Part 7

Equally corroborative of our first position are the results of still another set of experiments. Here the dogs and cats were put through the proper movement from twenty-five to one hundred times, being left in the box after every five or ten trials and watched to see if they would not be able at least to realize that the act which they had just been made to do and which had resulted in liberation and food was the proper act to be done. For instance, a dog would be put in a box the door of which would fall open when a loop of string hanging outside the box was clawed down an inch or so. Animals were taken who had, when left to themselves, failed to be led to this particular act by their general instinctive activities. After two minutes I would put in my arm, take the dog's paw, hold it out between the bars, and, inserting it in the loop, pull the loop down. The dog would of course then go out and eat the bit of meat. After repeating this ten times (in some cases five) I would put the dog in and leave him to his own devices. If, as was always the case, he failed in ten or twenty minutes to profit by my teaching I would take him out, but would not feed him. After a half hour or so I would recommence my attempts to show the dog what needed to be done. This would be kept up for two or three days, until he had shown his utter inability to get the notion of doing for himself what he had been made to do a hundred or more times. The mental process required here need not be so high a one as inference or reasoning, but surely any animal possessing those would, after seeing and feeling his paw pull a loop down a hundred times with such good results, have known enough to do it himself. None of my animals did know enough. Those who did not in ten or twelve trials hit upon an act by accident could never be taught that act by being put through it. And, as in the case of imitation, acts of such a sort as would be surely learned by virtue of accidental success were not learned a whit sooner or more easily when I thus showed them to the animal.

An interesting supplement to these facts is found in the following answers to some questions which I sent to the trainer of one of the most remarkable trick-performing horses now exhibited on the stage. The counting tricks done by this horse had been quoted to me by a friend as impossible of explanation unless the horse could be educated by being put through the right number of movements in connection with the different signals.

_Question 1._--If you wished to teach a horse to tap seven times with his hoof when you asked him "How many days are there in a week?" would you teach him by taking his leg and making him go through the motions?

_Answer._--"No!"

_Question 2._--Do you think you _could_ teach him that way, even if naturally you would take some other way?

_Answer._--"I do not think I could."

_Question 3._--How would you teach him?

_Answer._--"You put figure 2 on the blackboard and _touch him, on the leg_ twice with a cane, and so on."

The counting tricks of trained horses seem to us marvelous because we are not acquainted with the simple but important fact that a horse instinctively raises his hoof when one pricks or taps his leg in a certain place. Just as once given, the cat's instinct to claw, squeeze, etc., you can readily get a cat to open doors by working latches or turning buttons, so, once given this simple reflex of raising the hoof, you can, by ingenuity and patience, get a horse to do almost any number of counting tricks.

Probably any one who still feels confident that animals reason will not be shaken by any further evidence. Still, it will pay any one who cares to make scientific his notions about animal consciousness to notice the results of two sets of experiments not yet mentioned. The first set was concerned with the way animals learn to perform a compound act. Boxes were arranged so that two or three different things had to be done before the door would fall open. For instance, in one case the cat or dog had to step on a platform, reach up between the bars over the top of the box and claw down a string running across them, and finally push its paw out beside the door to claw down a bar which held it.

The animal's instinctive impulses do often lead it to accidentally perform these several acts one after another, and repeated accidental successes do in some of these cases cause the acts to be done at last in fairly quick succession. But we see clearly that the acts are not thought about or done with anything like a rational comprehension of the situation, for the time taken to learn the thing is much longer than all three elements would take if tackled separately; and even after the animal has reached a minimum time in doing the acts, he does not do the things in the same order, and often repeats one of the acts over and over again, though it has already attained its end.

