On the mental qualities of birds, as compared with their cerebral development

4 }
Ai
yA
wf

\ Ne

ie ci
Smithsonian Institution

libra rles

» Alexander Wetmore
19406 dmwthdecretary 1953

being ph : N ae ;
Srebd iy Syelwony ) Outhoha |f

a
iO. Bo > SA,

:

\ EERARIES

"ate

has “\ frAtina adi eee" CO tarkennn / ,

« 2
hy ” : 4, R oY me Ma eh a
LMS AU. Dina, ¥ A rf, Ay, a ith Oe Mae \ i al y a,

, AA} Re } i wer? “3D e
sy Fa : ae be, ins ¢ oh Y J
je ¢ Lobears ean ESUN, FT? UY ast Ry Maken eunnleh

* iy . 3 f ;

~~

MAR 0 7 1986

192"

Pe aa if
(>. t¥r., (aie
i 4 odd liad ody ¢

,

ON

icrpmenmences

THE MENTAL QUALITIES OF

f HIRDS,-

AS. COMPARED
WITH THEIR CEREBRAL DEVELOPMENT.

LY

JOHN MACGILLIVRAY,

VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE CUVIERIAN SOCIETY.

*¢ There is not, in my opinion, anything more mysterious in nature than this in-
stinct in animals, which thus rises above reason, and falls infinitely short of it. It
cannot be accounted for by any properties in matter, and at the same time works
after so odd a manner, that one cannot think it the faculty of an intellectual being.
For my own part, I look upon it as ugon the principle of gravitation in bodies,
which is not to be explained by any known qualities inherent in the bodies them-
selves, nor from any laws of mechanism; but according to the best notions of the

greatest philosophers, is an immediate impression from the first Mover, and the

divine energy acting in the creatures.”—ADDISON. Spectator, No. 120.

eHITLIAUO LAT

—

way oultaltive alemer rat
sivisa & mom don of he:
qeteier pooner rowiran: Yo omism 91
siete zewol off? ai cozest bas sonbant ditod Yo at
agi sirgev (ev 6 ai boas esw .evewod donitent
usd le yao toa bebuloai eiew beod sid) aa
aviiqsor og auonsy isdi aeve dnd eolliegs
“x4 o sbact a nead vad aigmions ‘sonmnsde i
miscxing 1 3 Ne arly Sy, getudiiis ladon oes

ae

‘gciiog se hick
yg aead ant 26 aunt xsl

ON

THE MENTAL QUALITIES OF BIRDS,

&e.

ALL animals, with the exception of man, were formerly
supposed to act from a natural blind impulse, to which was
given the name of INsTINCT, although many admitted the
operation of both instinct and reason in the lower animals.
The term instinct, however, was used in a very vague man-
ner; for under this head were included not only all their
feelings and propensities, but even their various perceptive
powers. In this manner attempts have been made to ex-
plain the habits and mental attributes of the lower animals,
but without success, from the want of sound data. From
this state of confusion, during which no two writers agreed
in assigning even the proximate cause to any mental act,
Phrenology proposed to deliver us, and by pointing out
‘¢ the constancy of particular forms of the brain with cer-
tain affective and intellectual faculties,” to afford a satisfac-
tory clue to the explanation of the whole mystery.

70 ON THE MENTAL QUALITIES AND

“The chief peculiarity,” observes Dr. Pritchard, “ of
Dr. Gall’s psychological theory, was the attempt to draw a
parallel between the animal qualities displayed by the
lower animals, and the individual varieties discovered
among men.’* It is proposed, in the present paper, to
examine the grounds on which this theory rests, and to
investigate the relation supposed by phrenologists to exist
between the cerebral configuration of animals, and their
various instincts or mental powers, for such Gall considers
them to be.

Although it is probable that metaphysicians have erred
in considering reason and instinct as widely different from
each other, and in having separated them by so broad a
boundary as they imagine to be indicated in nature, yet
none of their number have ever considered the operations
of the brute mind ina manner, which, to appearance at
least, promised to lead to such astonishing results as we
are informed have been drawn by the aid of phrenology,
from fields so often, though unsuccéssfully explored. We
are told by a late writer on this subject, that by investigat-
ing nature by the aid of phrenology, “ we will have accu-
rate and sound physiological data, and a definite vocabu-
lary ; and we will not then be obliged to use the ambigu- _
ous term énstinct, to designate in animals all their feelings
and propensities, as well as their various perceptive
powers.”t In the present state of our knowledge of men-
tal operations, it is our duty carefully to examine the
grounds on which each new system is founded, in the
hopes that by so doing, some new light will be thrown

* Pritchard on Insanity, p. 465.
+ The Naturalist, vol.iv. p. 428.

CEREBRAL DEVELOPMENT OF BIRDS. 71

upon the dark and uninviting shadows of metaphysical re- _
search ; and when applied to a subject, which the investi-
gations of some, and the hypotheses and theories of others,
have rendered so fraught with interest both to the meta-
physician, the physiologist, and the naturalist, this observa-
tion will be found to hold good. As phrenology is pro-
fessedly a science of pure induction, and is stated by its
advocates to rest on facts, “ to deny the truth of which,’
according to one of their body, “is to put in doubt the ex-
istence of the best established phenomena,”* it behoves us
to examine the facts for ourselves, and our task thus pro-
mises to be easy, and our conclusions highly satisfactory.

