My first ownership of a live orang-utan began in 1878, in the middle of the Simujan River, Borneo, where for four Spanish dollars I became the proud possessor of a three-year old male. No sooner was the struggling animal deposited in the bottom of my own boat than it savagely seized the calf of my devoted leg and endeavored to bite therefrom a generous cross section. My leggings and my leech stockings saved my life. That implacable little beast never gave up; and two days later it died,—apparently to spite me.
My next orang was a complete reverse of No. 1. He liked not the Dyaks who brought him to me, but in the first moment of our acquaintance he adopted me as his foster-father, and loved me like a son. Throughout four months of jungle vicissitudes he stuck to me. He was a high-class orang,—and be it known that many orangs are thin-headed scrubs, who never amount to anything. His skull was wide, his face was broad, and he had a dome of thought like a statesman. He had a fine mind, and I am sure I could have taught him everything that any ape could learn.
During the four months that he lived with me I taught him, almost without effort, many things that were necessary in our daily life. Even the Dyaks recognized the fact that the "Old Man" was an orang (or "mias") of superior mind, and some of them traveled far to see him. Unfortunately the exigencies of travel and work compelled me to present him to an admiring friend in India. Mr. Andrew Carnegie and his then partner, Mr. J. W. Vandevorst, convoyed my Old Man and another small orang from Singapore to Colombo, Ceylon, whence they were shipped on to Madras, received there by my old friend A. G. R. Theobald,—and presented at the court of the Duke of Buckingham.
Up to a comparatively recent date, the studies of the psychologists that have been devoted to the minds of animals below man, have been chiefly concerned with low and common types. Comparatively few investigators have found it possible to make extensive and prolonged observations of the most intelligent wild animals of the world, even in zoological gardens, and their observations on wild animals in a state of nature seem to have been even more circumscribed. I know only three who have studied any of the great apes.
In attempting to fathom the mental capacity and the mental processes of some of the highest mammals, there is the same superior degree of interest attaching to the study of wild species that the ethnologist finds in the study of savage races of men that have been unspoiled by civilization. Obviously, it is more interesting to fathom the mind of a creature in an absolute state of nature than of one whose ancestors have been bred and reared in the trammels of domestication and for many successive generations have bowed to the will of man. The natural fury of the Atlantic walrus, when attacked, is much more interesting as a psychologic study than is the inbred rage of the bull-dog; and the remarkable defensive tactics of the musk-ox far surpass in interest the vagaries of range cattle.
For several reasons, the great apes, and particularly the chimpanzees and orang-utans, are the most interesting subjects for psychologic study of all the wild-animal species with which the writer is acquainted. Primarily this is due to the fact that intellectually and temperamentally, as well as anatomically, these animals stand very near to man himself, and closely resemble him. The great apes mentioned can give visible expression to a wide range of thoughts and emotions,
The voice of the adult orang-utan is almost absent, and only sufficient to display on rare occasions. What little there is of it, in animals over six years of age, is very deep and guttural, and may best be described as a deep-bass roar. Under excitement the orang can produce a roar by inhalation. Young orangs under two years of age often whine, or shriek or scream with anger, like excited human children, but with their larger growth that vocal power seems to leave them.
Despite the difference in temperament and quickness in delivery, I regard the measure of the orang-utan's mental capacity as being equal to that of the chimpanzee; but the latter is, and always will remain, the more alert and showy animal. The superior feet of the chimpanzee in bipedal work is for that species a great advantage, and the longer toes of the orang are a handicap. Although the orang's sanguine temperament is far more comforting to a trainer than the harum-scarum nervous vivacity of the chimpanzee, the value of the former is overbalanced, on the stage, by the superior acting of the chimp. For these reasons the trainers generally choose the chimp for stage education.
The chimpanzee is not only nervous and quick in thought and in action, but it is equally soin temper.It will play with any good friend to almost any extent, but the moment it suspects malicious unfairness, or what it regards as a "mean trick," it instantly becomes angry and resentful. Once when I attempted to take from our large black-faced chimpanzee, called Soko, a small lump of rubber which I feared she might swallow, my efforts were kindly but firmly thwarted. At last, when I diverted her by small offerings of chocolate, and at the right moment sought by a strategic movement to snatch the rubber from her, the palpable unfairness of the attempt caused the animal instantly to fly into a towering passion, and seek to wreak vengeance upon me. Her lips drew far back in a savage snarl, and she denounced my perfidy by piercing cries of rage and indignation. She also did her utmost to seize and drag me forcibly within reach of her teeth, for the punishment which she felt that I deserved.
A large male orang-utan named Dohong, under a similar test, revealed a very different mental attitude. He dexterously snatched a valuable watch-charm from a visitor who stood inside the railing of his cage, and fled with it to the top of his balcony. As quickly as possible I thrust my handkerchief between the bars, and waved it vigorously, to attract him. At once the animal came down to me, to secure another trophy, and before he realized his position I successfully snatched the charm from him, and restored it unharmed to its owner. Dohong seemed to regard the episode as a good joke. Without manifesting any resentment he turned a somersault on his straw, then climbed upon his trapeze and began to perform, as if nothing in particular had occurred.
The orang is distinctly an animal of more serene temper and more philosophic mind than the chimpanzee. This has led some authors erroneously to pronounce the orang an animal of morose and sluggish disposition, and mentally inferior to the chimpanzee. After a close personal acquaintance with about forty captive orangs of various sizes, I am convinced that the facts do not warrant that conclusion. The orang-utans of the New York Zoological Park certainly have been as cheerful in disposition, as fond of exercise and as fertile in droll performances as our chimpanzees. Even though the mind of the chimpanzee does act more quickly than that of its rival, and even though its movements are usually more rapid and more precise, the mind of the orang carries that animal precisely as far. Moreover, in its native jungles the orang habitually builds for itself a very comfortable nest on which to rest and sleep, which the chimpanzee ordinarily does not do.
I think that the exact mental status of an anthropoid ape is best revealed by an attempt to train it to do some particular thing, in a manner that the trainer elects. Usually about five lessons, carefully observed, will afford a good index of the pupil's mental capabilities. Some chimpanzees are too nervous to be taught, some are too obstinate, and others are too impatient of restraint. Some orang-utans are hopelessly indifferent to the business in hand, and refuse to become interested in it. I think that no orang is too dull to learn to sit at a table, and eat with the utensils that are usually considered sacred to man's use, but the majority of them care only for the food, and take no interest in the function. On the other hand, the average chimpanzee is as restless as a newly-caught eel, and its mind is dominated by a desire to climb far beyond the reach of restraining hands, and to do almost anything save that which is particularly desired.
Among the twenty or more orangs which up to 1922 have been exhibited in the Zoological Park, two stand out with special prominence, by reason of their unusual mental qualities. They differed widely from each other. One was a born actor and imitator, who loved human partnership in his daily affairs. The other was an original thinker and reasoner, with a genius for invention, and at all times impatient of training and restraint. The first was named Rajah, the latter was called Dohong.
Rajah was a male orang, and about four years of age when received by us. His high and broad forehead, large eyes and general breadth of cranium and jaw marked him at once as belonging to the higher caste of orangs. Dealers and experts have no difficulty in recognizing at one glance an orang that has a good brain and good general physique from those which are thin-headed, narrow-jawed, weak in body and unlikely to live long.
