Animal Intelligence Part 3

[Ill.u.s.tration: Fig. 1.]

As further evidence showing how much more ants depend upon scent than upon sight in finding their way, the following experiment may be quoted.

In the accompanying woodcut (Fig. 2) the line marked 1, 2, 3 represents the edge of a paper bridge leading to the nest; A the top of a pencil which is standing perpendicularly upon a board, represented by the general black surface; B the top of the same pencil when moved a distance of a few inches from its first position A. On the top of this pencil were placed some pupae. Sir John Lubbock, after contriving this arrangement, marked an ant and put it upon the pupae on the top of the pencil. After she had made two journeys carrying pupae from the pencil to the nest (the tracks she pursued being represented by the two thick white lines), while she was in the nest he moved the pencil to its position at B. The thin white line represents the course then pursued by the ant in its endeavours to find the pencil, which was s.h.i.+fted only a few inches from A to B. That is, 'the ants on their journey to the s.h.i.+fted object travelled very often backwards and forwards and round the spot where the coveted object first stood. Then they would retrace their steps towards the nest, wander hither and thither from side to side between the nest and the point A, and only after very repeated efforts around the original site of the larvae reach, as it were, accidentally the object desired at B.' Therefore the ants were clearly not guided by the _sight_ of the pencil.

[Ill.u.s.tration: Fig. 2.]

[Ill.u.s.tration: Fig. 3.]

[Ill.u.s.tration: Fig. 4.]

[Ill.u.s.tration: Fig. 5.]

The same thing is well shown by another form of experiment. 'Some food was placed at the point _a_ (Figs. 3 and 4) on a board measuring 20 inches by 12 inches, and so arranged that the ants in going straight from it to the nest would reach the board at the point _b_, and after pa.s.sing under the paper tunnel _c_, would proceed between five pairs of wooden bricks, each 3 inches in length and 1-3/4 inches in height. When they got to know their way they went quite straight along the line _d e_ to _a_. The board was then twisted as shown in Fig. 4. 'The bricks and tunnel being arranged exactly in the same direction as before, but the board having been moved, the line _d e_ was now outside them. The change, however, did not at all discompose the ants; but instead of going, as before, through the tunnel and between the rows of bricks to _a_, they walked exactly along the old path to _e_.' Keeping the board steady, but moving the brick pathway to the left-hand corner of the board where the food was next placed (Fig. 5), had the effect of making the ant first go to the old position of the food at _a_, whence it veered to a new position, which we may call _x_. The bricks and food were then moved towards the right-hand corner of the board--_i.e._ over a distance of 8 inches (Fig. 6). The ant now first went to _a_, then to _x_, and not finding the food at either place, set to work to look for it at random, and was only successful after twenty-five minutes'

wandering.

[Ill.u.s.tration: Fig. 6.]

And, as evidence how much more dependence they place upon scent in finding their way than upon any other of their faculties, it is desirable to quote yet one further experiment, which is of great interest as showing that when their sense of smell is made to contradict their sense of direction, they follow the former, notwithstanding, as we shall presently see, the wonderful accuracy of the information which is supplied to them by the latter. 'If, when _F. niger_ were carrying off larvae placed in a cup on a piece of board, I turned the board round so that the side which had been turned towards the nest was away from it, and _vice versa_, the ants always returned over the same track on the board, and, in consequence, directly away from home. If I moved my board to the other side of my artificial nest, the result was the same.

Evidently they followed the road, not the direction.'

There can be little doubt that ants have a sense of taste, as they are so well able to distinguish sugary substances; and it is unquestionable that in their antennae they possess highly elaborated organs of touch.

