On the following day, June 15, the three boxes were again placed nearly under the banana, but this time the two smaller boxes, numbers 1 and 2, were pushed to the extreme end of the lower box and so far from the bait that it could not be reached from box 1. It was necessary then for the animal to push boxes 1 and 2 along on box 3 until they were nearer the bait.
Sobke, when admitted to the cage, evidently noticed the banana, but as formerly, he made no immediate effort to obtain it. After wandering in search of food and quarreling with the other monkeys for several minutes, he went to the boxes, pushed the topmost one, number 1, off on to the floor, and then carried it into his cage where he quickly tore one side off. He next returned to the large cage, climbed up on box 2, and he was able, by jumping, to reach and obtain the banana.
As Sobke was very good at jumping, his new method rendered the box stacking experiment of uncertain value, since it was next to impossible so to arrange the spatial relations of bait and boxes that he should be neither discouraged by too great a distance nor encouraged to jump by too small a distance. Evidently it would be more satisfactory to simplify the conditions by trying to discover, first of all, whether he would use a single box as a means of reaching the reward.
In pursuance of this idea, I suspended a piece of bread five feet from the floor of the cage, and a few feet to one side of it, I placed a box from which it could be reached, or at least easily seized by jumping. Sobke shortly walked to a point beneath the bait and leaping into the air, seized it.
I then replaced the bait, raising it to a height of five feet ten inches from the floor of the cage. When I had retired, Sobke placed himself in the proper position beneath, looked up at it, but went away without jumping for it. During the remaining ten minutes of observation, he paid no further attention to the bait, having satisfied himself evidently that it was beyond his reach.
My use of this test was concluded on June 16 when once more I suspended a piece of bread six feet from the floor and placed a few feet to one side the eighteen inch box, number 3, from which had the monkey pushed it to a point directly under the bread, he could have obtained the food easily. Sobke noticed the food promptly, and from time to time as he wandered about, he glanced at it out of the corner of his eye, but not once did he sit down and look at it steadily and directly as Julius and Skirrl might have done.
In the first twenty minutes of observation the monkey made no attempt either to use the box or to reach the food by jumping. I then placed the box directly under the bait, and scarcely had I withdrawn from the cage before Sobke climbed up on it and looked toward the food. He could not reach it without jumping, and he made no effort to get it. I had left a second box in the cage,—one which I had been using as a seat. Sobke now went to this box, placed his hands on it, looked toward the bait, and then went to a distant part of the cage. No further indications were obtained during the remainder of the period of observation of interest in the boxes as possible means of obtaining the desired food.
It is of course obvious that this experiment was not long enough continued to justify the conclusion that either Sobke or Skirrl could not use the boxes or even learn to place one box upon another in order to obtain the bait. The experiment, like several others which are being described briefly, was used to supplement the multiple-choice experiment, and the experimenter's chief interest was to discover the number and variety of methods which would be used by the animal in the first few presentations of a situation. It is practically certain that both of these monkeys would have succeeded ultimately in solving the problem of obtaining the food had they been left in the cage with a number of boxes, for Skirrl very early indicated interest in moving the boxes about, and Sobke showed a tendency in that direction which perhaps was inhibited partially by his distrust of the experimenter.
Draw-in Experiment
For Sobke, as for Julius and Skirrl, the draw-in test was made by putting food on a shelf outside the cage, beyond the reach of the animal, and placing in the cage with the animal one or two sticks long enough to be used for drawing in the bait.
Sobke was first given this test on July 24. He tried persistently to reach the banana with his hand, seized the box which supported the bait, shook it, picked up one or other of the sticks, and chewed at it repeatedly, but not once did he make any move to use a stick to draw the food toward him.
This experiment was repeated on July 27, 29, 30 and 31, a period of thirty minutes being allowed on each day for observation. At no time did Sobke show any inclination to use either a stick or any other object as a means of reaching the bait. Instead, he confined himself strictly to the use of hands and teeth.
This test makes it fairly certain that Sobke had no natural tendency to use objects as tools. In so far as he attended to things about the cage or laboratory, it seemed to be rather to play with them in a general way than to use them ideationally or otherwise for definite purposes.
The definitely negative result of the draw-in experiment rendered needless prolonged observation with the box and pole test, whose results are now to be presented.
Box and Pole Experiment
The eighty-four inch box, previously used for a similar test with Julius, was presented to Sobke on August 24, the wooden cover having been replaced by a wire one so that the monkey could readily see the bait in the middle of the box. Sobke, when admitted to the large cage, went directly to the box and at once discovered the banana which was midway between the ends. He evidently desired it. Shortly, he went to one end of the box and looked in. This he repeated later. He also shook the box and tried to pull it about and tear it with his teeth, but to the two poles lying nearby on the floor of the cage he gave not the slightest attention during a thirty minute period of observation.
The experiment was not repeated because of more important work.
Other Activities
In more respects than I have taken time to enumerate in the above descriptions of behavior, the relations of Sobke to objects differed from those of Skirrl, and still more from those of Julius. Hammer, nails, saw, stones, sticks, locks, and various other objects received relatively little attention from Sobke unless they happened to come in his way; then they were usually pushed aside with but scant notice. Rarely he would carry something to the shelf of his cage with him, but as a rule only to lay it down and attend to something else. Skirrl, on the contrary, attended persistently to anything new in the shape of a movable object. He was extremely partial to objects which could be manipulated by him in various ways, and especially to any thing with which he could make a noise. His interest in hammer and nails, saw, locks, etc., seemed never to wane. I have seen him play for an hour almost uninterruptedly with a hammer and a nail, or even with a big spike which he could use to pry about his cage. In the absence of anything more interesting, even a staple or a small nail might receive his undivided attention for minutes at a time. How important is the species difference in this connection, I have no means to judge, but if we may not consider these different modes of behavior characteristic ofP. rhesusas contrasted withP. irus, we must conclude that remarkable individual differences exist among monkeys, for whereas Skirrl is by nature a mechanical genius, Sobke has apparently no such disposition. I can imagine no more fascinating task than the careful analytical study of the temperaments of these two animals. Skirrl's behavior has importantly modified my conception of genius.
1.Right- and left-handedness
Several years ago Doctor Hamilton reported to me observations which he had made on preference for the right or left paw in dogs. He has not, I believe, published an account of his work. Subsequently, Franz observed a similar preference in monkeys which, according to his report, exhibit marked tendency to be right-handed, left-handed, or ambidextrous.