At the Zoological Park we have tested out the orang-utan's susceptibility to training, and proven that the task is so simple and easy that even amateurs can accomplish much in a short time. Desiring that several of our orangs should perform in public, we instructed the primate keepers to proceed along certain lines and educate them to that idea. Naturally, the performance was laid out to match our own possibilities. In a public park, where only a very little time can be devoted to training, we do not linger long over an animal that is either stupid or obstinate. Those which cannot be trained easily and quickly are promptly set aside as ineligible.
Without any great amount of labor, and with no real difficulty, our orangs were trained to perform the following simple acts:
1. To sit at table, and eat and drink like humans. This involved eating sliced bananas with a fork, pouring out milk from a teapot into a teacup, drinking out of a teacup, drinking out of a beer- bottle, using a toothpick, striking a match, lighting a cigarette, smoking and spitting like a man.
2. To ride a tricycle, or bicycle.
3. To put on a pair of trousers, adjust the suspenders, put on a sweater or coat, and a cap, reversing the whole operation after the performance.
4. To drive nails with a hammer.
5. Use a key to lock and unlock a padlock. The animal most proficient in this became able to select the right Yale key out of a bunch of half a dozen or more, with as much quickness and precision as the average man displays.
The orang Dohong learned to pedal and to guide a tricycle in about three lessons. He caught the two ideas almost instantly, and soon brought his muscles under control sufficiently to ride successfully, even under difficult conditions.
It was quickly recognized that our Rajah was a particularly good subject, and with him the keepers went farther than with the four others. From the first moment, the training operations were to him both interesting and agreeable. The animal enjoyed the work, and he entered into it so heartily that in two weeks he was ready to dine in public, somewhat after the manner of human beings.
A platform eight feet in height was erected in front of the Reptile House, and upon it were placed a table, a high chair such as small children use, and various dishes. To the platform a step- ladder led upward from the ground. Every day at four o'clock lusty Rajah was carried to the exhibition space, and set free upon the ground. Forthwith the keepers proceeded to dress him in trousers, vest, coat and cap. The moment the last button had been fastened and the cap placed upon his head, he would promptly walk to the ladder, climb up to the platform, and in the most business-like way imaginable, seat himself in his chair at the table, all ready to dine.
He used a napkin, ate his soup with a spoon, speared and conveyed his sliced bananas with his fork, poured milk from a teapot into his teacup, and drank from his cup with great enjoyment and decorum. When he took a drink (of tea) from a suspicious-looking black bottle, the audience always laughed. When he elevated the empty bottle to one eye and looked far into it, they roared; and when he finally took a toothpick and gravely placed it in his mouth, his auditors were delighted. Several times during the progress of each meal, Rajah would pause and benignly gaze down upon the crowd, like a self-satisfied judge on his bench.
Not once did Rajah spoil this exhibition, which was continued throughout an entire summer, nor commit any overt act of impatience, indifference or meanness. The flighty, nervous temper of the chimpanzee was delightfully absent. The most remarkable feature of it all was his very evident enjoyment of his part of the performance, and his sense of responsibility to us and to his audiences.
Rajah easily and quickly learned to ride a tricycle, and guide it himself. But for his untimely death, through a remarkable invasion of a microscopic parasite (Balentidium coli) imported from the Galapagos Islands by elephant tortoises, his mind would have been developed much farther. Since his death, in 1902, we have had other orang-utans that were successfully taught to dine, but none of them entered into the business with the same hearty zest which characterized Rajah, and made his performances so interesting.
We now come to a consideration of simian mental traits of very different character. Another male orang, named Dohong, of the same age and intellectual caste as Rajah, developed a faculty for mechanics and invention which not only challenged our admiration, but also created much work for our carpenters. He discovered, or invented, as you please, the lever as a mechanical force,—as fairly and squarely as Archimedes discovered the principle of the screw. Moreover, he delighted in the use of the new power thus acquired, quite as much as the successful inventor usually does. At the same time, two very bright chimpanzees of his own age, and with the same opportunities, discovered nothing.
[Illustration caption: THUMB-PRINT OF AN ORANG-UTANA group of fourteen experts in the New York City Departement ofCriminal Records were unable to recognise this thumb print asanything else than that of a man]
[Illustration caption: "RAJAH," THE ACTOR ORANG-UTANIn three lessons he learned to ride a tricycle]
Dohong was of a reflective turn of mind, and never was entirely willing to learn the things that his keepers sought to teach him. To him, dining at a table was tiresomely dull, and the donning of fashionable clothing was a frivolous pastime, On the other hand, the interior of his cage, and his gymnastic appliances of ropes, trapeze and horizontal bars, all interested him greatly. Every square inch of surface, and every piece of material in his apartment, was carefully investigated, many times over.
When three years old he discovered his own strength, and at first he used it good-naturedly to hector his cage-mate, a female chimpanzee smaller than himself. That, however, was of trifling interest. The day on which he made the discovery that he could break the wooden one and one-half inch horizontal bars that were held out from his cage walls on cast iron brackets, was for him a great day. Before his discovery was noted by the keepers he had joyfully destroyed two bars, and with a broken piece used as a lever was attacking a third. These bars were promptly replaced by larger bars, of harder wood, but screwed to the same cast-iron brackets that had carried the first series.
For a time, the heavier bars endured; but in an evil moment the ape swung his trapeze bar, of two-inch oak, far over to one side of his cage, and applied the bar as a lever, inside of a horizontal bar and from above. The new force was too much for the cast-iron brackets, and one by one they gave way. Some were broken off, and others were torn from the wall by the breaking of the screws that held them. Knowing that all those brackets must be changed immediately, Dohong was left to destroy them; which he did, promptly and joyfully. We then made heavy brackets of flat wrought iron bars, 1/2 by 21/2 inches, unbreakable even with a lever. These were screwed on with screws so large and heavy that our carpenters knew they were quite secure.
[Illustration caption: THE LEVER THAT OUR ORANG-UTAN INVENTED, ANDTHE WAY HE APPLIED IT By W. A. Camadeo, in the "ScientificAmerican," 1907]
In due time, Dohong tested his lever upon the bars with their new brackets, and at first they held securely. Then he engaged Polly, his chimpanzee companion, to assist him to the limit of her strength. While Dohong pulled on the lever, Polly braced her absurd little back against the wall, and pushed upon it, with all her strength. At first nothing gave way. The combined strength exerted by the three brackets was not to be overcome by prying at the horizontal bar itself. It was then that Dohong's inventive genius rose to its climax. He decided to attack the brackets singly, and conquer them one by one. On examining the situation very critically, he found that each bracket consisted of a right- angled triangle of wrought iron, with its perpendicular side against the wall, its base uppermost, and its hypotenuse out in the air. Through the open centre of the triangle he introduced the end of his trapeze bar, chain and all, as far as it would go, then gave a mighty heave. The end of his lever was against the wall, and the power was applied in such a manner that few machine screws could stand so great a strain. One by one, the screws were torn out of the wood, and finally each bracket worked upon was torn off.