_Sense of Direction._

As evidence of the accuracy and importance of the sense of direction in the Hymenoptera, we must here adduce Sir John Lubbock's highly interesting experiments on ants--leaving his experiments in this connection on bees and wasps to be considered in the next chapter. He first accustomed some ants (_Lasius niger_) to go to and fro to food over a wooden bridge. When they had got quite accustomed to the way, he watched when an ant was upon a bridge which could be rotated, and while she was pa.s.sing along it, he turned it round, so that end _b_ was at _c_, and _c_ at _b_. 'In most cases the ant immediately turned round also; but even if she went on to _b_ or _c_, as the case might be, as soon as she came to the end of the bridge she turned round.' Next, between the nest and the food he placed a hat-box twelve inches in diameter and seven inches high, cutting two small holes, so that the ants in pa.s.sing from the nest to the food had to pa.s.s in at one hole and out at the other. The box was fixed upon a central pivot, so as to admit of being rotated easily without much friction or disturbance. When the ants had well learnt their way, the box was turned half round as soon as an ant had entered it, 'but in every case the ant turned too, thus retaining her direction.' Lastly, Sir John took a disk of white paper, which he placed in the stead of the hat-box between the nest and the food. When an ant was on the disk making towards the food, he gently drew the disk to the other side of the food, so that the ant was conveyed by the moving surface in the same direction as that in which she was going, but _beyond_ the point to which she intended to go. Under these circ.u.mstances 'the ant did not turn round, but went on' to the further edge of the disk, when she seemed 'a good deal surprised at finding where she was.'

These experiments seem to show that the mysterious 'sense of direction,'

and consequent faculty of 'homing,' are in ants, at all events, due to a process of registering, and, where desirable, immediately counteracting any change of direction, even when such change is gently made by a wholly closed chamber in which the animal is moving, and not by any muscular movements of the animal itself. And the fact that drawing the moving surface along in the same direction of advance as that which the insect is pursuing does not affect the movements of the latter, seems conclusively to show that the power of registration has reference only to _lateral_ movements of the travelling surface; it has no reference to variations in the _velocity_ of advance along the line in which the animal is progressing.[19]

_Powers of Memory._

Little need here be said to prove that ants display some powers of memory; for many of the observations and experiments already detailed const.i.tute a sufficient demonstration of the statement that they do.

Thus, for instance, the general fact that whenever an ant finds her way to a store of food or larvae, she will return to it again and again in a more or less direct line from her nest, const.i.tutes ample proof that the ant remembers the way to the store. It is of considerable interest, however, to note that the nature of this insect-memory appears to be, as far as it goes, precisely identical with that of memory in general.

Thus, a new fact becomes _impressed_ upon their memory by _repet.i.tion_, and the impression is liable to become effaced by lapse of time. More evidence on both these features of insect-memory will be adduced when we come to treat of the intelligence of bees; but meanwhile it is enough to refer to the fact that in his experiments on ants, Sir John Lubbock found it necessary to _teach_ the insects by a repet.i.tion of several lessons their way to treasure, if that way was long or unusual.

With regard to the _duration_ of memory, it does not appear that any experiments have been made; but the following observation by Mr. Belt on this point in the case of the leaf-cutting ant may here be stated. In June 1859 he found his garden invaded by these ants, and following up their paths he found their nest about a hundred yards distant. He poured down their burrows a pint of common brown carbolic acid, mixed with four buckets of water. The marauding parties were at once drawn off from the garden to meet the danger at home, and the whole formicarium was disorganised, the ants running up and down again in the utmost perplexity. Next day he found them busily employed bringing up the ant-food from the old burrows, and carrying it to newly formed ones a few yards distant. These, however, turned out to be only intended as temporary repositories; for in a few days both the old and the new burrows were entirely deserted, so that he supposed all the ants to have died. Subsequently, however, he found that they had migrated to a new site, about two hundred yards from the old one, and there established themselves in a new nest. Twelve months later the ants again invaded his garden, and again he treated them to a strong dose of carbolic acid. The ants, as on the previous occasion, were at once withdrawn from the garden, and two days afterwards he found 'all the survivors at work on one track that led directly to the old nest of the year before, where they were busily employed in making fresh excavations. Many were bringing along pieces of ant-food' from the nest most recently deluged with carbolic acid to that which had been similarly deluged a year before, and from which all the carbolic acid had long ago disappeared.

