Part 8

“The Tailor-ants, common in warm countries, make a shelter by drawing leaves together, and their co-operative hauling is admirable; their mandibles are their needles, if you like, but they have nothing to sew with: what does each do but take a larva in its mouth so that the silk secreted from the offspring serves as thread for the parents?”

Again: “A common Harvesting-ant of South Europe collects seeds of clover-like plants, lets them begin to sprout so that the tough envelopes are burst, exposes them in the sun so that the germination does not go too far, takes them back underground and chews them into dough, and finally makes this into little biscuits which are dried in the sun and stored for winter use. Many ‘White Ants’ or Termites grow mushrooms in extensive, specially constructed beds of chewed wood, and some of the true Ants show a similar habit.”

That Ants have some means of communicating one with another goes without saying, but our knowledge of Ant language is still very meager, despite the long and patient labors of many myrmecologists. Some of the actions considered to be involved in communication are striking with the antennæ, butting with the head, opening the jaws, beating the ground with the abdomen, and the production of sounds by various kinds of apparatus for stridulation.

“While Ants may not be able to talk about things in their sign language,” says Professor Holmes, “they apparently express their different feelings and inclinations in ways which are intelligible to other Ants. Wasmann has compiled a sort of vocabulary of signs made by the antennæ--a ‘Wörterbuch der Fühlersprache,’ which is about as extensive as Mr. Garner’s languages of Apes. According to the vigor and frequency of the strokes of the antennæ, and the part of the body stroked, the Ant which is addressed may be importuned for food, warned of danger, or induced to co-operate with the communicants in various activities.”

FOOTNOTES:

Cf. Lubbock, Sir John, “Ants, Bees and Wasps,” 1883; Wasmann, E., “Comparative Studies in the Psychology of Ants and of Higher Animals,” 1905; Forel, A., “Recherches sur les fourmis de la Suisse,” Zurich, 1874; “The Senses or Insects,” 1908. See also Beebe, William, “The Edge of the Jungle,” 1921.

The value of mutual aid as a factor in evolution was dimly divined by Goethe, and was first expressed as a “law” by Professor Kessler in 1880, who was then Dean of the St. Petersburg (Leningrad) University. Having read Kessler’s lecture in 1883, Prince Kropotkin began a series of articles on the same subject, resulting in the publication in 1902 of his great work, “Mutual Aid as a Law of Nature and a Factor of Evolution.”

Cf. Huber, Pierre, “Les fourmis indigènes,” Geneva, 1861, and Forel, loc. cit.

TERMITES (“WHITE ANTS”)

The organized social life of the “White Ants” or Termites is of unusual interest for the student of animal intelligence. The Termites have kings, queens, soldiers and workers.

Not related to the true Ants, the Termites are not unlike our Roaches in the construction of their bodies. Though found in the United States and in Europe, their main habitats are Africa and Australia. In the latter countries their so-called nests are of prodigious dimensions, exceeding sometimes five hundred times the length of the Insect (ten to twelve millimeters), thus surpassing the tallest buildings constructed by Man relative to the height of the builders. While the height of Termite nests are sometimes more than 500 times the length of the Insect, the Eiffel Tower is but 175 times as tall as the workers who reared it. “The number of dwellers in these nests exceeds by count the number of inhabitants of many large countries” (Molostwoff).

CONCLUSION

In view of the foregoing facts illustrative of the mental life of Invertebrates, there remains little ground for denying to creatures below the backboned phyla a certain modicum of intelligence, well in accord with their needs. That any Invertebrate is capable of the process of reasoning is, of course, a debatable question, but the existence of mental processes in these groups is, apparently, indisputable, and where there is mind there is intelligence, however limited it may be.

Forel attributes to Insects passions closely akin to those exhibited by the higher Vertebrates, though these vary considerably with the diverse species. Wasps, certain species of Ants, and a few Beetles, are extremely irritable and pugnacious. Among the less intelligent species no passions are manifest apart from hunger, thirst and sexual appetite. The memory likewise varies according to the species, and, as might be expected, is at a minimum in the small-brained forms and most highly developed in the social Hymenoptera (Bees, Ants and Wasps).

“It must be admitted,” declares Forel, “that Insects are capable of perceiving, of learning, of recollecting, of associating their recollections and of utilizing them to accomplish their ends. They have various emotions and their will is not purely instinctive, but offers individual plastic modifications, adapted to circumstances.”

Although many authorities are inclined to think that Forel goes too far in his estimates of Insect Intelligence, Bouvier’s extensive studies have led him to practically the same conclusions. He rejects Bethe’s claim that Insects are mere reflex machines, because they can adapt themselves to circumstances, acquire new habits, learn to remember, and manifest discernment.

Comparing their organization with ours, McIndoo concludes that Insects “have perhaps accomplished more than we have.... Furthermore some Insects, for example Honey Bees and Plant-lice, have evolved methods for controlling sex; this subject has probably puzzled Man as much as life itself, yet Man can neither control sex nor knows how to control it.... Let us cease looking with scorn upon Insects.”

“We prize so highly all our own aptitudes as to believe that they are unequalled, even when inspired by the least commendable motives,” says Bouvier. “Though bellicose ourselves, we think it strange that beehives or ants-nests should engage in warfare. At times we revert to barbarism by reducing our enemies to slavery, yet we exclaim with surprise at the habits of slave-making Ants.”

There is nowhere any distinct break in the evolutionary series--no fundamental distinction between the animal and the human mind. Protoplasm is protoplasm, wherever found, and mind is mind wherever it becomes manifest. There can no more be two totally distinct and fundamentally different kinds of mind than there can be two or more totally distinct kinds of protoplasm, one human, the other sub-human. The Amœba and Man are both the product of protoplasmic differentiation, and the primordial protoplasmic cell embodied in its substance all potentialities of Life and Mind upon this planet.

FOOTNOTES:

Bouvier, E. L., “La Vie Psychique des Insectes,” 1918.

Transcriber’s Note:

Text that was in italics is enclosed by underscores (italics).

The chapter “Horseshoe Crabs (Limulus)” was missing from the original table of contents, so it was re-added.

Footnotes were moved to the ends of the chapters in which they appeared.

Minor punctuation errors have been changed without notice.

Spelling was retained as in the original except for the following changes:

Page 13: “we come to the Amoeba” to “we come to the Amœba” Page 19: “highly organized Cephelapods” to “highly organized Cephalopods” Page 27: “its post with o e” to “its post with one” Page 29: “through a tiny hold” to “through a tiny hole” Page 31: “establishing it the Spide”to “establishing it the Spider” Page 34: “remarks Mr. Garret P. Serviss” to “remarks Mr. Garrett P. Serviss” Page 41: “The Two-banded Scolla” to “The Two-banded Scolia”