But there was one exception. The screws of one bracket were so firmly set in a particularly hard strip of the upright tongued- and-grooved yellow pine flooring that formed the wall, the board itself was finally torn out, full length! The board was four inches wide, seven-eighths of an inch thick, and seven feet long. Originally it was so firmly nailed that no one believed that it could be torn from its place. [Footnote: In the Winter of 1921 about a dozen newspapers in the United States published a sensational syndicated article, occupying an entire page, in which all of Dohong's lever discovery and cage-wrecking performances were reported as of recent occurrence, and credited to a stupid and uninteresting young orang called Gabong, now in the Zoological Park, that has not even the merit of sufficient intelligence to maintain a proper state of bodily uprightness, let alone the invention of mechanical principles.]
Without delay, Dohong started in with his lever to pry off the remaining boards of the wall, but this movement was promptly checked. Our next task consisted in making long bolts by which the brackets of the horizontal bars were bolted entirely through the partition walls and held so powerfully on the other side that even the lever could not wreck them.
As soon as the brackets were made secure, Dohong turned his attention to the two large sleeping boxes which were built very solidly on the balcony of his cage. Both of those structures he tore completely to pieces,—always working with the utmost good nature and cheerfulness. Realizing that they could not exist in the cage with him, we gave him a permit to tear them out—and save the time of the carpenters.
Dohong's use of his lever was seen by hundreds of visitors, and one frequent visitor to the Park, Mr. L. A. Camacho, an engineer, was so much impressed that he published in theScientific Americanan illustrated account of what he saw.
For a long period, Dohong had been more or less annoyed by the fact that he could not get his head out between the front bars of his cage, and look around the partition into the home of his next- door neighbor. Very soon after he discovered the use of the lever, he swung his trapeze bar out to the upper corner of his cage, thrust the end of it out between the first bar and the steel column of the partition, and very deftly bent two of the iron bars outward far enough so that he could easily thrust his head outside and have his coveted look.
One of our later and largest orangs made a specialty of twisting the straw of his bedding into a rope six or seven feet long, then throwing it over his trapeze bar and swinging by it, forward and back.
Time and space will not permit the enumeration of the various things done by that ape of mechanical mind with his swinging rope and his trapeze, with ropes of strawtwisted by himself,with keys, locks, hammer, nails and boxes. Any man who can witness such manifestations as those described above, and deny the existence in the animal of an ability to reason from cause to effect, must be prepared to deny the evidence of his own senses.
The individual variations between orangs, as also between chimpanzees, are great and striking. It may with truth be said that no two individuals of either species are really quite alike in physiognomy, temperament and mental capacity. As subjects for the experimental psychologist, it is difficult to see how any other could be found that would be even a good second in living interest to the great apes. The facts thus far recorded, so I believe, present only a suggestion of the rich results that await the patient scientific investigator. In the year 1915 Dr. Robert M. Yerkes, of Harvard University, conducted at Montecito, southern California, in a comfortable primate laboratory, six months of continuous and diligent experiments on the behavior of orang-utans and monkeys. His report, published under the title of "The Mental Life of Monkeys and Apes: A Study of Ideational Behavior," is a document of much interest and value. Dr. Yerkes' use of the orang-utan as a subject was a decided step forward in the study of "animal behavior" in America.
During the past twenty years, millions of thinking people have been startled, and not a few shocked, by the amazing and uncanny human-likeness of the performances of trained chimpanzees on the theatrical stage. Really, when a well trained "chimp" is dressed from head to foot like a man, and is seen going with quickness, precision and spirit through a performance half an hour in length, we go away from it with an uncomfortable feeling that speech is all that he lacks of being a citizen.
In 1904 the American public saw Esau. Next came Consul,—in about three or four separate editions! In 1909 we had Peter. Then came I know not how many more, including the giant Casey and Mr. Garner's Susie; and finally in 1918 our own Suzette. The theatre-going public has been well supplied with trained chimpanzees, and the mental capacity of that species is now more widely known and appreciated than that of any other wild animal except the Indian elephant.
There are several reasons why chimpanzees predominate on the stage, and why so few performing orang-utans have been seen. They are as follows:
1. The orang is sanguine, and slower in execution than the nervous chimpanzee.
2. The feet of the orang are not good for shoes, and biped work.
3. The orang is rather awkward with its hands, and finally,
4. There are fully twice as many chimps in the market.
But the chimpanzee has certain drawbacks of his own. His nervous temper and his forced-draught activities soon wear him out. If he survives to see his sixth or seventh year, it is then that he becomes so strong and so full of ego that he becomes dangerous and requires to be retired.
Bright minds are more common among the chimpanzee species than among the orangs. Three chimps out of every five are good for training, but not more than two orangs out of five can be satisfactorily developed.
Some sensitive minds shrink from the idea that man has "descended" from the apes. I never for a moment shared that feeling. I would rather descend from a clean, capable and bright-minded genus of apes than from any unclean, ignorant and repulsive race of the genusHomo.In comparing the chimpanzees of Fernan Vaz with the Canoe Indians of the Strait of Magellan and other human tribes we could name, I think the former have decidedly the best of it. There are millions of members of the human race who are more loathsome and repulsive than wild apes.
The face of the chimpanzee is highly mobile, and the mouth, lips, eyes and voice express the various emotions of the individual with a degree of clearness and precision second only to the facial expression of man himself. In fact, the face of an intelligent chimpanzee or orang-utan is a fairly constant index of the state of mind of the individual. In their turn, those enormously expansive lips and keen brown eyes express contentment, doubt, fear and terror; affection, disapproval, jealousy, anger, rage; hunger and satiety; lonesomeness and illness.
The lips of the chimpanzee afford that animal several perfectly distinct expressions of the individual's mind and feelings. While it is not possible to offer a description of each which will certainly be recognizable to the reader, the two extremes will at least be appreciated. When coaxing for food, or attention, the lips are thrust far out beyond the teeth, and formed into a funnel with the small end outermost. When the chimpanzee flies into a rage at some real or fancied offense, the snarling lips are drawn back, and far up and down, until the teeth and gums are fully exposed in a ghastly threat of attack. At the same time, the voice gives forth shrill shrieks of rage, correctly represented by the syllable "Ee-ee-ee!", prolonged, and repeated with great force, three or four times. On such occasions as the latter, the offending party must look out for himself, or he may be roughly handled.
The voice of the chimpanzee is strong, clear, and in captivity it is very much in evidence. Two of its moderate tones are almost musical. It is heard when the animal says, coaxingly, "Who'-oe! Who'-oe!" A dozen times a day, our large specimens indulge in spells of loud yelling, purely for their own amusement. Their strident cry sounds like "Hoo-hoo-hoo-hoo!Wah'-hoo!Wah'-hoo! Hoo'-hoo!Wah-h-h-h!Wah-h-h!" The second combination, "Wah-hoo," consists of two sounds, four notes apart.
It is with their voices that chimpanzees first manifest their pleasure at seeing cherished friends of the human species, or their anger. Their recognition, and their exuberant joy on such occasions, is quite as apparent to every observer as are the manifestations of welcome of demonstrative human beings.