'Others carried the undeveloped white pupae and larvae. It was a wholesale and entire migration;' and the next day the nest down which he had last poured the carbolic acid was entirely deserted. Mr. Belt adds: 'I afterwards found that when much disturbed, and many of the ants destroyed, the survivors migrate to a new locality. I do not doubt that some of the leading minds in this formicarium recollected the nest of the year before, and directed the migration to it.'

Now, I do not insist that the facts necessarily point to this conclusion; for it may have been that the leaders of the migration simply stumbled upon the old and vacant nest by accident, and finding it already prepared as a nest, forthwith proceeded to transfer the food and pupae to it. Still, as the two nests were separated from one another by so considerable a distance, this hypothesis does not seem probable, and the only other one open to us is that the ants remembered the site of their former home for a period of twelve months. And this conclusion is rendered less improbable from a statement of Karl Vogt in his 'Thierstaaten,' to the effect that for several successive years ants from a certain nest used to go through certain inhabited streets to a chemist's shop 600 metres distant, in order to obtain access to a vessel filled with syrup. As it cannot be supposed that this vessel was found in successive working seasons by as many successive accidents, it can only be concluded that the ants remembered the syrup store from season to season.

I shall now pa.s.s on to consider a cla.s.s of highly remarkable facts, perhaps the most remarkable of the many remarkable facts connected with ant psychology.

It has been known since the observations of Huber that all the ants of the same nest or community recognise one another as friends, while an ant introduced from another nest, even though it be an ant of the same species, is known at once to be a foreigner, and is usually maltreated or put to death. Huber found that when he removed an ant from a nest and kept it away from its companions for a period of four months it was still recognised as a friend, and caressed by its previous fellow-citizens after the manner in which ants show friends.h.i.+p, viz., by stroking antennae. Sir John Lubbock, after repeating and fully confirming these observations, extended them as follows. He first tried keeping the separated ant away from the nest for a still longer period than four months, and found that even after a separation of more than a year the animal was recognised as before. He repeated this experiment a number of times, and always with the same invariable difference between the reception accorded to a foreigner and a native--no matter, apparently, how long the native had been absent.

Considering the enormous number of ants that go to make a nest, it seems astonis.h.i.+ng enough that they should be all personally known to one another, and still more astonis.h.i.+ng that they should be able to recognise members of their community after so prolonged an absence.

Thinking that the facts could only be explained, either by all the ants in the same nest having a peculiar smell, or by all the members of the same community having a particular pa.s.s-word or gesture-sign, Sir John Lubbock, with the view of testing this theory, separated some ants from a nest while still in the condition of pupae, and, when they emerged from that state as perfect insects, transferred them back to the nest from which they had been taken as pupae. Of course in this case the ants in the nest could never have _seen_ those which had been removed, for a larval ant is as unlike the mature insect as a grub is unlike a beetle; neither can it be supposed that a larva, hatched out away from the nest, should retain, when a perfect insect, any smell belonging to its parent nest--more especially as it had been hatched out by ants in another nest;[20] nor, lastly, is it reasonable to imagine that the animal, while still a larval grub, can have been taught any gesture-signal used as a pa.s.s-word by the matured animals. Yet, although all these possible hypotheses seem to be thus fully excluded by the conditions of the experiment, the result showed unequivocally that the ants recognised their transformed larvae as native-born members of their community.