My own observations, although they are wholly incidental to my other work, seem worthy of description at this point. I noted, first of all, that the orang utan Julius tended to use his left hand. He by no means limited himself to this, but in difficult situations he almost invariably reached for food or manipulated objects in connection with food getting with the left hand. Figures 23 and 24 of plate V, show him reaching for a banana with the left hand. Likewise, figure 34 exhibits the use of the left hand in the draw-in experiment.
So marked was Julius's preference for his left hand that I became interested in observing similar phenomena in the monkeys. Skirrl, when driving nails, held the hammer with his left hand and the nail with his right hand. The fact that he never was observed to reverse the use of the hands is surprising, for other observations indicate that he preferred the right hand for certain acts.
Stimulated by the obvious left-handedness, in certain connections, of Julius and Skirrl, I tested the preference of several of the monkeys in the following simple way. Standing outside the cage I would hold out a peanut to a hungry animal, keeping it so far from the cage that the monkey could barely reach it with its fingers. I noted the hand which was used to grasp the food. Next I varied the procedure by placing the peanut on a board in order to make sure that I was not definitely directing the animal's attention.
With Sobke the following results were obtained. In forty trials given on two different days, he reached for and obtained the food each time with his left hand. Only by holding the bait well toward the right side of his body was it possible to induce him to use the right hand. So far as may be judged from these observations and from others in connection with the experiments, this animal is definitely left-handed.
With Skirrl the results are strikingly different. As stated above, he used the hammer consistently with his left hand, but in twenty attempts to obtain food by reaching, he used his right hand seventeen times and his left only three times. It was quite as difficult to induce him to use his left hand for this purpose as it was to induce Sobke to use his right. We must therefore conclude that Skirrl is right-handed in connection with certain movements and left-handed in others.
The monkey named Gertie in the reaching experiment consistently used her left hand, never once using the right.
Jimmie, so far as it was possible to make tests with him, also used his left hand, but it should be said that the results are unsatisfactory because he was at the time extremely pugnacious and paid attention to the experimenter rather than to the food.
Scotty, in the first series of ten trials, used his right hand eight times, his left twice. In the second series, given the following day, he used the right hand three times and the left seven times. From this we should have to infer that he is ambidextrous.
A femalerhesusmonkey which had been brought to the laboratory only a few days previously showed a preference for the right hand by the use of it fourteen times to six.
In connection with these data which are, I should repeat, too scanty to be of any considerable value, I wish to describe my own experience. Although naturally left-handed, I am by training right-handed to the extent of having been able to use my hands in writing and in various other activities equally well at the age of twelve. I am at present ambidextrous in that there are many things which I do with equal readiness and skill with either hand. Delicate, exact, and finely coordinated movements, such as those of writing and using surgical instruments, I perform always with my left hand while grosser movements involving the whole hand or arm, I am rather likely to perform with my right hand.
It seems not improbable in the light of my own experience that we shall find some specialization among the lower animals with respect to preference for right and left hand or arm. I should not be at all surprised to discover that it is the rule for animals to possess or to develop readily definite preference for one hand in connection with a given act of skill and to have quite as definite a preference for the other hand in connection with a radically different kind of act.
2.Instinct and emotion
Of the many presumably instinctive modes of behavior which were observed, only those which have to do with social relations seem especially worth reporting. From among them I shall select for description a few which have already been referred to in connection with the experimental observations.
Maternal Instinct
Aspects of the maternal instinct I had opportunity to observe in Gertie, who on February 27 gave birth to a male infant, I present below the substance of a previously published note on her behavior (Yerkes, 1915).
"On February 27 one of the monkeys of our collection gave birth, in the cages at Montecito, to a male infant. The mother is aMacacus cynomolgus rhesus(P. irus rhesus) who has been described by Hamilton (1914, p. 298) as 'Monkey 9, Gertie,M. cynomolgus rhesus(P. irus rhesus). Age, 3 years 2 months. (She is now, May 1, 1915, 4 years and 6 months.) Daughter of monkeys 3 and 10. First pregnancy began September, 1913.' The result of this pregnancy was, I am informed, a still-birth.
"The second pregnancy, which shall now especially concern us, resulted likewise in a still-birth. Parturition occurred Saturday night, and the writer first observed the behavior of the mother the following Monday morning. In the meantime the laboratory attendant had obtained the data upon which I base the above statements.
"At the time of parturition Gertie was in a 6 by 6 by 12 foot out-door cage containing a small shelter box, with an exceptionally quiet and gentle male (not the father of the infant) who is designated in Hamilton's paper as Monkey 28, Scotty.
"My notes record the following exceptionally interesting and genetically important behavior. On March 1, when I approached her cage, Gertie was sitting on the floor with the infant held in one hand while she fingered its eyelids and eyes with the other. Scotty sat close beside her watching intently. When disturbed by me the mother carried her infant to a shelf at the top of the cage. Repeatedly attempts were made to remove the dead baby, but they were futile because Gertie either held it in her hands or sat close beside it ready to seize it at the slightest disturbance.
"Especially noteworthy on this, the second day after the birth of the infant, are the male's, as well as the female's, keen interest in the body and their frequent examinations of the eyes, as if in attempts to open them. Often, also, the mother searched the body for fleas.
"Observations were made from day to day, and each day opportunity was sought to remove the body without seriously frightening or exciting the female. No such opportunity came, and during the second week the corpse so far decomposed that, with constant handling and licking by the adults, it rapidly wore away. By the third week there remained only the shriveled skin covering a few fragments of bone, and the open skull from the cavity of which the brain had been removed. This the mother never lost sight of: even when eating she either held it in one hand or foot, or laid it beside her within easy reach.
"Gradually this remnant became still further reduced until on March 31 there existed only a strip of dry skin about four inches long with a tail-like appendage of nearly the same length.
"The male, Scotty, on this date was removed to another cage. Gertie made a great fuss, jumping about excitedly and uttering plaintive cries when she discovered that her mate was gone. Whenever I approached her cage she scurried into the shelter box and stayed there while I was near. This behavior I never before had observed. It continued for two days. On April 2, it was noted that she had lost her recently acquired shyness and she no longer made any attempts to avoid me. As usual, on this date, she was carrying the remnant about with her.
"The following day, April 3, Gertie was lured from her cage to a large adjoining compartment for certain experimental observations. After she had been returned to her own cage the remnant was noticed on the floor of the large cage. I picked it up. Gertie evidently noticed my act; for although at a distance of at least ten feet from me, she made a sharp outcry and sprang to the side of the cage nearest me. I held the piece of skin (it looked more like a bit of rat skin than the remains of a monkey) out to her and she immediately seized it and rushed with it to the shelf at the top of the cage.
"Two days later the remnant was missing, and careful search failed to discover it in the cage. It is probable that Gertie had carelessly left it lying on the floor whence it was washed out when the cages were cleaned. On this date Gertie seemed quieter than for weeks previously.
