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