Lastly, Sir John Lubbock tried the experiment of going still further back in the life-history of the ants before separating them from the nest. For in September he divided a nest into two halves, each having a queen. At this season there were neither larvae nor eggs. The following April both the queens began to lay eggs, and in August--_i.e._ nearly a year after the original part.i.tioning of the nest--he took some of the ants newly hatched from the pupae in one division, and placed them in the other division, and _vice versa_. In all cases these ants were received by the members of the other half of the divided nest as friends, although if a stranger were introduced into either half it was invariably killed. Yet the ants which were thus so certainly recognised by their kindred ants as friends had never, even in the state of an egg, been present in that division of the nest before. On this highly remarkable fact Sir John Lubbock says:--

These observations seem to me conclusive as far as they go, and they are very surprising. In my experiments of last year, though the results were similar, still the ants experimented with had been brought up in the nest, and were only removed after they had become pupae. It might therefore be argued that the ants, having nursed them as larvae, recognised them when they came to maturity; and though this would certainly be in the highest degree improbable, it could not be said to be impossible. In the present case, however, the old ants had absolutely never seen the young ones until the moment when, some days after arriving at maturity, they were introduced into the nest; and yet in all ten cases they were undoubtedly recognised as belonging to the community.

It seems to me, therefore, to be established by these experiments that the recognition of ants is not personal and individual; that their harmony is not due to the fact that each ant is individually acquainted with every other member of the community.

At the same time, the fact that they recognise their friends even when intoxicated, and that they know the young born in their own nest even when they have been brought out of the chrysalis by strangers, seems to indicate that the recognition is not effected by means of any sign or pa.s.s-word.

We must, therefore, conclude with reference to this subject that the mode whereby recognition is undoubtedly effected is as yet wholly unintelligible; and I have introduced these facts under the heading of memory only because this heading is not more inappropriate than any other that could be devised for their reception.

It ought here to be added also that the power of thus recognising members of their community is not confined by the limits of blood-relations.h.i.+p, for in an experiment made by Forel it was shown that Amazon ants recognised their own slaves almost instantaneously after an absence of four months.

Under this heading I may also adduce the evidence as to enormous ma.s.ses, or, as we might say, a whole nation of ants recognising each other as belonging to the same nationality. New nests often spring up as offshoots from the older ones, and thus a nation of towns gradually spreads to an immense circ.u.mference around the original centre. Forel describes a colony of _F. exsecta_ which comprised more than two hundred nests, and covered a s.p.a.ce of nearly two hundred square metres. 'All the members of such a colony, even those from the furthermost nest, recognise each other and admit no stranger.'

Similarly, MacCook describes an 'ant town' in the Alleghany Mountains of North America ('Trans. Amer. Entom. Soc.,' Nov. 1877) which was inhabited by _F. exsectodes_. It consists of 1,600 to 1,700 nests, which rise in cones to a height of from two to five feet. The ground below is riddled in every direction with subterranean pa.s.sages of communication. The inhabitants are all on the most friendly terms, so that if any one nest is injured it is repaired by their united forces.

It remains to be added in connection with this subject that the recognition is not automatically invariable, but when 'ants are removed from a nest in the pupa state, tended by strangers, and then restored, some at least of their relatives are certainly puzzled, and in many cases doubt their claims to consanguinity. I say some, because while strangers under the circ.u.mstances would have been immediately attacked, these ants were in every case amicably received by the majority of the colony, and it was sometimes several hours before they came across one who did not recognise them.'

It may also be added that _Lasius flavus_ behaves towards strangers quite differently and much more hospitably than is the case with _L.

niger_. The stranger shows no alarm, but, on the contrary, will voluntarily enter the strange nest, and she is there received with kindness; although from the attention she excites, and the numerous communications which take place between her and her new friends, Sir John was 'satisfied that they knew she was not one of themselves... .

Very different is the behaviour of _L. niger_ under similar circ.u.mstances. I tried the same experiment with them. There was no communications with the antennae, there was no cleaning, but every ant which the stranger approached flew at her like a little tigress. I tried this experiment four times; each stranger was killed and borne off to the nest.'

_Emotions._

The pugnacity, valour, and rapacity of ants are too well and generally known to require the narration of special instances of their display.