"Thus it appears that during a period of five weeks the instinct to protect her offspring impelled this monkey to carry its gradually vanishing remains about with her and to watch over them so assiduously that it was utterly impossible to take them from her except by force.
"After reading this note in manuscript, Doctor Hamilton informed me thatGertie had behaved toward her first still-birth as toward her second.And, further, that Grace, a baboon, also carried a still-birth about forweeks.
"I am now heartily glad that my early efforts to remove the corpse were futile, for this record of the persistence of maternal behavior seems to me of very unusual interest to the genetic psychologist."
Fear
In connection with the multiple-choice experiments Skirrl exhibited what seemed to be instinctive fear as a result of his unfortunate experience with nails in the floor of box 1. He seemingly referred his misadventure to some unseen enemy under the floor, and this in spite of the fact that he was given abundant opportunity to examine the floor of the box, but not until after the dangerous nails had been clinched. His long continued avoidance of the experiment boxes and his still more persistent hesitancy in entering them, coupled with his almost ludicrous efforts to see beneath the floor through the holes cut for the staples on the doors, gave me the impression of superstitious fear of the unseen. As I watched and recorded his behavior day after day during the period of most pronounced fear, I could not avoid the thought that the instinctive fear of snakes had something to do with his peculiar actions, and although I have never studied either the natural or the acquired responses of monkeys to snakes, I suspect that lacking such instinctive equipment, Skirrl would have behaved differently as a result of the pricks which he received from the nails. It is needless to redescribe his acquired fear of whiteness as it manifested itself in the freshly painted apparatus. Accompanying these instructive modes of response and their emotions are suggestions of peculiarly interesting problems as well as of modes of attacking them. As a matter of fact, Skirrl's fear-reactions did much to alter my conception of the constitution of his mind. I should not have been surprised by the features of behavior exhibited, but I was by no means prepared for their persistence, and for the highly emotional attitude toward the particular situation. Only an organism of complexly constituted nervous system and fairly highly developed affective life could be expected to respond as did this monkey. As has been suggested above, I find the appeal to instinct, modified by experience, a natural mode of accounting for the unexpected features of Skirrl's behavior.
Sympathy
The instinctive playfulness of the young monkey Tiny contrasted most strikingly with the more serious, if not more sedate, modes of behavior of the older individuals.
During the greater part of my period of observation Tiny was cage-mate of Scotty, the most calm and apparently lazy of all the monkeys. Tiny delighted in teasing Scotty, and her varied modes of mildly tormenting him and of stirring him to pursuit or to retaliation were as interesting as they were amusing. Her most common trick was to steal up behind him and pull the hair of his back, or seize his tail with her hands or teeth. Often when he was asleep she would suddenly run to him, give a sudden jerk at a handful of hairs, and leap away. He was surprisingly patient, and I never saw him treat her roughly in retaliation.
Another of Tiny's favorite forms of amusement was that of trying to stir up the other monkeys to attacks on one another. She very cleverly did this by pretending that she herself was being attacked. The instant the older animals began to show hostility toward one another she would leap out of the way and watch the disturbance with evident satisfaction. It was this mode of behavior in the little animal which ultimately provided opportunity for the observations which I wish now to report as indicative of sympathetic, possibly I may say altruistic, emotions.
Tiny was confined with Scotty in a cage adjoining the one in which Jimmie and Gertie were being kept. The cages were separated by wire netting of half-inch mesh.
One morning as I was watching the behavior of the animals in the several cages, I noticed Tiny dressing with her teeth a wounded finger. It had evidently been bitten by one of the other animals, in all probability either by Jimmie or Gertie. Tiny was trimming away the loose bits of skin very neatly and cleansing the wound. After working at this task for a few minutes, she quickly climbed up to the shelf near the top of her cage, and by rushing to the partition wire between the two cages, she lured Gertie to an attempted attack on her. Gertie sprang up to the partition, placed her hands on it, with the fingers projecting through the meshes, and attempted to seize Tiny's fingers with her teeth. But the latter was too quick for her, and withdrawing her hands, like a flash seized in her teeth the middle finger of Gertie's left hand. She then bit it severely and with all her might, at the same time pulling and twisting violently, often placing the entire weight of her body on the finger. Her sharp teeth cut to the bone, and it was impossible for the larger and stronger monkey to tear away. For several seconds this continued, then Gertie succeeded in escaping, whereupon she at once retreated to the opposite end of her shelf and proceeded to attend to her injured finger. She cried, wrung her hands, and from time to time placed the finger in her mouth as though in an effort to relieve the pain. By this time Jimmie's attention had been attracted by the disturbance and he rushed up to the shelf, and facing Gertie, watched her intently for a few seconds. The look of puzzled concern on his face was most amusing. Apparently he felt dimly that something in which he should have intelligent interest was going on, but was unable wholly to understand the situation. After watching Gertie for a time and trying to discover what she was doing, which was rendered difficult by her tendency to turn away from him, in order to shield her injured finger, he rushed over to the wire partition and made strenuous efforts to seize Tiny with his hands and teeth. But although she continued close to the partition and often crowded against it with face and hands flattened on the wires, he was not able to get hold of her, and after a few vain attempts he returned to his mate, and again with evident solicitousness and the most troubled expression, watched her wringing her hands and chewing or sucking at her injured finger. Shortly he again returned to the partition and renewed his attempts to seize the young monkey. Thus he went back and forth from one place of interest to the other several times, but being unable to achieve anything at either point, he finally gave up and returned to his breakfast on the floor of the cage.
I report this incident fully because the behavior of Jimmie was in marked contrast with the usual behavior of the monkeys. Selfishness seemed everywhere dominant, while clear indications of sympathetic emotions were rare indeed. The above is undoubtedly the best evidence of anything altruistic that I obtained.
It is possible that Tiny's action was retaliatory, but although it is practically certain that either Gertie or Jimmie inflicted the wound on her finger, I of course cannot be sure that the spirit of revenge stirred her to punish Gertie so severely. Jimmie's part in the whole affair is, however, perfectly intelligible from our human point of view, and there seems no reason to doubt that he did experience something like a feeling of sympathy with his mate, coupled with a feeling of resentment or anger against Tiny.
It is my purpose in this section to indicate the relations of my work on monkeys and apes to that of other investigators. Although throughout the report I have used freely the psychological terms idea and ideation, it has been my aim to describe the behavior of my animals rather than to interpret it or speculate concerning its accompaniments. Certain acts I have designated as ideational simply because they seemed to exhibit the essential features of what we call ideational behavior in man. Further study may, and probably will, modify my opinion concerning this matter. It is of prime importance to analyze ideational behavior so that it may be accurately described and satisfactorily defined in terms of its distinguishing characteristics. I had hoped to be able to present a tentative analysis in this report, but the results of my efforts are so unsatisfactory that I do not feel justified in publishing them.