_ Although the writings of Gall and Spurzheim abound in
passages relating to comparative phrenology, all, as they
imagine, illustrating the general principles of the science,
and confirming the seats of the different faculties in several
species of the lower animals, yet how little dependence is
placed upon their assertions, even by phrenologists them-
selves, is evident from such passages as the following :—
«« Spurzheim had so little studied the anatomy of the
skull of animals, as to place the organ of Courage, (Com-
bativeness), in the dog, upon the point of insertion of the
posterior muscles of the neck.”+ And in another place he
points out the same organ in the horse, exactly upon the
bone of the lower jaw, as Gall had done before him. Nor.
has the founder of phrenology himself been less fortunate
in escaping the critical acumen of Vimont, his former pu-
pil, whom we find saying, “ If Gall had only: studied the
anatomy of the skull and brain upon a dozen species, with

* See Combe’s Phrenology, p. 885, 4th edit.
+ See plate VII. of Spurzheim’s Phrenology, 3d edit.

72 ON THE MENTAL QUALITIES AND

_ whose manners he was well acquainted, he would not em-
ploy language so vague as we constantly find him using,
whenever he treats of the application of phrenology to the
skulls of animals.’* Yet these are the men who say that
‘a physiological system of the brain would necessarily be
false, were it in contradiction with its anatomical struc-
ture ;’+ and on anatomy accordingly, conjoined with phy-
siology, do they deem their system secure as on a rock,
although of that portion of their labours which alone we
are considering, viz. comparative phrenology, no less an au-
thority than Tiedemann says as follows: —“ If we take a
glance over the great work of Dr. Gall, we see prevailing
everywhere the idea that we must study the structure of
the nervous system and the brain, in rising gradually from
the most simple animals up to man. But what has Dr.
Gall really done? He has only described and represented
the nerves of a caterpillar, the brain of a hen, and the spinal
marrow of some mammalia; and yet his work is not free
from errors in this point.’’}

Since it has thus been shewn that the statements of Gall
and Spurzheim, with respect to comparative phrenology at
least, are not to be relied on, it is fortunate indeed for their
followers, that one of their number has more than compen-
sated for this original defect. I allude to Dr. Joseph Vi-
mont of Paris, by far the most scientific phrenologist of the
day, and the only one who appears to have examined phre-
nology in all its bearings, upon man as well as on the lower
animals. This gentleman, after the undivided labour of

* Vimont’s Traité de Phrenologie, p. 332.
+ Encyclopedia Britannica, p. 466.
+ See Vimont’s Prospectus, p. 9.

CEREBRAL DEVELOPMENT OF BIRDS. ao

six years, and at considerable expense, completed in 1827
his: Memoir on Comparative Phrenology, which he had un-
dertaken in order to compete for the prize offered by the
French Institute, ten years before, and the object of which
-was to obtain information on the organization of the skull
_and brain in animals.. Accompanying this essay was a col-
lection of skulls, to the number of 1200, along with many
prains modelled in wax, and an atlas of plates representing
the objects referred to.* His observations have since been
presented to the public, accompanied with figures, unrival-
led as anatomical representations, and in point of exe-
-eution, far surpassing the illustrations to most scientific
works. | : . 3
~ ,OF his labours it is impossible to speak with too much
praise ; and had he done nothing but merely correct the
innumerable errors committed by his predecessors, his name
would still rank as one of the founders of phrenology. But
he has done more :—besides giving a minute account of the
nervous system and form of the cranium, as existing through-
out the vertebrata, he has endeavoured to trace all the psy-
chological acts of the lower animals to their very source,
_and to point out upon the brain the different organs which
control ali their actions. -As he considered, and with jus-
tice, that all other writers on phrenology had. taken too
limited a view of their subject, and, in a manner, consider-
ed man alone, he brings in to his aida host of observations
_made upon the lower animals, and. throwing this reflected
light of analogy upon previously ascertained facts, is thus
enabled to confirm the conclusions he had formerly arrived

. Phrenological Journal, vol. iv. p. 150.

74 ON THE MENTAL QUALITIES AND ©

at, or, if there be any discrepancies, to consider them anew.
It is to Vimont, then, that we are indebted for almost all
that has been done in comparative phrenology ; for it does
not appear, that in his own, or in any other country, has this
interesting branch of natural history.been. so successfully
investigated; nor am I aware that any of his (original)
statements have been called in question, although this is
probably from the fact of naturalists not being sufficiently
aware of their importance.

After this shght introductory and historical sketch, it
will be proper, before proceeding farther, to point out the
chief characteristics of the brain in birds. :

Qn inspecting the brain of a bird, it may be perceived
at first sight, to be composed of six principal parts; two
hemispheres, two optic thalami, a cerebellum, and a me-
dulla oblongata. ‘The cerebrum is remarkable, on account
of the absence of convolutions on its surface; and this cir-
cumstance, together with the extraordinary development of
the optic lobes, is sufficient to distinguish rt at first sight
from that of a mammiferous animal. The cerebellum is
composed of a single lobe, corresponding to the middle lobe
in man and the other mammalia. The two bodies called the
optic lobes, or thalami, are generally considered as analogous |
to the corpora quadrigemina of animals higher in the scale.

