223
was not the result of personal training; for, after a
moment of surprise, the bird performed the operation of
diving at once. It was not the result of parental in
struction, for the old birds had not had any opportunity of
teaching their young brood. The act was perfect from the
very first. “ Then instantly down it dived with all the
facility of its parents.” Perfect from the first, it left no
room for improvement. Its parents dived no more per
fectly after the experience of a life-time. The instinctive
capacity is neither increased nor lessened by experience.
This instinctive act was blind—unconscious of ends or of
the means of attaining them. Stimulated by contact with
the water, the wonderful mechanism responded by the
necessity of the case, and the plunge was a leap in the
dark. These are the characteristics of the first action
prompted by a perfect instinct. No one can doubt the
existence of such a phenomenon ; and in spite of the
assertion of one able writer, we shall always require the
word “ instinct ” to indicate actions like that of the little
water-ouzel—even if they fell short of its absolute per
fection.
In dealing with the phenomena of instinct, it has been
customary with many to assume that actions like that of
the water-ouzel were typical of all animal action. Animals
were supposed to be always and everywhere guided by
instinct, and instinct was supposed to be perfect from the
first and unchangeable to the last. Those who held this
view supposed either that animals were mere automata or
else that they were conscious automata—in other words,
that they were mere living machines, having no conscious
ness of the actions which they performed ; or that they
were conscious of the actions which they performed, but
that they were not conscious of the utility of those actions.
It is the opinion of others that some animals are intelligent