how far any particular tribe may have advanced
in the direction of naming their numbers is a question which
ought never to be confused with that as to whether the tribe can
'count' _i.e._ notate.

GEORGE J. ROMANES.

Geanies, Ross-shire.

FOOTNOTES:

[37] _Life and Letters of Charles Darwin_, by Francis Darwin, vol. i. p. iii.

[38] Miss M. M. Paget.

[39] The friend referred to on p. 178.

[40] It should be explained that the writer of this memoir is responsible for the Journal, but as it was kept for the benefit of both husband and wife a few extracts are given.

[41] The answer is the word _six_.

[42] A moor taken in addition to the low ground shooting of Geanies.

[43] Mr. F. Balfour was killed on the Aiguille Blanche de Peuteret, July 1882.

[44] Mr. Browning told the same story of the Carlyles at this party which Mrs. Ritchie narrates in _Tennyson, Ruskin, and Browning_, pp. 198, 199.

[45] The _nom de plume_ adopted in writing _Candid Examination of Theism_.

[46] See sonnets, _The Bible of Amiens_, and _Christ Church, Oxford_.

[47] See _Nature_, January 25, 1883.

[48] Mr. Romanes remarked _à propos_ of Pfleiderer's lecture that St. Paul seemed to be a very hard nut for the lecturer to crack.

[49] Dr. King.

[50] Through the kindness of Lord Rosebery.

[51] One of Mr. Romanes' numerous pet names.

[52] This is in allusion to a minister of a small country parish in Scotland, who prayed that there might be at this time, on account of this parish, 'a very great commotion among the angels.'

[53] Of Germany.

[54] His brother was ill.

[55] An old nurse.

[56] Mr. Aubrey Moore reviewed _Mental Evolution in Man_ in the _Guardian_.

[57] I have not been able to discover any answer to these.

[58] _Nature_, vol. xvii. p. 168.

[59] _Nature_, vol. xxxvi. p. 273.

[60] _Nature_, vol. xxxii. p. 630.

[61] C. Logan, Esq., W.S., who had married Mr. Romanes' cousin.

[62] p.s.--physiological selection; s.s.--sexual selection; n.s.--natural selection.

[63] Of Mr. Darwin.

[64] Mr. F. Darwin had pointed out some erroneous conclusions in a projected scientific paper.

[65] _Darwinism_, by Alfred Russell Wallace.

[66] _Evolution and Religious Thought._

[67] _Fac. Ment. des Anim._ tom. ii. p. 207.