The absence of convolutions on the brain naturally ap-
pears a startling objection to the doctrines of the phrenolo-
gists, since their science teaches us, that the different men-
tal faculties, feelings, and propensities, reside in different
conyolutions of the brain, which Vimont professes to point

out in man and quadrupeds. The conyolutions, it is true,

CEREBRAL DEVELOPMENT OF BIRDS. 75

are only the external limits of the cerebral organs, each of
which is imagined by phrenclogists to extend from the sur-
face to the very base of the brain; yet we are told repeat-
edly, that the cause of the vast intellectual superiority en-
joyed by man over the lower animals, is the large size and
prominence of the convolutions on his brain, conjoined with
the great relative magnitude of his encephalon. “ Perfec-
tion of function,” says Mr. Lawrence, “ is seen in connexion
with full development of nervous matter; deficiency, with
imperfect organization, and absolute negation of function,
with a corresponding chasm in the structure of the nervous
system; and this is true, not only of the four great divi-
sions of the animal kingdom, but is equally so in each de-
partment.”*

In accordance with the statements of phrenologists, we
would expect, in descending from quadrupeds to birds, to
find the mental faculties of the latter class developed in an
infinitely less degree than in the mammalia. But this is
not the case; for although we find the docility of the dog
and the elephant unrivalled among birds, yet, taken in
mass, we do not find the diversity in the comparative sa-
gacity of the two classes of animals at all proportionate to
the wide difference in the development of the cerebral mass.
To prove that such is not a mere supposition, let us instance
the docility of the falcon, the raven, the carrier-pigeon, and
the parrot, all of which, in complication of cerebral struc-
ture, fall far short of the most simple brain we find among
the mammalia. Is a squirrel more sagacious than a spar-

row? or does a cat shew more cunning thana magpie? Is

« See Phrenological Journal, vol. iv. p. 481.

76 ON THE MENTAL QUALITIES AND ,

the migratory instinct of the swallow less wonderful than
that of the lemming or the rein-deer? It is familiar to all,
that the lapwing, the plover, and many other birds, will
feign lameness in order to draw away an intruder from the
neighbourhood of their nests; and the conduct of the
hooded crow, in obtaining food from the larger shell-fish,
by dropping them upon the ground from a great height,
appears to be perfectly rational. Indeed every ornitholo-
gical work abounds with passages relating occurrences of a
similar nature; but the above illustrations are sufficient to
shew, that birds are in nowise behind the mammalia (man,
and two or three others, being alone excepted) in the ex-
tent to which their reasoning powers, or instinct, if this
term be preferred, are developed. Yet, by the phrenolo-
gical doctrine, we ought to regard them a priori as almost
devoid of mental qualities, on account of the extreme struc-

tural simplicity of their brain.

It is necessary, according to phrenologists, before pro-
ceeding to compare mental faculties with cerebral develop-
ment, to be satisfied, “ Ist, that the mental qualities of in-
dividuals can be discovered ; and, 2dly, that the size of
the brain can be ascertained during life.’”’*

That these two conditions, originally intended to apply:
to human phrenology, are equally applicable to that branch
of the science which treats of the faculties and cerebral de-
velopment of the lower animals, phrenologists have endea-
voured to prove. The rule, that the indzvidual qualities of

each animal must be known, appears at first sight almost

* Combe’s System of Phrenology, vol. 1. p. 85.

CEREBRAL DEVELOPMENT OF BIRDS. a7

impracticable, or at least. very difficult to fulfil, unless each
individual animal to be examined had been brought up in
captivity, and thus, being constantly open to observation,
its mental qualities had become accurately known. But
phrenologists themselves admit, that “it must have struck
every observer, that the differences of mental character are
met with to a much greater extent, and with much greater
frequency, among man, than among the individuals of any
species of the lower animals.”* The natural dispositions
of all birds, in the state of nature at least, are as nearly as
possible similar among all the individuals of each species ;
and even phrenologists themselves tacitly admit the fact
when they say, for example, that such and such an organ
will be found largely developed in the sparrow or the crow,
thereby esteeming a// sparrows and all crows as of a simi-
lar nature. The difference in this respect becomes still
more apparent, when we think how ludicrous it would be
to talk of wit, philoprogenitiveness, or any other organ,
being largely developed in man, that is, in the whole genus
Homo.

Having thus got over the first condition, we are now
prepared to consider the second, or whether the size of the
brain can be discovered during life, or rather, as applied to
the lower animals, after death; for, while with birds it is
within the reach of every one to observe their habits, and
after so doing, to kill the animal and examine its brain, a
similar proceeding with regard to our own species could be
practised only by a few men of science, as the czar of Rus-
sia, and the Turkish sultan. As it is inconvenient in all

* Combe’s System of Phrenology, vol. i. p. 85.

718 ON THE MENTAL QUALITIES AND

cases to examine the brain itself, it is obviously of great
importance, that the size, configuration, and relative pro-
portion of that organ, can be detected by an inspection of
the cranium alone. Phrenologists, accordingly, have la-
boured to prove that such is the case, with what success we
shall presently see. :

On making a section of the cranium of a bird, several
distinct cavities are seen on its internal surface. The.largest
and most important of these is that for lodging the cere-
brum, or brain proper, and is divided in the mesial line by
a slight bony elevation, defining the boundaries of each
themisphere. There are, besides, lower down and slightly
posterior, two cavities of smaller size, for the reception of
the optic lobes ; and beneath them is situated a well maxked
cavity, in which is contained the cerebellum. Besides these
principal cavities, of which that for lodging the cerebrum
is by far the largest, there are two others of smaller size at
the base of the skull, the one for the reception of the me-
dulla oblongata, the other, analogous to the sella turcica,
in man, for containing the pineal gland. These depres-
sions are more obvious in some classes of birds than in
others. Thus, in two sectioned skulls of the hen-harrier,
(a bird of prey), lying before me, the boundaries of each of
the cavities I have just mentioned are much more distinct
than in the skulls of two magpies similarly treated. Inthe
latter, for example, there is scarcely any boundary between
the cavity for the cerebrum and those for the optic lobes,
far less is there the projecting bony ridge to be seen in the
crania of rapacious birds in general.