The second set comprised experiments on the so-called "memory" of animals. I will describe only one out of many which agree with it. A kitten had been trained to the habit of climbing the wire-netting front of its cage whenever I approached. I then trained her to climb up at the words "I must feed those cats." This was done by uttering them and then in ten seconds going up to the cage and holding a bit of fish to her at its top. After this had been done about forty times she reached a point where she would climb up at the signal about fifty per cent of the times. I then introduced a new element by sometimes saying, "I must feed those cats," as before, and feeding her, and at other times saying, "I will not feed them," and remaining still in my chair. At first the kitten felt no difference, and would climb up just as often at the wrong signal as at the right. But gradually (it took about four hundred and fifty trials) the failure to get any pleasure from the act of climbing up at the wrong signal stamped out the impulse to do so, while the pleasure sequent upon the act of climbing up at the other signal made that her invariable response to it. Here, as elsewhere, the absence of reason was shown by the cat's failure at any point in these hundreds of trials to think about the matter, and make the easy inference that one set of sounds meant food, while the other did not. But still better proof appears in what is to follow. After an interval of eighty days I tried her again to see how permanent the association between the signal and act was. It was permanent to the extent that what took three hundred and eighty trials before took only fifty this time, for after fifty trials with the "I will not feed them" signal, mixed up with a lot of the other, the cat once more attained perfect discrimination. But it was not permanent in the sense that the cat at the first or tenth or twentieth trial felt, as a remembering, reasoning consciousness surely ought to feel, "Why, that lot of sounds means that he won't come up with fish." For instead of at first forgetting and for a while climbing up at the _I will not feed them_, and then remembering its previous experience and at once stopping the performance it had before learned was useless, the cat simply went through the same gradual decreasing of the percentage of wrong responses until finally it always responded rightly.

What has so far been said is true regardless of any prejudice or incompetence on my part, for the proof in all cases rests not on my observation, but on impartial time records or such matters of fact as the escape or nonescape, the climbing or not-climbing of the animals. I may add that in a life among these animals of six months for from four to eight hours a day I never saw any acts which even _seemed_ to show reasoning powers, and did see numerous acts unmentioned here which pointed clearly to their absence.

All that is left for the fond owner of a supposedly rational animal to say is that though the average animal, the typical dog or cat, is by these experiments shown to be devoid of reasoning power, yet _his_ dog or _her_ cat is far above the average level, and is therefore to be judged by itself. He may claim that just because my average animals failed to infer, we have no right to deny inference to all, particularly to his. Is it not fair to ask such a one to repeat my experiments with his supposedly superior animal? Until he does and systematically tries to find out how its mind works and what it is capable of, has he any right to bear witness? It may also be said that of the number of people who witnessed the performances of my animals after they had fully learned a lot of these acts, but had not seen the method of acquisition, all unanimously wondered at their wonderful intellectual powers. "How _do_ you teach them?" "Where did you get such bright animals?" "I always thought animals could think," and such like were common expressions of my visitors. The fact was that the dogs and cats were picked up in the street at random, and that no one of them had thought out one jot or tittle of the things he had learned to do. The specious appearance of reasoning in a completely formed habit does not involve the presence or assistance of reasoning in the formation of the habit.

Here, at the close of this account, I may signify my willingness to reply, so far as is possible, to any letters from readers of the Popular Science Monthly who may care to ask questions about any feature of animal intelligence.

* * * * *

In a discussion of the question "How Education fails," Dr. J. T. Searcy, of Tuscaloosa, Alabama, speaks of the tendency of too much education as being to make the pupil too machine-cut. "The successful, the progressive, the aggressive men, families, and races are not the manufactured ones, but the self-made ones." In the conditions and complexities of human society, the accumulating data of knowledge change so rapidly that educators can not anticipate the future in the elements and curricula of prescribed education. The advancing man, who is able to keep up in his day and generation, shows his excellence in his ability to readjust to his changing environment. The schools can not give this faculty, but rather have a tendency to weaken it; yet on it, more than anything else, rests the success of the man and the race. "Too much ought not to be demanded of the schools, nor ought they to assume too much to themselves."

THE UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM.

BY HON. CHARLES D. WALCOTT,

DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY.

A national museum should be the center of scientific activity in the country in which it is located. In England the British Museum is the Mecca of scientific men. In Paris, Copenhagen, Vienna, Berlin, and other capitals of Europe the national museum stands in similar relations to the scientific work of its own country. Such a relation our National Museum should hold to scientific men and affairs in America. It should receive and take care of all material that has been or may be valuable for investigation or for the illustration of the ethnology, natural history, geology, products, and resources of our own country, or for comparison with the material of other countries. It should furnish material for all kinds of scientific investigations which deal with specimens or types, and give aid to such researches and publish their results. It should present by illustration such of the results of the scientific investigations of its corps of officers as are susceptible of such representation. It should co-operate with all the higher educational institutions of learning in the country, and assist in the promotion and diffusion of knowledge in all lines of investigation carried on by it. It should provide library facilities, and aid all post-graduate students who may wish to take advantage of the provisions made by the Government for scientific research.

