Part 2

FIGURE 3.--Orang utan, Julius, reaching for banana.

FIGURE 4.--Julius walking across his cage.

FIGURE 5.--P. rhesus, Sobke.

FIGURE 6.--Sobke stretching his jaws (yawn?) preparatory to a fight.

FIGURE 7.--P. irus, Skirrl.

FIGURE 8.--Skirrl using hammer and nail.

FIGURE 9.--Skirrl using a saw.

All of the animals except the orang utan had been used more or less for experiments on behavior by Doctor Hamilton, but this prior work in no way interfered with my own investigation. Doctor Hamilton has accumulated a large mass of the most valuable and interesting observations on the behavior of monkeys, and he more thoroughly understands them than any other observer of whom I have knowledge. Much to my regret and embarrassment in connection with the present report, he has thus far published only a small portion of his data (Hamilton, 1911, 1914). In his most recent paper on "A study of sexual tendencies in monkeys and baboons," he has given important information concerning several of the monkeys which I have observed. For the convenience of readers who may make use of both his reports and mine, I am designating the animals by the names previously given them by Hamilton. The available and essential information concerning the individuals is presented below.

List of animals in collection

Skirrl. Pithecus irus. Adult male.

Sobke. P. rhesus. Young adult male.

Gertie. P. irus-rhesus. Female. Born November, 1910.

Maud. P. rhesus. Young adult female.

Jimmy II. P. irus. Adult male.

Scotty. P. irus (?). Adult male.

Tiny. P. irus-rhesus. Female. Born August, 1913.

Chatters. P. irus. Adult eunuch.

Daddy. P. irus. Adult eunuch.

Mutt. P. irus. Young adult male. Born August, 1911.

Julius. Pongo pygmaeus. Male. Age, 4 years to 5 years.

When I arrived in Santa Barbara, Doctor Hamilton was about to remodel, or rather reconstruct, his animal cages and laboratory. This gave us opportunity to adapt both to the special needs of my experiments. The laboratory was finally located and built in a grove of live oaks. From the front it is well shown by figure 10 of plate III, and from the rear, by figure 11. Its location was in every way satisfactory for my work, and in addition, the spot proved a delightful one in which to spend one's time.

L, laboratory; C, cages; A, experiment room in which multiple-choice apparatus was installed; B, E, additional rooms for research; D, store room and shop; Z, large central cage communicating with the eight smaller cages 1-8.]

Figure 12 is a ground plan, drawn to scale, of the laboratory and the adjoining cages, showing the relations of the several rooms of the laboratory among themselves and to the nine cages. Although the construction was throughout simple, everything was convenient and so planned as to expedite my experimental work. The large room A, adjoining the cages, was used exclusively for an experimental study of ideational behavior by means of my recently devised multiple-choice method. Additional, and supplementary, experiments were conducted in the large cage Z. Room D served as a store-room and work-shop.

The laboratory was forty feet long, twenty-two feet wide, and ten feet to the plate. Each small cage was six, by six, by twelve feet deep, while the large compartment into which each of the smaller cages opened was twenty-four feet long, ten feet wide, and twelve feet deep.

OBSERVATIONAL PROBLEMS AND METHODS

My chief observational task in Montecito was the study of ideational behavior, or of such adaptive behavior in monkeys and apes as corresponds to the ideational behavior of man. It was my plan to determine, so far as possible in the time at my disposal, the existence or absence of ideas and the rôle which they play in the solution of problems by monkeys and apes. I had in mind the behavioristic form of the perennial questions: Do these animals think, do they reason, and if so, what is the nature of these processes as indicated by the characteristics of their adaptive behavior?

My work, although obviously preliminary and incomplete, differs from most of the previous studies of the complex behavior of the infrahuman primates in that I relied chiefly upon a specially devised method and applied it systematically over a period of several months. The work was intensive and quantitative instead of more or less incidental, casual, and qualitative as has usually been the case. Naturally, during the course of my special study of ideational behavior observations were made relative to various other aspects of the life of my subjects. Such, for example, are my notes on the use of the hands, the instincts, the emotions, and the natural aptitudes of individuals. It is, indeed, impossible to observe any of the primates without noting most interesting and illuminating activities. And although the major portion of my time was spent in hard and monotonous work with my experimental apparatus, I found time each day to get into intimate touch with the free activities of my subjects and to observe their social relations and varied expressions of individuality. As a result of my close acquaintance with this band of primates, I feel more keenly than ever before the necessity of taking into account, in connection with all experimental analyses of behavior, the temperamental characteristics, experience, and affective peculiarities of individuals.

The light which I have obtained on the general problem of ideation has come, first, through a method which I have rather inaptly named the multiple-choice method, and second, and more incidentally, through a variety of supplementary methods which are described in Section IV of this report. These supplementary methods are simple tests of ideation rather than systematic modes of research. They differ from my chief method, among other respects, in that they have been used by various investigators during the past ten or fifteen years. It was not my aim to repeat precisely the observations made by others, but instead to verify some of them, and more especially, to throw additional light on my main problem and to further the analysis of complex behavior.