On the external surface of the cranium of birds, we see

none of those small elevations and depressions so frequent

CEREBRAL DEVELOPMENT OF BIRDS. 79

in the skulls of man and the mammalia, but, on the con-
trary, any rising or falling on the surface is gradual, and
includes within its boundaries several, nay, even ten, a
dozen, or more, phrenological organs, so that it is utterly
impossible to point out whether any particular organ is or
is not well developed. Thus, in a skull now before me,
that of the ivory-billed woodpecker, I am unable to point
out a single elevation or depression upon that part of the
cranium covering the brain proper; therefore the only
phrenological alternative* (the brain being relatively of
large size), is, that the propensities and faculties are en-
joyed by this bird in the highest degree. We are told,
that “ size is clearly a concomitant of power in extreme
cases ;"T that “‘ individuals with a very large brain mani-
fest, clearly and unequivocally, great force of character ;’’}
and since, of all crania in my possession, that of the tom-tit
(Parus major) is proportionately larger than that of any
other bird with which I am acquainted, this little creature
vught to be “‘ daring, desperate, and energetic,” or else pos-
sessed of “ strength, (of mind), energy, and determina-
tion;” as far exceeding the whole feathered tribe in all its
faculties, as it does in cerebral organization. A phrenolo-
gist, no doubt, would reply to this, that size alone is not
sufficient ; it only gives power, and not activity; that there
is not the same fineness of texture, and delicacy of fibre,
which we find in the human brain, and which is essential

before a faculty can be manifested in a high degree through

* “ General full development, however great, will present no
partial eminences.”-Combe’s System of Phrenology, p. 214.

+ Combe’s System of Phrenology, vol. ii. p. 688.

+ Ibid. p. 687.

80 ON THE MENTAL QUALITIES AND

its peculiar organ ; to all which it might be answered thus—
you state that the brain of birds is not so complicated as
that of man, and by your own principles, function ought to
be ina corresponding ratio; but take an individual organ,
constructiveness for instance, and though we have no rea-
son to suppose that this particular organ is of a more deli-
cate texture than any other part of the same brain, yet,
may I ask, did you ever see, or can you anywhere find, a
man, who, with constructiveness ever so well developed,
could form out of the same materials used by a little bird,
a nest like that of the goldfinch, still less the pensile nests
of the grosbeaks and orioles? No! the cleverest artisan,
the most profound mechanical genius, would be baffled in
the attempt, and thus afford a proof, that in some respects
the ingenuity of man, sedulously cultivated, and matured
by experience, is no match for the workings of an untaught
instinct, implanted by Nature in those animals whom we
have taught ourselves to regard as cur inferiors.

It would be easy to point out many instances where
the outside of the cranium does not indicate any promi-
nence or depression upon the brain beneath. I shall ad-
duce only one, to be met with in the skull of the duck, and
many other birds. On the superior surface of the brain,
there are two elongated, parallel eminences, of great size,
strongly marking the internal surface of the cranium, which,
however, are not indicated externally. But why adduce
instances? An observer, by comparing the brain and skull
of any bird whatever, may verify the truth of my state-
ment. |

It is evident that phrenologists, in order to support their
ill constructed edifice, must lay down organs upon the brain

CEREBRAL DEVELOPMENT OF BIRDS. 81

of birds, b&cause they manifest at least as much intelligence
as quadrupeds, the structure of whose brain is nearly simi-
lar to that of man himself, and consequently its functions,
if not identical, at least analogous. Gall and Spurzheim,
accordingly, endeavoured to do so, but with what success
I have already shewn ; and the investigations of Vimont
alone are to be held as orthodox, and alone are worthy of
serious consideration.

- Vimont has assigned seats upon the brain of birds to
many of the mental faculties formerly considered as proper
to man, and in his atlas figures the skull of a crow, upon
which are indicated no less than twenty-eight different or-
gans, analogues of the forty-two into which he has parcel-
led the human mind. These, he states, have all been de-
termined by his own observation to be the seats of as many
different faculties ; for we are told, that “‘ phrenologists ad-
mit neither fewer, nor a greater number of faculties than
they find in nature.”*

Let us see how the seats of the faculties are determined
by phrenologists. This appears at first sight an easy task.
All that seems necessary, is to ascertain the parts of the
brain of birds which are analogous to those of the human
cerebrum, on which latter the organs have been already
determined. But many difficulties le in our way; the
absence of convolutions is one, and the principal one. The
brain of a bird, as already noticed, appears smooth and
uniform in its surface, and no marks are visible by which
to divide it into lobes, or even point out any individual
part which corresponds to a given point on the brain of the

* Combe’s System of Phrenology, p. 779.

82 ON THE MENTAL QUALITIES AND

mammalia.* What then is to be done? The ¢ffestion na-
turally follows, is it a brain at all? or, if it be, how are we
to parcel it out into different organs? The phrenologists
say, “ by observation.” As a fair specimen of their man-
ner of observing, I shall adduce Vimont’s reasons for sup- -
posing that the organ of Time occupies a particular part of
the brain of a crow which he specifies. The first is, be-
cause the function of the part in question has not yet been
determined ; the second, because certain organs being ad-
jacent, and forming groups, it is natural that the situation
of Time should be close to those of Resistance, Order, and
Distance; his third reason is, because this region is very
prominent in the crow, which is gifted in a remarkable de-
gree with the faculty of appreciating time ; and his fourth
is, because he has found this organ very prominent in all
birds of passage.