HISTORY AND PRESENT ORGANIZATION.--Beginning in a small way in the Patent-Office building early in the century, the "Government" collections of "natural products" were transferred to the custody of the Smithsonian Institution in 1858, where they were installed along with the larger and more valuable collections of the institution. Twenty-three years later, in 1881, the present National Museum building was ready for the great mass of material that had accumulated in the Smithsonian building, and had been transferred from the Centennial Exhibition at Philadelphia. Out of these heterogeneous collections Dr. G. Brown Goode, under the direction of Secretary Baird, of the Smithsonian, organized a museum of broad scope, based on all that had proved best in museum experience to that time. Faithfully he carried forward the work until September, 1896, when his health broke under the strain of too many duties, and one of the best museum administrators the world has yet produced, if not the very best one, passed from us. In January, 1897, I was placed in temporary charge of the administration of the museum as an acting Assistant Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, and remained in charge until July 1, 1898.

On July 1, 1897, in order to meet changed conditions, a new plan of organization went into effect. The various divisions and sections of anthropology, biology, and geology, which had previously been conducted independently of one another, the curators and custodians reporting directly to the assistant secretary in charge of the museum, were united under three head curators--one of anthropology, another of biology, and a third of geology. This secured direct expert supervision, and correlated the work of each department. Before this such correlation had been impossible, owing to the large number of independent heads of sections and divisions in each department, who planned and executed the work more or less independently of one another.

In the department of anthropology the system of installation inaugurated by Prof. W. H. Holmes is somewhat elaborate. The primary arrangement is founded, first, on the geographical or ethnographical assemblage, and, second, on the developmental or genetic assemblage. Other methods may be classed as special; they are the chronologic, the comparative, the individual, etc. The primary methods are adapted to the presentation of the general truths of anthropology, and the special methods are available for limited portions of the field.

In many ways the department of biology, under the charge of Dr. F. W. True, was, at the date named, in much better condition than either of the other two departments. Many of the zoölogical divisions had been in existence since the reorganization of the museum in 1883, and several of them for a much longer period, and as the biological specimens had been in charge of curators and assistants who followed well-defined and long-established methods, the reorganization of the department was a relatively simple matter, no radical changes in the scientific methods or in the business administration being required.

To the organization and administration of the department of geology, Dr. George P. Merrill brought the results of a recent study of various European museums. He found it necessary to make a systematic examination of the written and printed records of the various Government exploring expeditions and surveys, with a view to ascertaining what geological material had been collected which could properly be considered the property of the Government, and what disposition had been made of the same. The law[8] provides that collections made for the Government shall, when no longer needed for investigations in progress, be deposited in the National Museum. It was found that this law had not in all cases been strictly enforced, and that several important collections had not been transferred to the museum, although some of the earlier exploring expeditions had passed out of existence, and in several instances the individuals making the collections had likewise passed away. This investigation has resulted in the transfer to the museum of several car loads of specimens no longer needed elsewhere.

[Footnote 8: "And all collections of rocks, minerals, soils, fossils, and objects of natural history, archæology, and ethnology, made by the Coast and Interior Survey, the Geological Survey, or by any other parties for the Government of the United States, when no longer needed for investigations in progress, shall be deposited in the National Museum...."--_Supplement to the Revised Statutes of the United States_, vol. i, second edition, 1874-1891, p. 252.]

The National Museum is unique among permanent museums in having large sections of its collections almost constantly away from it. It made displays at London in 1883, at Louisville in 1884, at Minneapolis in 1887, at Cincinnati and Marietta in 1888, at Madrid in 1892, at Chicago in 1893, at Atlanta in 1895, at Nashville in 1896, and at Omaha in 1898. The injury to the museum resulting from the packing and transportation of specimens and from the interruption of systematic work and development has been keenly felt at times by the scientific staff. The advantages have consisted in showing to the people of many sections of the country what the museum is doing, in securing collections that otherwise would not have been obtained, and in extending the educational sphere of influence.

