| OCR Text |
Show 1884.] OF THE INDIVIDUAL AND OF THE SPECIES. 465 spicules-into perfect white spheres, each having a single fissured orifice. Another (which makes a many-chambered test like the shell of an Orthoceratite, the conical mouth of each chamber projecting into the cavity of the next), while forming the walls of its chambers of ordinary sand-grains rather loosely held together, shapes the conical mouths of its successive chambers by firmly cementing together grains of ferruginous quartz, which it must have picked out from the general mass." On considering such remarkable differences in action, between creatures of structures so simple and so similar, the question naturally arises, " M a y not the differences be due to diversities of molecular structure? " That structural differences which our senses cannot detect, exist not only between all the kinds, but also between all the individuals, is what no one can reasonably deny ; but as such differences cannot be known by observation, whereas the differences of habit can be so known, an attempt to explain the latter by the power would be to explain obscurum per obscurius. Moreover, it is very difficult to see how such molecular difference alone, can govern the shape and ornamentation of the flask which a particle of protoplasm constructs to shelter its own amorphous substance. Moreover M r . Carter has recorded * observations with regard to actions of other Rhizopods which at the least have much appearance of being instinctive. There are also actions performed by animals not so very much higher in the scale-certain Ccelentera and Echinoderma2, which must I think be allowed to be instinctive by all who hold that Instinct is generally beneficial vital action in which sensation intervenes. That sensation, in some form, does intervene in these animals, is, in m y opinion, so far shown by the possession of a distinct nervous system, that we may assume it in the absence of any good reason to the contrary being brought forward. W h e n a nervous system, however, does not exist, we cannot venture to assert the presence of any true sensation. The, at least seemingly, instinctive actions in the lowest animals may then serve to introduce to our consideration certain actions in ourselves and in other animals which are not generally reckoned as " instinctive." Before, however, proceeding to their consideration, I would say a few words on the subject of " lapsed intelligence." I a m strongly persuaded that " lapsed intelligence " will not explain "Instinct " generally, but I should be the last to deny that certain instinctive actions may be so explained, and I fully admit that intelligent action in ourselves does tend to become instinctive. It is also fortunate for us that it does so tend, as thereby we are saved great mental friction, and our intelligence is, as it were, set free to appropriate and render instinctive a continually wider and more important range of deliberate, purposive actions. That such " lapsed intelligence " will not, however, explain all instinctive actions, seems to m e clear from a consideration both of the lowest, or most simple, instinctive actions on the part of ourselves 1 Ann. of Nat. Hist. 3rd series, 1863. 2 See ' Animal Intelligence,' by G. J. Romanes, pp. 22, 23. |