Having thus ascertained the seat of each organ in a given
individual, by the aid of such specious reasoning as I have
adduced, the next point is to determine it in others. One
would think, that the function residing in any given part
of the brain of a crow, for example, would likewise be
found in the corresponding part of the brain of an eagle, a
hen, or indeed any other bird. But this, according to
phrenology, is not the proper mode of inquiry, as may be
seen by the following quotation: ‘“ Because in man, and
in the dog. and carnivorous animals in general, Destruc-
tiveness is discovered by observation to lie above the
meatus auditorius, it does not fellow that the portion of

* I speak here of the brain proper, apart from its aprendages and
connexions.

+ Traité de Phrenolegie, p. 376.

CEREBRAL DEVELOPMENT OF BIRDS. 83

brain lying above the meatus in animals of different species,
which are not carnivorous, must have the same function.’’*

What I would maintain is simply this; that when the
seats of the individual faculties have been determined in
one species of bird, there ought to be no difficulty in de-
termining them in all other birds which have the same
number of cerebral parts. But this, the only rational mode
of examination, it is evident, would not suit the advocates
of phrenology ; for by elucidating the truth, and that alone,
a theory, which, like theirs, is founded upon particular,
and not upon universal facts, falls at once to the ground. It
would appear, that, in order to determine the seats of the
different faculties, a series of observations must be made
on each species, or even upon different individuals of that
species. How is it, may I ask, that while the situation of
Destructiveness is admitted to be exactly the same in all
birds without exception,t that of its neighbour, Combative-
ness, should be differently situated in the hen from what it
is In rapacious and other birds? It requires no great pene-
tration to assign the cause of all this. Combativeness being
a prominent propensity in rapacious birds, it is very easy
to fix upon some protuberance on their cranium under
which to localise it; and if, on comparing the skull of a
non-combatant in the same situation, the phrenologist
should find, instead of a depression, a bump there also, a
very little stretch of the imagination is all that is required
to transfer the faculty in question to the first remarkable
depression in the immediate neighbourhood, and then con-
sider this marvellous induction as complete.

* Phrenological Journal, vol. i. p. 222.
+ Vimont’s Traité de Phrenologie, p. 290.

84 ON THE MENTAL QUALITIES AND

The utter fallacy of the phrenological doctrines, as ap-
plied to the explanation of the psychological acts of ani-
mals, is no less apparent than real. Phrenologists main-
tain, as is well known, that the same profound mechanical
genius which enabled Archimedes to destroy the Roman
fleet, and which prompted the ancient Kgyptians to rear up
those massy edifices which will endure to the end of time,
is no less called into daily operation by the bee in the con-
struction of its little cell; as if the impelling cause were
identical, and this tiny insect had studied the exact sciences,
and was guided in its building operations by pure reason ;
the only conclusion to be drawn if we admit of the phreno-
logical explanation. If we consider instinct as a natural
impulse to certain actions, common to all the individuals of
a species; which is neither improved nor deteriorated by
experience, being perfect from the beginning ; and yet deny,
as phrenologists profess to do, that it is by this that the bird
builds its nest and the bee its cell, a reductio ad absurdum
is furnished, as complete as could be wished.

Let us now examine in detail a few of the phrenological
faculties, as existing in birds; and I cannot do better than
devote the remainder of the present paper to this part of
our subject, bearing in mind, that there are generally two |
sides to every question, and clearly so in the present, de-
spite of the ominous silence which phrenologists have
hitherto observed towards all that militates against them.
I shall commence with Philoprogenitiveness.

With a few exceptions, all birds manifest more or less
attachment to their ofispring ; and according to phrenology,
this is to be attributed to the degree in which the organ of

CEREBRAL DEVELOPMENT OF BIRDS. 85

Philoprogenitiveness is developed in each species. The
apparently unnatural conduct of the European cuckow,
— (Cuculus canorus ), in leaving to another bird the maternal
duty of bringing up its own offspring, has not escaped the
attention of naturalists. In the writings of Pliny, and even
of Aristotle, this circumstance is mentioned as one of ‘the
most curlous anomalies we meet with in nature; and al-
though the fact has often been doubted, yet modern writers,
as J enner, Montagu, and others, have completely establish-
ed its truth. Vaillant, during his travels in Southern
Africa, met with another species of cuckow, (C. auratus),
which acts in a similar manner; and ‘’emminck, in his
Manuel d Ornithologie, expressly states, that the genuine
cuckows, by some means not yet positively ascertained,
deposit their eggs in the nests of different species of small
birds. We thus find. it established by the highest autho-
rity, that some species of birds do not seem to possess the
faculty of philoprogenitiveness; and in order to account
for this strange deficiency, Gall has stated, that the organ
is “ extremely defective” in the European cuckow, the only
one he had an opportunity of examining. However, as
the situation which he assigned to the organ in question,
though strictly analogous to its site in man, is deemed by
Vimont to be occupied by another organ, we shall consider
the faculty as residing in the cerebral portion pointed out
by the latter author. It is easy to perceive an evident de-
pression on each side, at the lateral and posterior regions
of the cranium ; and thus far the habits of the bird and its
phrenological development appear to coincide. I say ap-
pear only, for if we proceed a step farther in our investiga-
tion, a curious fact will be brought to light.