Like all other groups of species, the apes of various genera now living vary widely in their mentalities. The chimpanzee has the most alert and human-like mind but with less speed the orang-utan is a good second. The average captive gorilla, if judged by existing standards for ape mentality, is a poor third in the anthropoid scale, below the chimp and orang; but since the rise of Major Penny's family-pet gorilla, named John, we must revise all our former views of that species, and concede exceptions.
In studying the mental status of the primates I attach great importance to the work and results of the professional trainers who educate animals for stage performances. If the trainer does not know which are the brightest species of apes, baboons and monkeys, then who does? Their own fortunes depend upon their estimate of comparative mentality in the primates. Fortunately for our purposes, the minds of the most intelligent and capable apes, baboons, and monkeys have been partially developed and exploited by stage trainers, and to a far less extent by keepers in zoological parks. Some wonderful results have been achieved, and the best of these have been seen by the public in theatres, in traveling shows and in zoological parks. All these performances have greatly interested me, because they go so far as measures of mental capacity. I wish to make it clear that I take them very seriously.
[Illustration with caption: PORTRAIT OF A HIGH-CASTE CHIMPANZEE "Baldy" was an animal of fine intelligence and originality in thought. He was a natural comedian]
While many of the acts of trained animals are due to their power of mimicry and are produced by imitation rather than by original thought, even their imitative work reveals a breadth of intelligence, a range of memory and of activity and precision in thought and in energy which no logical mind can ignore. To say that a chimpanzee who can swing through thirty or forty different acts "does not think" and "does not reason," is to deny the evidence of the human senses, and fall outside the bounds of human reason.
Training Apes for Performances. As will appear in its own chapter, there is nothing at all mysterious in the training of apes. The subject must be young, and pliant in mind, and of cheerful and kind disposition. The poor subjects are left for cage life. The trainer must possess intelligence of good quality, infinite patience and tireless industry. Furthermore, the stage properties must be ample. An outfit of this kind can train any ape that is mentally and physically a good subject. Of course in every animal species, wild or domestic, there are individuals so dull and stupid that it is inexpedient to try to educate them.
The chimpanzee Suzette who came to us direct from the vaudeville stage performed every summer in her open-air "arena cage," until she entered motherhood, which put an end to her stage work. She was a brilliant "trick" bicycle rider. She could stand upright on a huge wooden ball, and by expert balancing and foot-work roll it up a steep incline, down a flight of stairs, and land it safely upon the stage, without once losing her balance or her control. She was entirely at home on roller skates, and when taken out upon the pavement of Baird Court she would go wildly careering around the large grass plat at high speed.
All the above acts were acrobatic feats that called for original thought and action, and were such as no dull mind and body could exert. All the training skill in the world could not take a machine and teach it to ride a bicycle through a collection of bottles, and an intelligent ape is a million years from being a "machine in fur and feathers."
More than once I have been astounded by the performances of apes on the stage. Mr. J. S. Edwards' orang-utan Joe was a very capable animal, and his performances were wonderful. He could use a hammer in driving nails, and a screwdriver in inserting and extracting screws, with wonderful dexterity.
The most remarkable chimpanzee performance that I ever saw was given in a New York theatre in 1909. The star actor was a fine male animal about six years old, called Peter. I made a complete record of his various acts, and the program was as follows
Stage properties: a suit of clothes, shoes, chair, table, bed, bureau, hatrack, candle, cigarette, match, cuspidor, roller skates, bottles, flag, inclined plane and steps; plate, napkin, cup, spoon, teapot.
As Peter entered, he bowed to the audience, took off his cap and hung it upon a hatrack. He went to the table, seated himself in the chair, unfolded and put on a napkin, and with a string fastened it in place under his chin. With a fork he speared some slices of banana and ate them. Into his tumbler he poured liquid from a bottle, drank, then corked the bottle. Next, he poured tea into a cup, put in sugar and cream, took tea from the spoon, then drank from the cup. After that he took a toothpick and used it elaborately.
Striking a match he lit a cigarette, and smoked. In perfect man- fashion he took the cigarette between his fingers, gave his keeper a light, smoked again, and blew puffs of smoke first from one corner of his mouth and then the other. Then he elaborately spat into the cuspidor.
Next in order he went to the bureau, cleaned his teeth with a tooth-brush, brushed his hair on both sides, looked into the mirror and powdered his face.
Finally he bit a coin and put it on the keeper's plate as a tip.
He pulled off his coat, took off his cuffs and vest, and thus half undressed he joyously danced about, beating a tambourine. Then he removed his shirt, trousers, shoes, garters and socks. Lighting his candle he walked to his bed, blew out the candle and went to bed.
Very soon he rose, put on his trousers and a pair of roller skates and playfully pursued a young woman who ran before him. His use of the roller skates was excellent.
The stage was cleared of furniture, and a bicycle was brought out. He mounted it and started off, at the first trial, and swiftly rode around the stage about fifteen times. While riding he took off his cap and waved it. He rode up an inclined plane and down four steps without falling off, repeating for an encore,—but here he became peeved about something.
Five bottles were set in a figure 8, and he rode between them several times. At last he took up a bottle and drank out of it. Then he drank out of a tumbler, all while riding. After much flag- waving and swift riding, Peter stopped at the center of the stage, dismounted, bowed, clapped his hands vigorously and retired.
Peter's performance was remarkable because of the great length of it, the absolute skill and precision of it, and the animal's easy mastery of every situation. There was a notable absence of hesitations and mistakes, and of visible direction. The trainer seemed to do nothing save to assist with the stage properties, just as an assistant helps any acrobat through the property business of his act. If any commands or signs were given, the audience was not aware of it. Later on I learned that sometimes Peter did not perform with such spirit, and required some urging to be prompt. The trainer was kept hustling to keep up with his own duties. The animal seemed to remember, and I believe he did remember, the sequence of a performance offifty-six separate acts!
When I witnessed Peter's performance in New York, saw the length of it and noted the immense amount of nervous energy that each performance used up, I made the prediction that he could not for one year endure such a strain. It was reported to me that he died nine months from that time.
In October, 1909, when Peter went to Philadelphia, he was frequently and closely studied and observed by Dr. Lightner Witmer, professor of psychology at the University of Pennsylvania, and his mentality was tested at the laboratory of the University. Dr. Witmer's conclusions, as set forth in a paper in the December (1909) issue of thePsychological Clinic,are of very great interest. He approached Peter's first performance in a skeptical frame of mind. I gladly waive the opportunity to express my own views regarding Peter in order to put upon the stand a more competent witness. Hear Dr. Witmer:
"As I entered the theatre," he says, "my feelings were commingled interest and doubt. My doubts were bred from knowledge of the difficulty of judging the intelligence of an animal from a stage performance. So-called educated horses and even educated seals and fleas have made their appeal in large number to the credulity of the public. Can any animal below man be educated in the proper sense of the word? Or is the animal mind susceptible of nothing more than a mechanical training, and only given the specious counterfeit of an educated intelligence when under the direct control of the trainer?
"Since that day I have seen Peter in five public performances, have tested him at my psychological clinic and privately on three occasions. I now believe that in a very real sense the animal is himself giving the stage performance. He knows what he is doing, he delights in it, he varies it from time to time, he understands the succession of tricks which are being called for, he is guided by word of mouth without any signal open or concealed, and the function of his trainer is exercised mainly to steady and control.