With regard to the tenderer emotions, however, there is a difference of opinion among observers. Before the researches of Sir John Lubbock it was the prevalent view that these insects display marked signs of affection towards one another, both by caressing movements of their antennae, and by showing solicitude for friends in distress. Sir John, however, has found that the species of ants on which he has experimented are apparently deficient both in feelings of affection and of sympathy--or, at least, that such feelings are in these species much less strongly developed than the sterner pa.s.sions.

He tried burying some specimens of _Lasius niger_ beneath an ant-road; but none of the ants traversing the road made any attempt to release their imprisoned companions. He tried the same experiment with the same result on various other species. Even when the friends in difficulty are actually in sight, it by no means follows that their companions will a.s.sist them. Of this, he says, he could give almost any number of instances. Thus, when ants are entangled in honey, their companions devote themselves to the honey, and entirely neglect their friends in distress; and when partly drowned, their friends take no notice. When chloroformed or intoxicated their own companions either do not heed them, or else 'seem somewhat puzzled at finding their intoxicated fellow-creatures in such a condition, take them up, and carry them about for a time in a somewhat aimless manner.' Further experiments, however, on a larger scale, went to show that chloroformed ants were treated as dead, _i.e._ removed to the edge of the parade-board and dropped over into the surrounding moat of water; while intoxicated ants were generally carried into the nest, if they were ants belonging to that community; if not, they were thrown overboard. This care shown towards intoxicated friends appears to indicate a dim sense of sympathy towards afflicted individuals; but that this emotion or instinct does not in the case of these species extend to healthy individuals in distress seems to be proved, not only by the experiments of burying already described, but also by the following:--

On Sept. 2, therefore, I put two ants from one of my nests of _F. fusca_ into a bottle, the end of which was tied up with muslin as described, and laid it down close to the nest. In a second bottle I put two ants from another nest of the same species. The ants which were at liberty took no notice of the bottle containing their imprisoned friends. The strangers in the other bottle, on the contrary, excited them considerably. The whole day one, two, or more ants stood sentry, as it were, over the bottle. In the evening no less than twelve were collected round it, a larger number than usually came out of the nest at any one time. The whole of the next two days, in the same way, there were more or less ants round the bottle containing the strangers; while, as far as we could see, no notice whatever was taken of the friends. On the 9th the ants had eaten through the muslin, and effected an entrance. We did not chance to be on the spot at the moment; but as I found two ants lying dead, one in the bottle and one just outside, I think there can be no doubt that the strangers were put to death. The friends throughout were quite neglected.

Sept. 21.--I then repeated the experiment, putting three ants from another nest in a bottle as before.

The same scene was repeated. The friends were neglected. On the other hand, some of the ants were always watching over the bottle containing the strangers, and biting at the muslin which protected them. The next morning at 6 A.M. I found five ants thus occupied. One had caught hold of the leg of one of the strangers, which had unwarily been allowed to protrude through the meshes of the muslin. They worked and watched, though not, as far as I could see, with any system, till 7.30 in the evening, when they effected an entrance, and immediately attacked the strangers.

Sept. 24.--I repeated the same experiment with the same nest. Again the ants came and sat over the bottle containing the strangers, while no notice was taken of the friends.

The next morning again, when I got up, I found five ants round the bottle containing the strangers, none near the friends. As in the former case, one of the ants had seized a stranger by the leg, and was trying to drag her through the muslin. All day the ants cl.u.s.tered round the bottle, and bit perseveringly, though not systematically, at the muslin. The same thing happened all the following day.

On repeating these experiments with another species (viz., _Formica rufescens_) the ants took no notice of either bottle, and showed no sign either of affection or hatred. One is almost tempted to surmise that the spirit of these ants is broken by slavery [_i.e._ by the habit of keeping slaves]. But the experiments on _F. fusca_ seem to show that in these curious insects hatred is a stronger pa.s.sion than affection.