86 ON THE MENTAL QUALITIES AND

The three species of cuckows which inhabit North Ame-
rica, far from imitating the conduct of their brethren in the
Old World, are known each to build its own nest, hatch
its own eggs, and rear its own young; while, in conjugal
and parental affection, they are said by Wilson to appear -
nowise behind any of their neighbours of the grove. Nay,
so far is this from being the case, that there is an instance
mentioned by Audubon, in his Ornithological Biography,
of eleven young cuckows having been hatched and reared
in one season by a single pair of old birds. Thus we have
every reason to believe, that the American cuckows mani-
fest at least as much affection for their young as most other
birds do; and by the phrenological doctrine, they ought to —
have the organ of Philoprogenitiveness, if not of large size,
yet fully developed. But such is not the case; for on com-
paring the skulls of two of the cuckows above mentioned,
the Coccyzus Americanus, or yellow-billed cuckow, and the
C. erythrophthalmus, or black-billed cuckow, both of which
are in our possession, with the European cuckow ( Cuculus
canorus), the deficiency at the situation of Philoprogeni-
tiveness is seen to be common to all three, and if possible,
is most conspicuous in the C. Americanus, which rears its
own young.

It may be objected to the above, that the three birds
compared do not belong to the same genus, to which @
would reply as follows: Although by modern ornitholo-
gists, with whom a few trifling differences in the integu-
ments are sufficient to characterize genera, the birds in
question are divided, yet their generic distinctions are
founded merely on a slight difference in the form of the
bill, and the shape of the nostrils, while the general con-

CEREBRAL DEVELOPMENT OF BIRDS. 87

figuration of the cranium, and consequently of the whole
body, is nearly similar. Besides, Vimont, when tt suits his
purpose, does not hesitate to compare birds widely sepa-
rated from each other,* although he himself at another time,
insists on the necessity of their belonging to the same family,
or even genus, in order to render them legitimate objects
of phrenological comparison; and if Vimont follows this
double mode of inquiry, why should not also his opponents
be entitled to use the same weapons as himself ?

That extraordinary impulse, or instinct, which impels
certain birds to migrate at definite periods, though at all
times the wonder of naturalists and philosophers, as fur-
nishing an ample field of interesting inquiry, still remains
as Inysterious as ever. How a little bird like the swallow,
should come from some unknown region of the “ sunny
south,” a distance of thousands of miles, and, with unde-
viating accuracy, return to the land which gave it birth,
nay, even the very spot where it was hatched the preced-
ing year, and perform all this migration anew during every
succeeding year of its existence, has ever been reckoned
one of the mysteries of nature.

Phrenology professes to account for the migration of birds
en rational principles ; for Dr. Gall traced it to a periodical
excitement of the organ of Locality, which he maintains is
very large in all migratory birds. Vimont even professes
to be able to point out, a priori, a migratory from a resident
bird, by the configuration of its cranium; and he tells us

* Traite de hrenologic. p. 804, where he compares the skull of a
hen with that of a buzzard, birds as widely separated as possible.
+ [bid p. 261.

88 ON THE MENTAL QUALITIES AND

that he actually did so, at a meeting of the French Insti-
tute, and in the presence of Majendie. Vimont states,
that he has discovered, in birds of passage, other two facul-
ties besides Locality, termed by him distance and resist-
ance,* which, in his estimation, act ‘a prominent part in
impelling them towards migration. The first of these, he
says, gives a knowledge of the space travelled over; the
other, in all probability, enables them to appreciate the di-
rection of the winds He considers that Gall has not been
at the trouble of studying with any degree of care the man-
ners of migratory birds, or he would have attributed more
weight to inclemency of the weather as an impelling cause ;
‘‘ for,” says he, “ the more severe the season is, the greater
is the number of individuals of the same species which go
south ward.”

Dr. Vimont states, that the faculty known to phrenolo-
gists by the name of Locality is found in all animals,
though it differs in degree ; and to this diversity are we to
attribute the remarkable phenomenon of birds returning with
accuracy to the same spot, after an absence of five or six
months. At the same time, Vimont considers this as not
the sole cause of migration; inclemency of climate, and
other causes little known, contribute to effect the same
end; and he thinks that another faculty, besides Locality, ©
Distance, and Resistance, namely, that of Time, is also
concerned in migration. The last-mentioned organ may be
confounded with Philoprogenitiveness ; and observers: are
liable to fall into this error, which, however, is trifling,
compared with that committed by Gall, when he laid down

+ The organs of these two faculties appear to be analogous to
No. 25, or Weight, of the Edinburgh Phrenologists.

CEREBRAL DEVELOPMENT OF BIRDS. &9

in his atlas, upon the skull of a mallard, the organ of Lo-
cality, as occupying the whole extent of the frontal bone,
the seat of, according to Vimont, at least seven or eight
distinct organs.

Vimont next proceeds to apply his doctrines as follows:
The frontal bone of birds, says he, may present two very
different characters in its anterior and external portion, or
that which forms an arch over the orbits; it may either be
depressed and flattened, or else present a considerable de-
gree of swelling, The first arrangement is seen in the
raven, magpie, cuckow, the swift, and the different species
of herons. - In ducks, again, wild-geese, and swans, the
orbitar border is rounded and swelled, as if pushed out
from within. In all those species of the above which have
the orbitar border, we are to look for the organ of Locality
further back. It is easy to see, he continues, that this part
is sensibly prominent on the skull of the swallow, the swift,
the cuckow, and indeed of all summer birds of passage.
In several winter visitants, again, as all the geese and
ducks, the orbitar border is rounded and arched. This
- conformation Vimont considers to be owing to the large
size of the organ of Geometry, because these birds fly in
triangles. This organ is large also in the grebes, curlews,
and godwits. None of the summer birds, again, have this
arrangement.