The terms idea and ideation have been used to designate contents of consciousness which are primarily representative. Nowhere have I attempted to indicate different types or grades of ideational behavior and nowhere have I found it necessary to emphasize differences between image and idea. In general, the acts which I have called ideational have been highly adaptive, and the learning processes in connection with which they have appeared have differed strikingly from those of the selective sort in their abruptness of appearance.
Extremely interesting and valuable definitions of ideation and discussions of the characteristics of different sorts of ideas in the light of original observations on monkeys have been presented by Thorndike (1901, pp. 1, 2; 1911, p. 174); Kinnaman (1902, p. 200); and Hobhouse (1915, p. 270). As these authors have contributed importantly to our knowledge of the behavior of monkeys, their discussions of the meaning of terms are especially valuable. Serviceable definitions are to be found, also, in Romanes (1900), Morgan (1906), Washburn (1908), and Holmes (1911).
Evidences of Ideation in Monkeys
Aside from anecdotal and traveller's notes on the behavior of monkeys and apes we have only a scanty literature. In fact, the really excellent articles on the behavior and mental life of these animals may be counted on one's fingers; and not more than half of these are experimental studies. I shall, in this brief historical sketch, neglect entirely the anecdotal literature, since my own work is primarily experimental, and since its results should naturally be compared with those of other experimenters.
Thorndike (1901), the American pioneer in the application of the experimental method to the study of mind in animals, published the first notable paper on the psychology of monkeys. His results force the conclusion that "free ideas" seldom appear in the monkey mind and have a relatively small part in behavior. That the species of Cebus which he observed exhibits various forms of ideation he is willing to admit. But he insists that it is of surprisingly little importance in comparison with what the general behavior of monkeys as known in captivity and as described by the anecdotal writers have led us to expect. It is important to note, however, that Thorndike's observations were limited to Cebus monkeys which, as contrasted with various old world types, are now considered of relatively low intelligence.
In many respects the most thoroughgoing and workmanlike experimental study of monkeys is that of Kinnaman (1902), who has reported on the study of various forms of response inP. rhesus. He presents valuable data concerning the learning processes, sensory discrimination, reaction to number, and to tests of imitation. His results indicate a higher level of intelligence than that discovered by Thorndike, but this is almost certainly due to difference in the species observed. Kinnaman goes so far as to say "We have found evidence, also, of general notions and reasoning, both of low order" (p. 211).
The contribution of Hobhouse (1915) to our knowledge of the mental life of monkeys, although in a measure experimental, is based upon relatively few and unsystematic observations as contrasted with those of Thorndike and Kinnaman. It appears, however, that Hobhouse's experiments were admirably planned to test the ideational capacity of his subjects, and one can not find a more stimulating discussion of ideation than that contained in his "Mind in Evolution." The results of his tests made with aP. rhesusmonkey are similar to those of Kinnaman, for almost all of them indicate the presence and importance of ideas.
Watson (1908) in tests of the imitative ability ofP. rhesussaw relatively little evidence of other than extremely simple forms of ideation. But in contrast with his results, those obtained by Haggerty (1909), in a much more extended investigation in which several species of monkey were used, obtained more numerous and convincing evidences of ideation in imitative behavior. Although this author wholly avoids the use of psychological terms, seeking to limit himself to a strictly objective presentation of results, it is clear from an unpublished manuscript (thesis for the Doctorate of Philosophy, deposited in the Library of Harvard University) that he would attribute to monkeys simple forms of ideational experience.
Witmer (1910) reports, in confirmation of Haggerty's results, intelligently imitative behavior inP. irus.
The work of Shepherd (1910) agrees closely, so far as evidences of ideation are concerned, with that of Thorndike. He obviously strives for conservatism in his statements concerning the adaptive intelligence of his monkeys, all of which belonged to the speciesP. rhesus. At one point he definitely states that they exhibit ideas of a low order, or something which corresponds to them. Satisfactory evidences of reasoning he failed to obtain.
Franz's (1907, 1911) studies of monkeys, unlike those mentioned above, have for their chief motive not the accurate description of various features of behavior but instead knowledge of the functions of various portions of the brain. His results, therefore, although extremely interesting and of obvious value to the comparative psychologist, throw no special light upon the problem of ideation.
The investigation by Hamilton (1911) of reactive tendencies inP. rhesusandirusyielded preeminently important data concerning complex behavior. For the ingenious quadruple-choice method devised by this observer showed that mature monkeys exhibit fairly adequate types of response. As Hamilton's interest centered in behavior, he did not discuss ideation, but this does not prevent the comparison of his data with those of the present report, and the agreement of his findings with my own is obvious.
My work contrasts sharply with that briefly mentioned above in that I applied systematically and over a period of several months an experimental method suited to reveal problem solving ability. Previously, the so-called problem or puzzle-box method had been used as a means of testing for the presence of ideas. For this I substituted the multiple-choice method. One of the chief advantages of this new method is the possibility of obtaining curves of learning for the solution or attempted solution of relational problems of varying difficultness. I am confident that these curves of learning will prove far more valuable than such data as are yielded by the puzzle-box method.
The Pithecus monkeys, which I studied intensively, yielded relatively abundant evidences of ideation, but with Thorndike I must agree that of "free ideas" there is scanty evidence; or rather, I should prefer to say, that although ideas seem to be in play frequently, they are rather concrete and definitely attached than "free." Neither in my sustained multiple-choice experiments nor from my supplementary tests did I obtain convincing indications of reasoning. What Hobhouse has called articulate ideas, I believe to appear infrequently in these animals. But on the whole, I believe that the general conclusions of previous experimental observers have done no injustice to the ideational ability of monkeys. It is clearly important, however, that we always should take into account the species of animal observed, for unquestionably there are extreme differences in mental development among the monkeys.
As I view my results in the light of their relations to earlier work, I am strongly impressed with the importance of the use of improved methods for the study of complex behavior. The delayed reaction method of Hunter, the quadruple-choice method of Hamilton, and my multiple-choice method offer new and promising approaches to forms of activity which thus far have been only superficially observed.
The ability exhibited by Skirrl to try a method out and then to abandon it suddenly is characteristic of animals high in intelligence. Most of the problems which I presented to my animals would be rated as difficult by psychologists, for as a rule they involved definite relations and demanded on the part of the subject both perception of a particular relation and the ability to remember or re-present it on occasion.