RELATIONS TO THE SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION.--The museum is a child that has by its vigorous growth already overshadowed the parent institution in the extent of its buildings, its expenditures, and its direct influence upon the people of the United States. In the larger fields for which the Smithsonian Institution was organized, for the purpose of increasing and diffusing knowledge among men throughout the world, the museum is subordinate to the institution, and if the latter is administered in the future as it has been in the past, it will continue to hold a unique place among all institutions for the increase and diffusion of knowledge.

In 1877 Prof. Asa Gray, as chairman of a special committee of the Regents of the Smithsonian, submitted a report which recommended that a distinction between the institution itself and the museum under its charge should be made as prominent as possible. The fear was expressed that if the museum was developed to its full extent and importance within the Smithsonian Institution it would absorb the working energies of the institution, and it was thought that such a differentiation would pave the way to entire separation of administration or to some other adjustment, as the Board of Regents might think best or be able to accomplish. Professor Baird, in 1878, in his report to the regents, called attention to the frequent mention in the reports of his predecessor of the relations existing between the Smithsonian Institution and the National Museum, and remarked that "it is only necessary to mention briefly that the museum constitutes no organic part of the institution, and that, whenever Congress so directs, it may be transferred to any designated supervision without affecting the general plans and operations connected with the 'increase and diffusion of knowledge among men.'"

During the administration of the museum by Dr. Goode, under the direction of Professor Baird, and later Professor Langley, no movement was made toward the separation of the museum from the Smithsonian. On the contrary, Dr. Goode was strongly opposed to any such action, and in this he was heartily supported by Secretary Langley. He felt that the result of placing the museum under the control of one of the great departments of the Government, or leaving it to be buffeted about in the sea of politics as an independent organization, would be the destruction of its scientific character.

I have been intimately acquainted with the administration of the museum since 1886, and less so with the administration of other scientific bureaus of the Government, one of which, the Fish Commission, is independent of departmental control. After a careful reconsideration of the subject of the relations of the National Museum to the Smithsonian Institution, I have come to the conclusion that the present welfare and the future development of the museum will be best served by administrative connection with the Smithsonian Institution. Under the present organization there is no necessity for large demand upon the time and energies of the secretary by the affairs of the museum. If in the future it should become otherwise, relief could readily be secured by action of the Board of Regents, requiring the officer in charge of the museum to report to them through the secretary, much as the various bureaus of the departments report through their respective secretaries to Congress. It is not probable, however, that this will become necessary, for at any time an assistant secretary could be appointed to take sole charge of the museum, thus relieving the secretary of all but the most general administrative supervision.

RELATIONS TO A NATIONAL UNIVERSITY.--A national museum should radiate an educational influence to the remotest portions of the country. It should set the standard for all other museums, whether in public school, academy, college, university, or the larger museums under municipal and State control. Its influence should be exercised largely through its publications and through those who come to study its collections and the methods of work of the investigators connected directly or indirectly with its scientific staff. In its library system the student should have access to the literature bearing upon the subjects with which the museum is concerned. In its exhibition halls each object should be labeled and arranged with the view of presenting, by graphic illustration and concise description, all that it is capable of teaching, either as a discrete object or as one of a series of objects telling the story of the evolution of the group to which it belongs. Such a museum is not a place where the uninformed student may obtain the elements of a university training; it is an institution where the post-graduate student can secure access to material for study and research in connection with men who are carrying forward scientific work of the highest type. Dr. D. C. Gilman would go further than this. He says:[9]

[Footnote 9: Century Magazine, vol. lv, 1897, p. 156.]

"Any person of either sex, from any place, of whatever age, without any question as to his previous academic degree, should be admissible; provided, however, that he demonstrate his fitness to the satisfaction of the leader in the subject of his predilection."

Dr. Gilman thinks that such an organization "may be developed more readily around the Smithsonian Institution, with less friction, less expense, less peril, and with the prospect of more permanent and widespread advantages to the country, than by a dozen denominational seminaries or one colossal university of the United States.

"To the special opportunities that the Smithsonian and its affiliations could offer, every university, at a distance or near by, might be glad to send its most promising students for a residence of weeks, months, or years, never losing control of them. Many other persons, disconnected with universities, but proficient to a considerable degree in one study or another, would also resort with pleasure and gratitude, and with prospect of great advantages, to the rare opportunities which Washington affords for study and investigation in history, political science, literature, ethnology, anthropology, medicine, agriculture, meteorology, geology, geodesy, and astronomy."