Such, then, is the body of facts on which Vimont trium-
phantly rests his theory of the migration of birds. Buta
very few words will suffice to expose the fallacy of his mode
of inquiry, and to point out the opposite results to which
another person may come, who has no favourite hypothesis

$0 ON THE MENTAL QUALITIES AND

to support, and through the medium of which to view na-
ture.

A simple mode of testing its merits is as follows: Take
a genus of birds, consisting of species which migrate, and
of others which are resident. The thrushes form a genus
of this kind, and of upwards of a dozen species in my col-
lection, I shall select the skulls of four, the fieldfare
(Turdus pilaris ), the redwing ( T.iliacus), the blackbird
(T. Merula), and the song-thrush (T. musicus ), the two
former of which are migratory, and the two latter resident
birds. On comparing the cranium of the blackbird in its
anterior and lateral region, the seats of Locality, Distance,
Resistance, and ‘Time, with the corresponding situations in
the skull of the fieldfare, the region im question will be at
once perceived to be sensibly more developed in the former
than in the latter bird, the reverse of what phrenologists
affirm to be the case. The skull of the song-thrush, in like
manner, is decidedly fuller in the same region than that of
the redwing. That there is no fallacy in these observations
of ours, it is within the reach of every one to satisfy him-
self; for all the birds mentioned may be easily procured,
and their skulls compared with each other.

Nor are similar instances to the above of rare occurrence.
On examining the skull of the ring-dove ( Columba Palum-
bus) with that of the migratory pigeon (C. migratoria ),
we do not find any difference in the development of the
four organs which give the migratory impulse, sufficient to
account for the immense difference in the habits of the two
birds. The one resides with us the whole year round, while
the extraordinary migrations of the latter have been long
known to naturalists.

CEREBRAL DEVELOPMENT OF BIRDS. QO}

Let us take a third instance of birds nearly allied, which
manifest differences in their migratory propensities. The
robin (Erythacus Rubecula) and the wheatear ( Saxicola
Ginanthe) have skulls as nearly as possible similar to each
other. The former, however, as is well known, remains
with us during the whole year, while the latter departs in
autumn, and returns in spring. Do we find this indicated
by the form of the cranium or the shape of the brain, as
the phrenologists try to persuade us is the case? Assuredly
not. The form of the skull is exactly similar at the situa-
tion of the organs in question.

The peregrine falcon ( Falco peregrinxus), as its name de-
notes, is remarkable for its wandering disposition ; though
by no means a migratory bird, yet it has been found at sea
midway between this country and the New World ;* and
an individual which escaped from confinement at Fountain-
bleau, was found next day at Malta, a distance of 1350
miles.t The organ of Locality, then, ought to be very large
in this species, as one of its attributes is the propensity to
wander. But this is very far from being the case; it is
even smaller (relatively) than in the kestrel (F. Tinnuncu-
lus), which is a stationary bird. A migratory species} of
the same genus, the pigeon hawk of North America, (F: co-
lumbarius), has a development exactly similar to that of
our kestrel, although the difference in habits is immense.

I had occasion shortly to allude to the wandering pro-
pensities of the percgrine falcon, but there are other birds

which show the same tendency in a still greater degree.

* Audubon’s Ornithological Biography, vol. i. p. 88.
+ Montagu’s Ornithological Dictionary by Rennie, p. 183.
+ Auduhbon’s Synopsis, p. 16,

92 ON THE MENTAL QUALITIES AND

Among the skulls now lying before me, are those of the
frigate-bird (Tachypetes Ajuilus), the shearwater (Ithyn-
chops nigra), the albatross (Diomedea exulans), and the
stormy petrel (T'halassidroma pelagica). These are all,
especially the two latter, remarkable for their disposition to
wander. Thus the albatross, a sacred bird to all who
would fondly associate it with the tale of ‘“‘ The Ancient
Mariner,” has been known to follow vessels for days and
even weeks, to pick up whatever food may be thrown
overboard, though hundreds of miles from any known
Jand, on which to rest it after its weary flight. These all
should have the organ of Locality of large size, which is far
from being the case ; for, on comparing the albatross, for in-
stance, with the cranium of any large gull, which it resem-
bles remarkably, there is no striking difference in the de-
velopment of that organ, which, phrenologists allege, gives
the propensity to wander.
In attempting to answer the query thus beautifully
rendered,—
“¢ Who bade the stork, Columbus-like, explore,

Heavens not his own, and worlds unknown before ;

Who calls the council, states the certain day,

Who forms the phalanx, and who points the way ?’*
the phrenologist has signally failed. Instead of tracing this
wonderful instinct to its Maker, in the vain wish to unravel
the mysteries of nature, man forgets that there are bounds
to human understanding, and that in our present defective
state of knowledge, all speculation is useless when applied
to a subject lying far beyond the cognizance of our senses,
and which will probably for ever remain unknown.

* Pope’s Essay on Man,

CEREBRAL DEVELOPMENT OF BIRDS. 93

It is a matter of surprise that phrenologists have not dis-
covered greater differences between birds possessed of the
musical faculty. and those devoid of it. Vimont mentions,
as the result of his anatomical researches, that the differ-
ence of organization between the brain and skull of birds
which sing, and those which do not, is not appreciable ex-
cept in the different individuals of a species, or the mem-
bers of the same genus.* :

After pointing out the absurdities of Gall, in laying
down this organ, so that by the test he has given, the dif-
ferent families of ducks, geese, and swans (especially the
last),t ought to be largely endowed with musical talent,
Vimont localises the organ in question in a spot imme-
diately behind the centre of the posterior orbitar border.t
He gives figures of two species of grosbeak (Pitylus and
Coccothraustes), and the organ of Tune is large in the one
which sings, and small in that which is not musical.