"I am prepared to accept the statement of his trainers, Mr. and Mrs. McArdle, that Peter's proficiency is not so much the result of training as of downright self-education."
Peter was put through many of the tests which Dr. Witmer uses for the study of backward children. He performed many of these tests in a very satisfactory manner. He was able to string beads the first time he tried it. He put pegs in the ordinary kindergarten pegging board. He opened and closed a very difficult lock. He used hammer and screw driver, and distinguished without any mistake between nails and screws. A peculiar kind of hammer was given to him in order to fool him, but Peter was not fooled. He felt both ends of the hammer and used the flat end instead of the round end.
Showing his initiative during the tests, Peter got away from those who were watching him and darted for a washstand, quickly turned the faucet and put his mouth to the spigot and secured a drink before he was snatched away by his trainers. He understood language and followed instructions without signs. He was able to say "mamma," and Doctor Witmer taught him in five minutes to give the sound of "p." The most remarkable performance was making the letter "w" on the blackboard, in which he imitated Doctor Witmer's movements exactly, and reproduced a fair copy of the letter.
The last four paragraphs reproduced above have been copied from an article which appeared in the PhiladelphiaPublic Ledgeron December 17, 1909.
Dr. Witmer declares that the study of this ape's mind is a subject fit, not for the animal psychologist, but for the child psychologist.
Suzette's Failure in Maternal Instinct. As a closing contribution to our observations on the chimpanzee, I must record a tragic failure in maternal instinct, as well as in general intelligence, in a chimpanzee.
In 1919 our two fine eight-year old chimpanzees, Boma and Suzette, were happily married. It was a genuine love match, and strictly monogamous at that; for while big Fanny Chimp in the cage next door to Boma loved Boma and openly courted him, he was outrageously indifferent to her, and even scorned her. After seven months of gestation, a very good baby was born to Suzette, quite naturally and successfully. Boma's shouts of excitement and delight carried half a mile throughout the Park. Everything looked most auspicious for the rearing of a wonderful cage-bred and cage-born chimpanzee, the second one ever born in captivity. Instead of carrying her infant astride her hip, as do orang mothers, and the coolie women of India, Suzette astonished us beyond measure by tucking itinto her groin,between her thigh and her abdomen, head outward. It was a fine place,—warm and soft,—but not good when overdone! When Suzette walked, as she freely did, she held up the leg responsible for the baby, to hold it securely in place, and walked upon the other foot and her two hands. About all this there was one very bad thing. The baby was perfectly helpless! As long as the mother chose to keep it in her groin prison, it could not get free.
Suzette was completely isolated, kept absolutely quiet, and every chance was given her to go on with the functions of motherhood. Her breasts contained plenty of milk, and the flow was due to start on the second day after the infant's arrival.
Day and night the baby was jealously confined in that massive and powerful groin,—andunder too much pressure!When the baby cried, and kicked, and struggled to get free, Suzette would nervously rearrange her straw bed, carefully pick from the tiny fingers every straw that they had clutched, and settle down again. If the struggle was soon renewed, Suzette would change the infant over to the other groin, and close upon it as before.
Sleeping or waking, walking, sitting or lying down, she held it there. If we attempted to touch the infant, the mother instantly became savage and dangerous. Not one human finger was permitted to touch it. For hours, and for days, we anxiously watched for nursing to begin; but in vain. At last we became almost frantic from the spectacle of the infant being slowly starved to death because the mother did not realize that it needed her milk, and that she alone could promote nursing.Her mother instinct utterly failed to supply the link that alone could connect infancy to motherhood, and furnish life.
Of course this failure was due to poor Suzette's artificial life, and unnatural surroundings. Had she been all alone, in the depths of a tropical forest, Nature would have proceeded along her usual lines. But in our Primate House, Suzette felt that her infant was surrounded by a host of strange enemies, from whom it must be strongly and persistentlyguarded and defended.That was the idea that completely dominated her mind, ruled out all human help, and blocked the main process of nature.
During the eight days that the infant lived, it was able to reach her breast and nurse only once, for about one minute; and then back it went to its prison, where it died from sheer lack of nourishment.
In 1920, that same history was repeated, except that on this occasion our Veterinary Surgeon, Dr. W. Reid Blair, worked (on the fifth day) for seven hours without intermission to stupefy Suzette with chloroform, or other opiates, sufficiently to make it possible to remove the baby without a fight with the mother and its certain death. Owing to her savage temper all the work had to be done between iron bars, to keep from losing hands or arms, and the handicap on the human hand was too great. Even when Suzette had received chloroform for an hour and twenty minutes, and was regarded ashalf dead,at the first touch of a human finger upon her thigh she instantly aroused and sprang up, raging and ready for battle.
The whole effort failed. To rope Suzette and attempt to control her by force would have been sheer folly, or worse. In such a struggle the infant would have been torn to pieces.
The second one died as the first one did, and for an awful week we were unable to gain possession of the decomposing cadaver. Suzette knew that something was wrong, and she realized the awful odor, but that idea of defense of her offspring obscured all others. In maintaining her possession of that infant, nothing could surpass the cunning of that ape mother. Will we ever succeed in outwitting her, and in getting one of her babies alive into a baby incubator? Who can say?
The true mental status of the gorilla was discovered in 1919 and 1920, at 15 Sloane Street, London, by Major Rupert Penny, of the Royal Air Service, and his young relative, Miss Alyse Cunningham. Prior to that time, through various combinations of retarding circumstances, no living gorilla had ever been placed and kept in an environment calculated to develop and display the real mental calibre of the gorilla mind. It seems that an exhibition cage, in a zoological park or garden thronged with visitors, actually tends to the suppression, or even the complete extinguishment, of true gorilla character. The atmosphere of the footlights and the stage in which the chimpanzee delights and thrives is to the gorilla repulsive and unbearable.
Judging by Major Penny's "John," the gorilla wishes to live in a high-class human family, in a modern house, and be treated like a human being! It is now definitely recognized by us, and also by our colleagues in the London Zoological Gardens, that gorillas can not live long and thrive on public exhibition, before great crowds of people, and that it is folly to insist upon trying to compel them to do so. The male individual that lived several years in the Breslau Zoological Garden and attained the age of seven years was a striking exception.
We have had two gorillas at our Park, one of which, a female named Dinah, arrived in good health, and lived with us eleven and one- half months. Her mind was dull and hopelessly unresponsive. She learned next to nothing, and she did nothing really interesting. Other captive gorillas I have known have been equally morose and unresponsive, and lived fewer months than Dinah.
It is because of such animals as Dinah that for fifty years the mental status of the gorilla species has been under a cloud. Until now it has been much misunderstood and unappreciated. Of the few gorillas that have been seen in England and America, I think that all save John have been so morose and unresponsive,and so undeveloped by companionship and training, that mentally they have been rated far below the chimpanzee and orang.