I was greatly surprised by the slow progress of the monkeys toward the solution of these problems. It had been my supposition that they would solve them more quickly than any lower type of mammal, but as a matter of fact they succeeded less well than did pigs. Their behavior throughout the work proved that of far greater significance for the experimenter than the solution of a problem is definite knowledge of the modes of behavior exhibited from moment to moment, or day to day. This is true especially of those incidental or accidental modes of response which so frequently appeared in connection with my work that I came to look upon them, the surprises of each day, as my chief means of insight.
Evidences of Ideation in Apes
Reliable literature of any sort concerning the behavior and mental life of the anthropoid apes is difficult to find, and still more rare are reports concerning experimental studies of these animals. There are, it is true, a few articles descriptive of tests of mental ability, but even these are scarcely deserving of being classed as satisfactory experimental studies of the psychology of the ape. I have the satisfaction of being able to present in the present report the first systematic experimental study of any feature of the behavior of an anthropoid ape.
Among the most interesting and valuable of the descriptions which may be classed among accounts of tests of mental ability is Hobhouse's (1915) study of the chimpanzee. The subject was an untrained animal, so far as stated, of somewhat unsatisfactory condition because of timidity. Nevertheless, Hobhouse was able to obtain from him numerous and interesting responses to novel situations, some of which may be safely accepted as evidences of ideation of a fairly high order.
Similar in method and result to the work of Hobhouse is that of Haggerty (unpublished thesis for the Doctorate of Philosophy, deposited in the Library of Harvard University). Haggerty's tests of the ability of young orang utans and chimpanzees to solve simple problems and to use tools in various ways yielded results which contrast most strikingly with those obtained in his experimental study of the imitative tendency in monkeys. His observations, had he committed himself to anything approaching interpretation, doubtless would have led him to conclusions concerning the ideational life of these animals very similar to those of Hobhouse.
Koehler, working in the Canary Islands, has, according to information which I have received from him by letter, made certain experiments with orang utans and chimpanzees similar to those of Hobhouse and Haggerty. His results I am unable to report as I have scanty information concerning them. They are, presumably, as yet unpublished.
In his laboratory at Montecito, California, Hamilton has from time to time kept anthropoid apes, but without special effort to investigate their ideational behavior. He has most interesting and valuable data concerning certain habits and instincts, all as yet unpublished.
To a congress of psychologists Pfungst (1912) briefly reported on work with anthropoid apes in certain of the German zoölogical gardens. His preliminary paper does not enable one to make definite statements concerning either his methods or such results as he may have obtained concerning ideational behavior. So far as I know, he has not as yet published further concerning his investigation.
Möbius (1867) has described interesting observations concerning the mental life of the chimpanzee. But this, like all of the work previously mentioned, is rather in the nature of casual testing than thoroughgoing, systematic, and analytic study.
In addition to the above reports, there are a few concerning the behavior of apes which have been especially trained for purposes of exhibition. Most interesting of these is that of Witmer (1909), who studied in exhibitions and in his own laboratory the behavior of the chimpanzee Peter. The varied forms of intelligently adaptive behavior exhibited by this ape convinced Witmer of ideational experience and even of an approach to reasoning. In his brief report he expresses especial interest in the possibility of educating this "genius among apes" to the use of language.
A chimpanzee named Consul was observed several years ago by Hirschlaff (1905), and his tricks were interestingly described from the pedagogical standpoint.
Similar in character is Shepherd's (1915) brief description of the stage behavior of Peter and Consul, both chimpanzees. It is impossible to determine from the account whether these animals are the same as were observed by both Witmer and Hirschlaff. As no reference is made in Shepherd's paper to other descriptions of the behavior of these animals and as he adds nothing to what had already been presented, the reader obtains no additional light on ideation.
I have mentioned only samples of the articles on trained anthropoids. All are necessarily descriptions of the behavior of individuals who had been trained not for psychological purposes but for the vaudeville stage, and although such observations unquestionably have certain value for comparative psychology, it is well known that unless an observer knows the history of an act, he is not able to evaluate it in terms of intelligence and is especially prone to overestimate its value as evidence of ideation.
There remain studies of the apes, dealing primarily with behavior and mental characteristics, which are slightly if at all experimental and deserve to be ranked as naturalistic accounts. Such is, for example, the book of Sokolowski (1908), in which attention is given to the characteristics of young as well as fairly mature specimens of the gorilla, chimpanzee and orang utan.
The various publications of Garner (1892, 1896, 1900) deal especially with the language habits of monkeys and apes, but observations bearing on ideation are reported.
Wallace (1869) describes certain features of the behavior of an infant orang utan whose mother he shot in Borneo. He also reports observations concerning the behavior of adult orang utans, many specimens of which were shot by him during his travels.
Early in the last century, Cuvier (1810) interested himself in studies of the intellectual characteristics of the orang utan, and his data, taken with those of Wallace, Sokolowski, and others similarly interested in the natural history of mind, give one a valuable glimpse of the life of the anthropoid ape.
Finally, the data brought together by Brehm (1864, 1875, 1888) in his famous Tierleben; by Darwin (1859, 1871) in "The Origin of Species," and other works, by Romanes (1900), especially in his books on mental evolution, by C. Lloyd Morgan (1906) in his several works on comparative psychology, and by Holmes (1911) in his discussion of the evolution of intelligence, contribute not unimportantly to our all too meagre knowledge of the mental life of the anthropoid apes.
My own results, viewed in the light of what one may learn from the literature, stand out as unique because of the method of research. Never before, so far as I have been able to learn, has any ape been subjected to observation under systematically controlled conditions for so long a period as six months. Moreover, my multiple-choice method has the merit of having yielded the first curve of learning for an anthropoid ape. This fact is especially interesting when one considers the nature of the particular curve. For so far as one may say by comparing it with the curves for various learning processes exhibited by other mammals, it is indicative of ideation of a high order, and possibly of reasoning. I do not wish to exaggerate the importance of my results, for as contrasted with what might be obtained by further study, and with what must be obtained if we are adequately to describe the mind of the orang utan, they are meager indeed.
Especially noteworthy, as evidences of ideation, in the results yielded by the multiple-choice method are (1) the use by the orang utan of several different methods in connection with each problem; (2) the suddenness of transition from method to method; (3) the final and perfect solution of problem I without diminution of the initial errors; (4) the dissociation of the act of turning in a circle from that of standing in front of a particular box.
To these features of behavior others of minor importance might be added. But as they have been sufficiently emphasized in the foregoing detailed descriptions, I need only repeat my conclusion, from the summation of evidence, that this young orang utan exhibited numerous free ideas and simple thought processes in connection with the multiple-choice experiment. His ultimate failure to solve the second problem is peculiarly interesting, although in the light of other features of his behavior by no means indicative of inferior intelligence.