The manner in which Vimont hurries over his con-
sideration of this organ, leads one to suspect that he has
at length found a faculty and organ at variance with
each other, and is apprehensive of exposing the hollow
foundations of his system, should he proceed farther.

* Traité de Phrenologie, p. 399.

+ Perhaps Plato, Aristotle, and Ovid are in the right when they
talk of the musical notes of the dying swan; although the less cre-
dulous authors of modern times seem as sceptical on this point as
Sir T. Brown, who in his ‘* Vulgar Errors’ quaintly enough insinu-
ates, *‘ Surely he that is bit by the tarantula, shail never be cured
by this kind of musick ; in like hopes, we expect to hear of the har-
mony of the spheres.” Or it may be that the swans of our own de-
generate days have lost the art of singing possessed by their ances-
tors of the Cayster, and other classic waters, while nature, when

she deprived them of the faculty of tune, has left the Gump behind.
+ Traité de Phrenologie. p. 399.

94 ON THE MENTAL QUALITIES AND

These suspicions are verified by an inspection of nature ;
for, on comparing the skull of the sparrow (fringilla
domestica), with that of the canary (F. canaria), it will
be perceived that the musical organ is much better de-
veloped in the former than in the latter. I have before me
specimens of both ; the canary, an old male, was remark-
able for its singing talents, while the other, also a male, was
as unmusical as sparrows usually are. We must then. if
we place any faith in phrenology, immediately elevate the
sparrow to the rank of a songster, for although it cannot
sing, the large size of Tune giving only power, not ac-
tivity, yet no doubt by proper training and a strictly
moral and intellectual education, with a view to develope
its natural capabilities, it would eventually eclipse all its
compeers.

According to phrenology, the merits of the far-famed
mocking-bird of North America ( Turdus polyglottus),; have
been grossly exaggerated ; our own blackbird (7. Merula),
ought far to surpass it in melody ; for on comparing skulls
of these two birds now before me, I find the cerebral de-
velopment of the latter to indicate greater musical talent
than is possessed by the more celebrated songster of the
western woods and prairies.

The organ is large in the sandpipers and godwits ( Tota-
nus, Tringa, and Limosa), whose harsh cries must hence-
forth be deemed musical, although usually composed of a
single note. Several specics of owls, of the genera Strix
and Surnia for instance, have the organ im question well
developed, and consequentiy ought to sing, and not hoot,
as they have hitherto done. The partridge (Perdax c nerea),

and the sparrow-hawk ( Accipiter Nisus), are similarly pro-

CEREBRAL DEVELGPMENT OF BIRDS. 95

vided with this organ, although the faculty has never been
shown by either of these species.

More illustrations might be adduced in favour of the view
I have been advocating, but the above will, I trust, suffice
to show how litile faith can Le placed in the attempt of
phrenologists to assign “ a local habitation and a name”
to any of the mental faculties or instincts manifested by
birds. I could with pleasure dwell longer on this subject,
were my limits not far too circumscribed to enable me to
develope my views, which, however, I trust, will shortly be
presented to the public through another medium.

The above short analysis of the doctrines of comparative
phrenology, may be perceived to be a mere sketch, my
object having been simply to direct the attention of my
- fellow-students to the futility of all attempts to explain the
psychological acts of birds, and indeed of all the lower
animals, by means of a system so completely at variance
with nature herself, and the little we do know of the
operations of the brute mind. I have throughout care-
fully avoided touching on human phrenology, properly
so called, the inconsistency and consequent absurdity of
which have been pointed out by abler hands:* my sole
endeavour has been to take up that part of its doctrines
which treats of the instincts of birds, a subject, which,
though fraught with interest, has hitherto been neglected.
If there be not that lucid arrangement in the present paper,
so much to be desired in all philosophical investigations, I

* T allude particularly to the admirable Treatise on Phrenolegy,
in the Encyclopedia Britannica, by Dr. Roget.

96 ON THE MENTAL QUALITIES, &c.

consider the nature of my subject a sufficient excuse.
Phrenology is nol inductive ; the evidence on which it rests
is not cumulative, but disjunctive, and consequently all its
propositions must be combated individually.

I have shown that the term 1NsT1INncT has been grossly
misunderstood by phrenologists,—that all attempts to show
an analogy between cerebral development and mental qua-
lities have proved unsuccessful when applied to birds,—that
it is impossible to detect minute differences in the form of
the brain, by outward inspection of the cranium,—that the
absence of convolutions militates against the doctrines of
phrenology,—and that in a clamorous appeal to nature her-
self, as a last and unfailing resource, its dogmas are seen
by every unprejudiced person to vanish before the meri-
dian splendour of truth itself, at whose touch all false rea-
soning, and hypothetical conclusion, are resolved into

their original constituents,—prejudice and error.

[In order to satisfy the reader that the observations which serve
as the basis of the preceding remarks have not been derived from the
examination of a few species only, I may state that my collection
of skulls of birds (commenced in the autumn of 1838 for phrenolo-
gical purposes) already consists of specimens of 239 species, belong-
ing to 115 genera, and contains representatives of the principal fa-
milies of that class of animals :—all which specimens have been com-
pared with each other, in connexion with the known habits of the

birds, before I ventured to draw the conclusions stated in this paper. ]

“at

Me

NLU

3 9088 00026

HSONIAN INSTITUTION LIBRARIES