Our own Dinah was no exception to the rule. Personally she was a stupid little thing, even when in excellent health. Her most pronounced and exasperating stupidities were shown in her refusal to eat, or to taste, strange food, even when very hungry. Any ape that does not know enough to eat a fine, ripe banana, and will only mince away at theinner liningof the banana skin, is an unmitigated numskull, and hardly fit to live. Dinah was all that, and more. But, alas! We have seen a few stupid human children who obstinately refused even to taste certain new and unknown kinds of food, because they "know" they will not like them! So Dinah was not alone in her childish folly.
At last a chain of circumstances placed an intellectual and sensible gorilla, two years of age, in the hands of a family specially fitted by education and home surroundings to develop its mind and its manners. The results of those efforts have given to the gorilla an entirely new mental status. Thanks to the enterprise and diligence of Major Rupert Penny and Miss Cunningham in purchasing and caring for a sick and miserable young male gorilla,—a most hazardous risk,—a new chapter in wild-animal psychology now is to be written.
In December, 1918, "John Gorilla" was purchased in a London department store, out of a daily atmosphere heated to85 degrees, and a nightly condition of solitude and terror. From that awful state it was taken to live in Major Penny's comfortable apartments. John was seriously ill. He was in a "rickety" condition, and he weighed only 32 pounds. With a pure atmosphere, kept at 65 degrees only, and amid good surroundings, he soon became well. He attained such robust health and buoyant spirits that in March, 1921, he stood 40 1/2 inches high and weighed 112 pounds.
At my solicitation Miss Cunningham wrote out for me the very remarkable personal history of that wonderful animal,—apparently the most wonderful gorilla ever observed in captivity. It is a clear, straightforward and convincing record, and not one of its statements is to be for one moment doubted. While it is too long to reproduce here in its entirety, I will present a condensation of it, in Miss Cunningham's own words that will record the salient facts,—with no changes save in arrangement.
Miss Cunningham says:
LONELINESS. "We soon found it was impossible to leave him alone at night, because he shrieked every night, and nearly all night, from loneliness and fear. This we found he had done in the store where he lived before coming to us. He always began to cry directly he saw the assistants putting things away for the night. We found that this loneliness at night was trying on his health and appetite. As soon as possible my nephew had his bed made up every night in the room adjoining the cage, with the result that John was quite happy, and began to grow and put on fat.
TREATMENT. "I fed him, washed his hands, face and feet twice a day, and brushed and combed his hair,—which he would try to do himself whenever he got hold of the brush or comb. He soon got to like all this.
TRAINING. "My next idea was to teach him to be strictly clean in his habits. It was my ambition to be able to have him upstairs in our house as an ordinary member of the household. I taught him first as a child is taught and handled. This took some time. At first I could not make him understand what we expected of him, even though I always petted him and gave him grapes (of which he was especially fond), but I think at first he imagined that this treatment was a punishment. At first, without other reasons, he would roll on the floor and shriek, but directly he understood what was expected of him he soon learned, and began to behave excellently.
"This training occupied quite six weeks. About February, 1919, we took him out of his cage, and allowed him the freedom of the house. Thereafter he would run upstairs to the bathroom of his own accord, turning the doorknob of whatever room he was in, and also opening the door of the bathroom…. He would get out of bed in the night by himself, go back to bed, and pull the blankets over himself quite neatly.
FOOD. "John's appetite seemed to tire of foods very quickly. The only thing he stuck to was milk, which he liked best when warmed. We began by giving him a quart a day, rising to three and one-half quarts a day. I found that he preferred to choose his own food, so I used to prepare for him several kinds, such as bananas, oranges, apples, grapes, raisins, currants, dates and any small fruits in season, such as raspberries or strawberries,all of which he liked to have warmed!
"These displays I placed on a high shelf in the kitchen, where he could get them with difficulty. I think that he thought himself very clever when he stole anything. He never would eat anything stale. He was extremely fond of fresh lemon jelly, but he never would touch it after the second day. He loved roses,to eat, more than anything. The more beautiful they were, the more he liked them, but he never would eat faded roses. He never cared much for nuts of any other kind than baked peanuts, save walnuts. I found that nuts gave him dreadful spells of indigestion.
USE OF TOOLS. "He knew what hammers and chisels were for, but for obvious reasons we never encouraged him in anything to do with carpentry. With cocoanuts he was very funny. He knew that they had to be broken, and he would try to break them on the floor. When he found he couldn't manage that, he would bring the nut to one of us and try to make us understand what he wished. If we gave him a hammer he would try to use it on the nut, and on not being able to manage that, he would give back to us both the hammer and the cocoanut.
GAMES AND PLAY. "We never taught him any tricks; he simply acquired knowledge himself. A game he was very fond of was to pretend he was blind, shutting his eyes very tightly, and running around the room knocking against tables and chairs. . . . We found that exercise was the thing he required to keep him in health, and my nephew used to give him plenty of that by playing hide and seek with him in the morning before breakfast, and in the evening before dinner,—up and down stairs, in and out of all the rooms. He simply loved that game, and would giggle and laugh while being chased…. If he saw that a stranger was at all nervous about him, he loved running past him, and giving him a smack on the leg,—and you could see him grin as he did so.
"A thing he greatly enjoyed was to stand on the top rail of his bed and jump on the springs, head over heels, just like a child.
CAUTION. "He was very cautious. He would never run into a dark room without first turning on the light.
FEAR. "John seemed to realize danger for other people in high places, for if anyone looked out of a high window he always pushed them away if he were at the window himself, but if he was away from it he would run and pull them back. . . . He was very much afraid of full-grown sheep, cows and horses, but he loved colts, calves and lambs, proving to us that he recognized youth.
WOODS VS. FIELDS. "We found he did not like fields or open country, but he was very happy in a garden, or in woods. . . . He always liked nibbling twigs, and to eat the green buds of trees.
TABLE MANNERS. "His table manners were really very good. He always sat at the table, and whenever a meal was ready, would pull his own chair up to his place. He did not care to eat a great deal, but he especially liked to drink water out of a tumbler. . . . He was the least greedy of all the animals I have ever seen. He never would snatch anything, and always ate very slowly. He always drank a lot of water, which he would always get himself whenever he wanted it by turning on a tap. Strange to say, he always turned off the water when he had finished drinking.
PLAYING TO THE GALLERY. "John seemed to think that everyone was delighted to see him, and he would throw up the window whenever he was permitted. If he found the sash locked he would unfasten it, and when a big crowd had collected outside he would clap his chest and his hands. [Footnote: In the summer of 1920 a globe-trotter just arrived from England excitedly reported to me: "While driving along a street in LondonI saw a live gorillain the upper window of an apartment. It was areal gorilla;and it clapped its hands at us as we looked! Nowwhatdid it all mean?" Fortunately I was able to explain it.]
PUNISHMENT AND REPENTANCE. "We made one very great mistake with John. His cage was used as a punishment, with the result that we never could leave him there alone, for he would shriek all the time. . . . Now, a stick was the one thing that our gorilla would not stand from anyone, save Major Penny and myself. Presently we found out that the only way to deal with him was to tell him that he was very naughty, and push him away from us; when he would roll on the floor and cry, and be very-repentant, holding one's ankles, and putting his head on our feet.