The various supplementary experimental tests which I employed are in no wise importantly distinguished from those used by other observers. The box stacking experiment has, according to my private information, been used by Koehler. It is obviously important that such tests be applied in the same manner to individuals not only of the different genera of anthropoid apes, but of different ages, sex, and condition of training.
The box stacking experiment, although it yielded complete success only as a result of suggestion on my part, proved far more interesting during its progress than any other portion of my work. In connection with it, the orang utan exhibited surprisingly diverse and numerous efforts to meet the demands of the situation. It is fair to characterize him as inventive, for of the several possible ways of obtaining the banana which were evident to the experimenter, the ape voluntarily used all but two or three, and one of these he subsequently used on the basis of imitation.
Had Julius been physically and mentally mature, my results would undoubtedly have been much more impressively indicative of ideas, but even as matters stand, the survey of my experimental records and supplementary notes force me to conclude that as contrasted with the monkeys and other mammals, the orang utan is capable of expressing free ideas in considerable number and of using them in ways highly indicative of thought processes, possibly even of the rational order. But contrasted with that of man the ideational life of the orang utan seems poverty stricken. Certainly in this respect Julius was not above the level of the normal three-year-old child.
In common with other observers, I have had the experience of being profoundly impressed by the versatility of the ape, and however much I might desire to disprove the presence of free ideas and simple reasoning processes in the orang utan, I should feel bound to accept many of the results of my tests as evidences of such experience.
I have attempted to indicate briefly the historical setting of my investigation. I propose, now, in the concluding section, to look forward from this initial research and to indicate as well as I may in a few words the possibilities of results important for mankind from the thorough study of the monkeys and anthropoid apes.
[Footnote 1: Much of the material of this section was published originally inScience(Yerkes, 1916).]
I should neglect an important duty as well as waste an opportunity if in this report I did not call attention to the status of our knowledge concerning the monkeys and apes and present the urgent need of adequate provision for the comparative study of all of the primates.
Although for centuries students of nature have been keenly interested in the various primates, the information which has been accumulated is fragmentary and wholly inadequate for generally recognized scientific and practical needs. There is a voluminous literature on many aspects of the organization and lives of the monkeys and apes, but when one searches in it for reasonably connected and complete descriptions of the organisms from any biological angle, one, is certain to meet disappointment.
Concerning their external characteristics we know much; and our classifications, if not satisfactory to all, are at least eminently useful. But when one turns to the morphological sciences of anatomy, histology, embryology, and pathology, one discovers great gaps, where knowledge might reasonably be expected. Even gross anatomy has much to gain from the careful, systematic examination of these organisms. With still greater force this statement applies to the studies of finer structural relations. Little is known concerning the embryological development and life history of certain of the primates, and almost nothing concerning their pathological anatomy.
Clearly less satisfactory than our knowledge of structure is the status of information concerning those functional processes which are the special concern of physiology and pathology. Certain important experimental studies have been made on the nervous system, but rarely indeed have physiologists dealt systematically with the functions of other systems of organs. There are almost no satisfactory physiological descriptions of the monkeys, anthropoid apes, or lower primates.
OrderSub-ordersFamilies
,- a. PROSIMII (Lemurs and Aye-Ayes)|| ,- i. Hapalidae (Marmosets)| | ii. Cebidae (Howling Monkeys,PRIMATES -+ | Tee Tees, Squirrel Monkeys,| | Spider Monkeys, and Capuchin| | Monkeys)`- b. ANTHROPOIDEA … -+ iii. Cercopithecidae (Baboons| and Macaques)| iv. Simiidae (Gibbons, Orangs,| Chimpanzees, and Gorillas)`- v. Hominidae (Man)
When we turn to the science of genetics we meet a similar condition, for the literature reveals only scattered bits of information concerning heredity in the primates. No important experimental studies along genetic lines have been made with them, and such general observations from nature as are on record are of extremely uncertain value. Were one to insist that we know nothing certainly concerning the relation of heredity in other primates than man, the statement could not well be disputed.
Occasionally in recent years students of human diseases have employed monkeys or apes for experimental tests, but aside from the isolated results thus obtained, extremely little is known concerning the diseases peculiar to the various types of infra-human primates or the significant relations of their diseases to those of man.
Next in order of extent to our morphological knowledge of these organisms is that of their behavior, mental life, and social relations. But certainly no one who is conversant with the behavioristic, psychological and sociological literature could do otherwise than emphasize its incompleteness and inadequacy. For our knowledge of behavior has come mostly from naturalistic observation, scarcely at all from experimentation; our knowledge of social relations is obviously meager and of uncertain value; and finally, our knowledge of mind is barely more than a collection of carelessly drawn inferences.
This picture of the status of scientific work on the primates, although not overdrawn, will doubtless surprise many readers, and even the biologist may find himself wondering why we are so ignorant concerning the lives of the organisms most nearly akin to us, and naturally of deepest interest to us. The reasons are not far to seek. Most scientific investigators are forced by circumstances to work with organisms which are readily obtained and easily kept. The primates have neither of these advantages, for many, if not most of them, are expensive to get and either difficult or expensive to keep in good condition. Clearly, then, our ignorance is due not to lack of appreciation of the scientific value of primate research but instead to its difficultness and costliness.
Strangely enough, the practical importance of knowledge of the primates has seldom been dwelt upon even by those biologists who are especially interested in it. It is, therefore, appropriate to emphasize the strictly human value of the work for which I am seeking provision.
During the past few years it has been abundantly and convincingly demonstrated that knowledge of other organisms may aid directly in the solution of many of the problems of experimental medicine, of physiology, genetics, psychology, sociology, and economics. In the light of these results, it is obviously desirable that all studies of infrahuman organisms, but especially those of the various primates, should be made to contribute to the solution of our human problems.
To me it seems that thoroughgoing knowledge of the lives of the infrahuman primates would inevitably make for human betterment. Through the science of genetics, as advanced by experimental studies of the monkeys and anthropoid apes, practical eugenic procedures should be more safely based and our ability to predict organic phenomena greatly increased. Similarly, intensive knowledge of the diseases of the other primates in their relations to human diseases should contribute importantly to human welfare. And finally, our careful studies of the fundamental instincts, forms of habit formation, and social relations in the monkeys and apes should lead to radical improvements in our educational methods as well as in other forms of social service.