We must not, however, too readily a.s.sent to this general conclusion, that ants as a whole are deficient in the tenderer emotions; for although the case is doubtless so with the species which Sir John examined, it appears to be certainly otherwise with other species, as we shall presently see. But first it may be well to point out that even the hard-hearted species with which Sir John had to do seem not altogether devoid of sympathy with sick or mutilated friends, although they appear to be so towards healthy friends in distress. Thus the care shown to intoxicated friends seems to indicate, if not, as already observed, a dim sense of sympathy, at least an instinct to preserve the life of an ailing citizen for the future benefit of the community. Sir John also quotes some observations of Latreille showing that ants display sympathy with mutilated companions; and, lastly, mentions an instance which he has himself observed of the same thing. A specimen of _F. fusca_ congenitally dest.i.tute of antennae was attacked and injured by an ant of another species. When separated by Sir John, another ant of her own species came by. 'She examined the poor sufferer carefully, then picked her up tenderly, and carried her away into the nest. It would have been difficult for any one who witnessed this scene to have denied to this ant the possession of humane feelings.' Moggridge is also of opinion that the habit of throwing sick and apparently dead ants into the water, is 'in part to be rid of them, and partly, perhaps, with a view to effecting a possible cure; for I have seen one ant carry another down the twig which formed their path to the surface of the water, and, after dipping it in for a minute, carry it laboriously up again, and lay it in the sun to dry and recover.'

But that some species of ants display marked signs of what we may call sympathy even towards healthy companions in distress, is proved by the following observation of Mr. Belt. He writes:[21]--

One day, watching a small column of these ants (_i.e._ _Eciton humata_), I placed a little stone on one of them to secure it. The next that approached, as soon as it discovered its situation, ran backwards in an agitated manner, and soon communicated the intelligence to the others. They rushed to the rescue; some bit at the stone and tried to move it, others seized the prisoner by the legs and tugged with such force that I thought the legs would be pulled off, but they persevered until they got the captive free. I next covered one up with a piece of clay, leaving only the ends of its antennae projecting. It was soon discovered by its fellows, which set to work immediately, and by biting off pieces of the clay soon liberated it. Another time I found a very few of them pa.s.sing along at intervals. I confined one of these under a piece of clay at a little distance from the line, with his head projecting. Several ants pa.s.sed it, but at last one discovered it and tried to pull it out, but could not. It immediately set off at a great rate, and I thought it had deserted its comrade, but it had only gone for a.s.sistance, for in a short time about a dozen ants came hurrying up, evidently fully informed of the circ.u.mstances of the case, for they made directly for their imprisoned comrade and soon set him free. I do not see how this action could be instinctive. It was sympathetic help, such as man only among the higher mammalia shows. The excitement and ardour with which they carried on their unflagging exertions for the rescue of their comrade could not have been greater if they had been human beings.

This observation seems unequivocal as proving fellow-feeling and sympathy, so far as we can trace any a.n.a.logy between the emotions of the higher animals and those of insects. That insects with such highly organised social habits, and depending so greatly on the principles of co-operation, should manifest emotions or instincts of an incipiently altruistic character, is no more than we should antecedently expect on the general principle of survival of the fittest. Our only surprise should be that these emotions, or instincts, should appear to be so feebly developed in some species of ants, and, as we shall subsequently see, also of bees. But it may be worth while in this connection to point out that the valuable observation of Mr. Belt above quoted refers to the species of ant which, as we shall subsequently find, presents the most highly organised instincts of co-operation that are to be met with among ants, and therefore the greatest dependence of the welfare of the individual on that of the community. And the same remark is applicable to our native species, _F. sanguinea_, which the Rev. W. W. F. White has repeatedly seen rescuing buried companions very much in the manner described by Mr. Belt; and he does not appear to be acquainted with Mr.

Belt's observations. He figures one case in which he saw three ants co-operating to dig out a buried comrade.[22]