AFFECTION FOR A CHILD. "He was especially fond of my little niece, three years old. John and she used to play together for hours, and he seemed to understand what she wanted him to do. If she ever cried, and her mother would not go and pick her up, John would always try and nip the mother, or give her a smack with the full weight of his hand, evidently thinking she was the cause of the child's tears.
A SENSE OF GOOD ORDER. "He loved to take everything out of a wastepaper basket and strew the contents all over the room, after which, when told to do so he would pick up everything and put it all back, but looking very bored all the while. If the basket was very full he would push it all down very carefully, to make room for more. He would always put things back when told to do so, such as books from a bookshelf or things from a table.
[Illustration caption: THE GORILLA WITH THE WONDERFUL MIND Owned by Major Rupert Penny, educated by Miss Alyse Cunningham, London, 1918-1921]
TWO CASES OF ORIGINAL THOUGHT. (1) "One day we were going out, for which I was sitting ready dressed, when John wished to sit in my lap. My sister, Mrs. Penny, said: 'Don't let him. He will spoil your dress.'
"As my dress happened to be a light one I pushed him away, and said, 'No!' He at once lay on the floor and cried just like a child, for about a minute. Then he rose, looked round the room, found a newspaper, went and picked it up, spread it on my lap and climbed up. This was quite the cleverest thing I ever saw him do.Even those who saw it said they would not have believed it had they not seen it themselves!Both my nephews, (Major Penny and Mr. E. C. Penny), his wife and my sister (Mrs. Penny) were in the room, and can testify to the correctness of the above record.
(2) "Another clever thing John did, although I suspect this was due more to instinct that to downright cleverness. A piece of filet beefsteak had just come from the butcher. Inasmuch as occasionally I gave him a small mouthful of raw beef, a small piece of the coarser part of the steak was cut off, and I gave it to him. He tasted it, then gravely handed it back to me. Then he took my hand and put it on the finer part of the meat. From that I cut off a tiny piece, gave it to him, and he ate it. When my nephew came home he wouldn't believe it, so I tried it again, with the same result, except that then he did not even attempt to eat the coarser meat."
* * * * *
Concerning Miss Cunningham's wonderful story, I wish to state that I believe all of it,—because there is no reason to do otherwise! It sets a new mark in gorilla lore, and it lifts a curtain from an animal mind that previously was unknown, and very generally misunderstood.
To the Doubting Thomases who will doubt some portions of Miss Cunningham's story, let me cite, by way of caution, the following history:
When Du Chaillu discovered the gorilla, and came to America and England with his specimens to tell about it, he said that when a big gorilla is attacked and made angry it beats its breast, repeatedly, with its clenched fists. The wiseacres of that day solemnly shook their heads and said: "Oh, no! That can not be true. No ape ever did that. He is romancing!" But now we know that this breast-beating and chest-clapping habit is to a gorilla a common-place performance, even in captivity.
Sometimes there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in all our philosophy.
It was in the jungles of the Animallai Hills of southern India that I first became impressed by the mental capacity of the Indian elephant. I saw many wild herds. I saw elephants at work, and at one period I lived in a timber camp, consisting of working elephants and mahouts. I saw a shrewd young elephant-driver soundly flogged for stealing an elephant, farming it out to a native timber contractor for four days, and then elaborately pretending that the animal had been "lost." Later on I saw elephant performances in the "Greatest Show on Earth" and elsewhere, and for eighteen years I have been chief mourner over the idiosyncrasies of Gunda and Alice. If I do not now know something about elephants, then my own case of animal intelligence is indeed hopeless.
To me it seems that the only thing necessary to establish the elephant as an animal of remarkable intellect and power of original reasoning is to set forth the unadorned facts that lie ready to hand.
Cuvier recorded the opinion that in sagacity the elephant in no way excels the dog and some other species of carnivora. Sir Emerson Tennent, even after some study of the elephant, was disposed to award the palm for intelligence to the dog, but only "from the higher degree of development consequent on his more intimate domestication and association with man." In the mind of G. P. Sanderson we fear that familiarity with the elephant bred a measure of contempt; and this seems very strange. He says:
"Its reasoning faculties are undoubtedly far below those of the dog, and possibly of other animals; and in matters beyond its daily experience it evinces no special discernment."
To me it seems that all three of those opinions are off the target. The dog is not a wild, untrammeled animal; and neither dogs, cats nor savage men evince any special discernment "beyond the range of their daily experience." Moreover, there are some millions of tame men of whom the same may be said with entire safety.
Very often the question is asked: "Is the African elephant equal in intelligence and training capacity to the Indian species?"
To this we must answer: Not proven. We do not know. The African species never has been tried out on the same long and wide basis as the Indian. Many individual African elephants, very intelligent, have been trained, successfully, and have given good accounts of themselves. For my own part I am absolutely sure that when taken in hand at the same age, and trained on the same basis as the Indian species, the African elephant will be found mentally quite the equal of the Indian, and just as available for work or performances.
No negro tribe really likes to handle elephants and train them. The Indian native loves elephants, and enjoys training them and working with them. It is these two conditions that have left the African elephant far behind the procession. The African elephant belongs to the great Undeveloped Continent. He has been, and he still is, mercilessly pursued and slaughtered for his tusks. All the existing species of African elephants are going down and out before the ivory hunters. We fear that they will all be dead one hundred years from this time, or even less. A century hence, when the lastafricanushas gone to join the mammoth and the mastodon, his well protected wild congener in India still will be devouring his four hundred pounds of green fodder per day, and the tame ones will be performing to amuse the swarming human millions of this overcrowded world.
In the minds of our elephant keepers, familiarity with elephants has bred just the reverse of contempt. Both Thuman and Richards are quite sure that elephants are the wisest of all wild animals.
Despite the very great amount of trouble made for Keeper Thuman by Gunda, the Indian, and Kartoum, the African, Thuman grows enthusiastic over the shrewdness of their "cussedness." He is particularly impressed by their skill in opening chain shackles, and unfastening the catches and locks of doors and gates. And really, Kartoum's ingenuity in finding out how to open latches and bolts is almost inexhaustible, as well as marvelous.
Keeper Richards declares that our late African pygmy elephant, Congo, was the wisest animal he ever has known. I have elsewhere referred to his ability in shutting his outside door. Richards taught him to accept coins from visitors, deposit them in a box, then pull a cord to ring a bell, one pull for each coin represented. The keeper devised four different systems of intimate signals by which he could tell Congo to stop at the right point, and all these were so slight that no one ever detected them. One was by a voice-given cue, another by a hand motion, and a third was by an inclination of the body.
Keeper Richards relates that Congo would go out in his yard, collect a trunkful of peanuts from visitors, bring them inside and secretly cache them in a corner behind his feed box. Then he would go out for more graft peanuts, bring them in, hide them and proceed to eat the first lot. There are millions of men who do not know what it is to conserve something that can be eaten.
In this discussion of the intellectual powers and moral qualities of the elephant I will confine myself to my own observations onElephas indicus, except where otherwise stated. A point to which we ask special attention is that in endeavoring to estimate the mental capacity of the elephant, we will base no general conclusions uponany particularly intelligent individual, as all mankind is tempted to do in discussions of the intelligence of the dog, the cat, the horse, parrot and ape. On the contrary, it is our desire to reveal the mental capacity ofevery elephant living, tame or wild, except the few individuals with abnormal or diseased minds. It is not to be shown how successfullyanelephant has been taught by man, but howallelephants in captivity have been taught, and the mental capacity ofeveryelephant.