Along theoretical lines, no less than practical, systematic research with the primates should rapidly justify itself, for upon its results must rest the most significant historical or genetic biological descriptions. It is beyond doubt that genetic psychology can best be advanced to-day by such work, and what is obviously true of this science is not less true of all the biological sciences which take account of the developmental or genetic relations of their events.
In view of the probable values of increasingly complete accounts of primate life, it seems far from extravagant to insist that the securing of adequate provision for systematic and long continued research is the most important task for our generation of biologists and the one which we shall be least excusable for neglecting. Indeed, when one stops to reflect concerning the situation, it seems almost incredible that the task has not been accomplished.
Some ten years ago Professor John B. Watson (1906) entered a plea for the founding of a station for the experimental study of behavior. He made no special mention of work with the monkeys and apes, but it is clear from the problems which he enumerates that he would consider them most important subjects for observation. Professor Watson's plea has apparently been forgotten by American biologists, and it seems not inappropriate to revive it at this time. For surely we have advanced sufficiently along material and scientific lines during the last ten years to render possible the realization of his hope.
To my knowledge, only one definite attempt has thus far been made to gain special provision for the study of the primates. Somewhere about the year 1912 there was established on Tenerife, one of the Canary Islands, a modest station for the study of the anthropoid apes. I have already referred to it briefly on page 1. The plan and purpose of this station, which is of German origin, have been presented briefly by Rothmann (1912). From personal communications I know that a single investigator has been in residence at the station since its founding and that psychological and physiological results of value have been obtained, but no published reports have come to my attention.
When I first heard of the existence of the German anthropoid station I naturally thought of the possibility of coöperative work, but the events of the past two years have rendered the chances of cooperation so remote that it now seems wholly desirable and indeed imperative to seek the establishment of an American station, which, unlike the German station, shall provide adequately not only for the study of the anthropoid apes but for that of all of the lower primates. It should be the function of such a station or research institute (1) to bring together and correlate all the information at present available; (2) to fill in existing gaps observationally and thus complete and perfect our knowledge of these organisms; (3) to seek to bring all available information to bear upon the problems of human life.
Hitherto the unsatisfactoriness of progress has been due to the lack of a definite plan and program. Every investigator has gone his own way, doing what little his personal means and opportunity rendered possible. The time has at last come when concerted action seems feasible as well as eminently desirable. I am therefore offering a plan and program which, if wisely developed, should lead ultimately to fairly complete and practically invaluable knowledge of the lives of all of the primates. There should be provided in a suitable locality a station or research institute which should offer adequate facilities (1) for the maintenance of various types of primate in normal, healthy condition; (2) for the successful breeding and rearing of the animals, generation after generation; (3) for systematic and continuous observation under reasonably natural conditions; (4) for experimental investigations from every significant biological point of view; (5) for profitable cooperation with existing biological institutes or departments of research throughout the world.
The station should be located in a region whose climate is highly favorable to the life of many of the lower primates as well as to that of man. Such a location is by no means easy to find. Because of my intense interest in the subject, I have, during the past five years, prospected in various parts of the world for a satisfactory site. I shall now attempt to indicate the chief requirements and also the foremost advantages and disadvantages of several regions which have been considered. It is first of all requisite that the climate be such as to agree with the organisms to be studied and such, also, as to render their breeding normal and dependable. Second in importance is its satisfactoriness for the life and scientific productiveness of the observer. While certain tropical localities would meet the first requirement perfectly, they would prove extremely unsatisfactory for research activity. It therefore seems essential to find a region whose climate shall reasonably meet the needs of the experimenter while adequately meeting those of the animals to be studied.
A further factor which has important bearing upon the productiveness of the observer is the degree of isolation from civilization and from other scientific work. No scientist can long work effectively, even in a reasonably healthy and stimulating climate, if entirely cut off from similar interests and activities. It is therefore desirable, if at all possible, to discover a location in the midst of civilization and with reasonably good opportunities for scientific associations.
With these several desiderata before us, I shall call attention to a number of possible sites for a station, several of which I have visited. Southern California, and especially the portion of the State between Santa Barbara and San Diego, promises fairly well. It is definitely known that certain, if not all, species of monkey will breed there fairly satisfactorily, and although it has not yet been demonstrated, there is no reason to suppose that in certain regions the anthropoid apes might not also be kept in perfect health and successfully bred. The main advantages of this general region are (a) a climate which promises to be reasonably satisfactory for many if not all of the primates; (b) admirable climatic conditions for investigators; (c) wholly satisfactory scientific and cultural environment for the staff of a station. The most significant disadvantages are (a) a temperature, which is at times a trifle too low for the comfort of certain of the monkeys and apes. It is by no means certain, however, that they would not usually adapt themselves to it. (b) The necessity of importing all of the animals and of having to rely upon successful acclimatization. Of course it is to be assumed that importation would be necessary only at the outset of such work, since the animals later should replenish themselves within the confines of the station.
Florida offers possibilities somewhat similar to those of southern California, but as I have not had opportunity to examine the conditions myself, I can say only that in view of such information as is available the advantage seems to be greatly in favor of the latter.
Cuba, Jamaica, Porto Rico, and for that matter, several of the West Indies, offer possible sites for a successful station. I have reasonably intimate personal knowledge only of the conditions in Jamaica. The major advantages in the West Indies are (a) suitable climatic conditions and food supply for the animals; and (b) reasonably satisfactory climatic conditions for the staff. These are, however, more than counterbalanced in my opinion by the following serious disadvantages: (a) the relative isolation of the investigators from their fellow scientists; (b) the necessity of importing all of the animals originally used; (c) the risk of destruction of the station by storms.
It is definitely known that anthropoid apes as well as monkeys can be successfully kept, bred, and reared in the West Indies. During the past year, on the estate of Doha Rosalia Abreu, near Havana, Cuba, a chimpanzee was born in captivity. A valuable account of this important event and of the young ape has been published by Doctor Louis Montané (1915). It therefore seems practically certain that regions could be found readily on Jamaica, Porto Rico, or smaller islands, which would be eminently satisfactory for the breeding of apes.
There are obvious reasons why an American station for the study of the primates should be located on territory controlled by the United States Government, and if a tropical location proves necessary, it would probably be difficult to find more satisfactory regions, aside from the inconveniences and risk of importation and the relative isolation of the investigators, than are available on Porto Rico.
I have not seriously considered the possibility of locating an American station on the continent of Africa, for although two of the most interesting and important of the anthropoid apes, the gorilla and the chimpanzee, are African forms, while many species of monkey are either found there or could readily be imported, it has seemed to me that the islands of the West and East Indies and the portions of the United States referred to above are much to be preferred over anything available in Africa.