Under the head of intellectual qualities we have first to consider the elephant's
While many wonderful stories are related of the elephant's sagacity and independent powers of reasoning, it must be admitted that a greater number of more wonderful anecdotes are told on equally good authority of dogs. But the circumstances in the case are wholly to the advantage of the universal dog, and against the rarely seen elephant. While the former roams at will through his master's premises, through town and country, mingling freely with all kinds of men and domestic animals, with unlimited time to lay plans and execute them, the elephant in captivity is chained to a stake, with no liberty of action whatever aside from begging with his trunk, eating and drinking. His only amusement is in swaying his body, swinging one foot, switching his tail, and (in a zoological park) looking for something that he can open or destroy. Such a ponderous beast cannot be allowed to roam at large among human beings, and the working elephant never leaves his stake and chain except under the guidance of his mahout. There is no means of estimating the wonderful powers of reasoning that captive elephants might develop if they could only enjoy the freedom accorded to all dogs except the blood-hound, bull-dog and a few others.
In the jungles of India the writer frequently has seen wild elephants reconnoitre dangerous ground by means of a scout or spy; communicate intelligence by signs; retreat in orderly silence from a lurking danger, and systematically march, in single file, like the jungle tribes of men.
Once having approached to within fifty yards of the stragglers of a herd of about thirty wild elephants, which was scattered over about four acres of very open forest and quietly feeding, two individuals of the herd on the side nearest us suddenly suspected danger. One of them elevated his trunk, with the tip bent forward, and smelled the air from various points of the compass. A moment later an old elephant left the herd and started straight for our ambush, scenting the air with upraised trunk as he slowly and noiselessly advanced. We instantly retreated, unobserved and unheard. The elephant advanced until he reached the identical spot where we had a moment before been concealed. He paused, and stood motionless as a statue for about two minutes, then wheeled about and quickly but noiselessly rejoined the herd. In less than half a minute the whole herd was in motion, heading directly away from us, and moving very rapidly, butwithout the slightest noise. The huge animals simply vanished like shadows into the leafy depths of the forest. Before proceeding a quarter of a mile, the entire herd formed in single file and continued strictly in that order for several miles. Like the human dwellers in the jungle, the elephants know that the easiest and most expeditious way for a large body of animals to traverse a tangled forest is for the leader to pick the way, while all the others follow in his footsteps.
In strong contrast with the stealthy and noiseless manner in which elephants steal away from a lurking danger, or an ambush discovered, from an open attack accompanied with the noise of fire-arms they rush away at headlong speed, quite regardless of the noise they make. On one occasion a herd which I was designing to attack, and had approached to within forty yards, as its members were feeding in some thick bushes, discovered my presence and retreated so silently that they had been gone five minutes before I discovered what their sudden quietude really meant. In this instance, as in several others, the still alarm was communicated by silent signals, or sign-language.
At the Zoological Park we reared an African pygmy elephant (Elephas pumilio). When his slender little tusks grew to eighteen inches in length he made some interesting uses of them. Once when the keepers wished to lead him upon our large platform scales, the trembling of the platform frightened him. He conceived the idea that it was unsafe, and therefore that he must keep off. He backed away, halted, and refused to leave solid ground. The men pushed him. He backed, and trumpeted a shrill protest. The men pushed harder, and forced him forward. Trumpeting his wild alarm and his protest against what he regarded as murder, he fell upon his knees and drove his tusks into the earth, quite up to his mouth, to anchor himself firmly to the solid ground. It was pathetic, but also amusing. When Congo finally was pushed upon the scales and weighed, he left the trembling instrument of torture with an air of disgust and disapproval that was quite as eloquent as words. On several occasions when taken out for exercise in the park, he endeavored to hinder the return to quarters by anchoring himself to Mother Earth.
Congo once startled us by his knowledge of the usefulness of doors. For a time he was kept in a compartment that had an outside door running sidewise on a trolley track, and controlled by two hanging chains, one to close it and one to open it. Each chain had on its end a stout iron ring for a handle. One chilly morning when I went to see Congo, I asked his keeper to open his door, so that he could go out.
The keeper did so, by pulling the right hand chain. The moment the draft of chilly outer air struck Congo, who stood in the centre of his stall facing me, he impatiently wheeled about, walked up to the left hand chain, grabbed it with his trunk, slipped the ring over one of his tusks, then inclined his head downward and with an irritated tug pulled the door shut with a spiteful slam. "Open it again," I said to the keeper.
He did so, and in the same way, but with a visible increase in irritation, Congo closed it in the same manner as before. Again the keeper opened the door, and this time, with a real exhibition of temper Congo again thrust the ring over his tusk, and brought the door shut with a resounding bang. It was his regular habit to close that door, or to open it, when he felt like more air or less air; and who is there who will say that the act was due to "instinct" in a jungle-bred animal, or anything else than original thought. The ring on his tusk was his own invention, as a means to a desired end.
Every elephant that we ever have had has become, through his own initiative and experimenting, an expert in unfastening the latches of doors and gates, and in untying chains and ropes. Gunda always knew enough to attack the padlocks on his leg chains, and break them if possible. No ordinary clevis would hold him. When the pin was threaded at one end and screwed into its place, Gunda would work at it, hour by hour, until he would start it to unscrewing, and then his trunk-tip would do the rest. The only clevis that he could not open was one in which a stout cotter pin was passed through the end of the clevis-pin and strongly bent.
Through reasons emanating in his own savage brain, Gunda took strong dislikes to several of our park people. He hated Dick Richards,—the keeper of Alice. He hated a certain messenger boy, a certain laborer, a painter and Mr. Ditmars. Toward me he was tolerant, and never rushed at me to kill me, as he always did to his pet aversions. He stood in open fear of his own keeper, Walter Thuman, until he had studied out a plan to catch him off his guard and "get him." Then he launched his long-contemplated attack, and Thuman was almost killed.
Our present (1921) male African elephant, Kartoum, is not so hostile toward people, but his insatiable desire is to break and to smash all of his environment that can be bent or broken. His ingenuity in finding ways to damage doors and gates, and to bend or to break steel beams, is amazing. His greatest feat consisted in breaking squarely in two, by pushing with his head, a 90-pound steel railroad iron used as the top bar of his fence. He knows the mechanism of the latch of the ponderous steel door between his two box stalls, and nothing but a small pin that only human fingers can manipulate suffices to thwart his efforts to control the latch.
Kartoum has gone over every inch of surface of his two apartments, his doors, gates and fences, to find something that he can break or damage. The steel linings of his apartment walls, originally five feet high, we have been compelled to extend upward to a height of nine feet, to save the brick walls from being battered and disfigured. He has searched his steel fences throughout, in order to find their weakest points, and concentrate his attacks upon them. If the sharp-pointed iron spikes three inches long that are set all over his doors are perfectly solid, he respects them, but if one is the least bit loose in its socket, he works at it until he finally breaks it off.