In the East, Borneo, the Philippine Islands, and Hawaii are well worth considering. Borneo is the home of the gibbon and of at least one species of orang utan, and in addition to these important assets, it presents the advantages of (a) a wholly suitable climate and food supply for monkeys and apes; and (b) climatic conditions for investigators which, I am informed by scientific friends, are nearly ideal. For investigators the most serious disadvantage here, as in all other parts of the East, would be the isolation from other scientific work and workers.
The possibilities of Central America I considered several years ago when it seemed to me possible that work might profitably be done with monkeys and apes on the Canal Zone. The advantages are (a) a climate which promises fairly well for the animals; and (b) reasonable accessibility from the United States. The disadvantages are (a) a far from ideal climate for long continued scientific work; and (b) an environment which from the cultural and scientific point of view leaves much to be desired.
Were a permanent psycho-biological station for the study of the primates to be established in southern California, it would, even though wholly satisfactory conditions for the breeding, rearing, and studying of the animals were maintained, furnish more or less inadequate opportunity for the observation of the animals under free, natural conditions. It would therefore be necessary, to supplement the work of such a station by field work in Borneo, Sumatra, Africa, India, South America, and such other regions as the species of organism under consideration happen to inhabit.
Considering equally the needs of the experimenter and the demands of the animals, it seems to me reasonable to conclude that southern California should be definitely proved unsuitable before a more distant site were selected. For the information which I have been able to accumulate convinces me that it would in all probability be possible successfully to breed and keep the primates there, and it is perfectly clear that in such event the output of a station would be enormously greater because of the more favorable conditions for research than in any tropical region or in a more isolated location.
Assuming that satisfactory provision in the shape of a scientific establishment for the study of the primates in their relations to man were available, the following program might be followed: (1) Systematic and continuous studies of important forms of individual behavior, of social relations, and of mind; (2) experimental studies of physiological processes, normal and pathological, and especially of the diseases of the lower primates, in their relations to those of man; (3) studies of heredity, embryology, and life history; (4) research in comparative anatomy, including gross anatomy, histology, neurology, and pathological anatomy.
Each of these several kinds of research should be in progress almost continuously in order that no materials or opportunities for observation be needlessly wasted. Because of the nature of the work, it would be necessary to provide, first of all, for those functional studies which demand healthy and normally active organisms, whose life history is intimately and completely known. This is true of all studies in behavior, whether physiological, psychological, or sociological. Simultaneously with behavioristic observations and often upon the same individuals, genetic experiments might be conducted. This would be extremely desirable because of the relatively long periods between generations. After the usefulness of an animal in behavioristic or genetic inquiries had been exhausted, it might be made to render still further service to science in various experimental physiological, or medical inquiries. And finally, the same individual might ultimately be used for various forms of anatomical research. Thus, it is clear that the scientific usefulness of a lemur, a monkey, or an ape might be maintained at a high level throughout and even beyond the period of its life history.
The program thus briefly sketched would provide either directly or indirectly for work on every aspect of primate life. Especially important would be the intimacy of interest and cooperation among investigators, for the comparative method should be applied consistently and to the limit of its value. The results of various kinds of observation should be correlated so that there should ultimately emerge a unitary and practically valuable account of primate life, to replace the patchwork of information which we now possess.
Because of the costliness of maintaining and breeding the monkeys and apes, it is especially desirable that the several kinds of research mentioned above should be conducted. Indeed, it would seem inexcusably wasteful to attempt to maintain a primate or anthropoid station for psychological observations alone, or for any other narrowly limited biological inquiry.
Furthermore, the station should be permanent, since for many kinds of work it would be essential to have intimate knowledge of the life history and descent of an individual. With the lower primates, a generation might be obtained in from two to five years; with the higher, not more frequently, probably, than from ten to fifteen years. It therefore seems not improbable that the value of the work done in such a station would continue to increase for many years and would not reach its maximum short of fifty or even one hundred years.
A staff of several highly trained and experienced biologists would be needed. The following organization is suggested as desirable, although, as indicated below, not necessarily essential in the beginning: (1) An expert especially interested in the problems of behavior, psychology, and sociology, with keen appreciation of practical as well as of theoretical problems; (2) an assistant trained especially in comparative physiology; (3) an expert in genetics and experimental zoology; (4) an assistant with training and interests in comparative anatomy, histology, and embryology; (5) an expert in experimental medicine, who could conduct and direct studies of the diseases of man as well as of the lower primates and of measures for their control; (6) an assistant trained especially in pathology and neurology.
To this scientific staff of six highly trained individuals there should be added a business manager, a clerical force of three individuals, a skilled mechanician, a carpenter, and at least four laborers.
The annual expenditures of an institute with such a working staff, would in southern California, approximate fifty thousand dollars. It would therefore be necessary that it have an endowment of approximately one million dollars.
In the absence of this foundation it would, of course, be possible to make a reasonably satisfactory beginning on the work which has been outlined in the following less expensive manner. A working plant might be established, on ground rented or purchased at a low figure, for about ten thousand dollars; the salary of a director, assistants, a clerical helper, and combined mechanic and laborer might be estimated at the same figure; the cost of animals and of maintenance of the plant would approximate five thousand dollars. Thus, we should obtain as an estimate of the expenditures for the first year twenty-five thousand dollars. Without expansion, the work might be conducted during the second year for fifteen thousand dollars, and subsequently it might be curtailed or expanded, resources permitting, according as results achieved and in prospect justified.
An institute established on such a modest basis as this still might render largely important scientific service through its own research and through organized cooperation with other existing research establishments. Thus, for example, supposing that behavioristic, psychological, sociological, and genetic inquiries were conducted in the institute itself, animals might be supplied on a mutually satisfactory basis to institutes for experimental medicine, for physiological research, and for anatomical studies. Under such conditions, it is conceivable that extremely economical and good use might be made of all the available primate materials. But it is not improbable that even coöperative research would prove on the whole more profitable, except possibly in the case of morphological work, if investigators could conduct their studies in the institute itself rather than in distant laboratories. In any event, the idea of coöperation should be prominent in connection with the organization of a research station for the study of the primates. For thus, evidently, scientific achievement in connection with these important types of animal might be vastly increased over what would be possible in a single relatively small institution with a limited and necessarily specialized staff of workers.
Despite the fact that biologists generally recognize the importance of the work under consideration and are eager to have it done, it is perfectly certain that we shall accomplish nothing unless we devote ourselves confidently, determinedly and unitedly, with faith, vision, and enthusiasm, to the realization of a definite plan. Our vision is clear,—if we are to gather and place at the service of mankind adequate comparative knowledge of the life of the primates and if we are to make this possible harvest of scientific results count for human betterment, we must bend all our efforts to the establishment of a station or institute for research.