It cannot be said that the evidence for the supposed mode of origin of secondary instincts is sufficiently varied and cogent to carry conviction. On the other hand, there does seem some evidence which points to a different conclusion. When instinctive behaviour follows on a sensory impression, not only is the co-ordination hereditary, but there is an inherited linkage of stimulus and response. Thus in the solitary wasps the sight of the natural prey is followed by the appropriate modes of attack. The _Meloë_ larva springs upon anything hairy. In chicks the sight of a small object at a certain distance initiates the act of pecking. In moor-hens and ducklings the stimulus of water produces the movements concerned in swimming. And so, too, in many other examples of instinctive behaviour, we infer from the observed facts that stimulus and response have an organic connection founded on hereditary links in the nervous system. Now, if such connection were due to inherited habit, we should expect them to be established wherever the experience to which they are related has been constant through many generations. How comes it, then, that the chick does not instinctively respond by appropriate behaviour to the sight of water? How comes it that young birds do not instinctively avoid bees, and wasps, and nauseous caterpillars? If the effects of ancestral experience be hereditary, one would surely expect that in these cases the connection between stimulus and response--a connection which passes into acquired habit--would have become congenital; that the habitual behaviour would have long ago become instinctive. But this does not appear to be the case. And with regard to disuse causing the loss of instinct, how comes it that young chicks swim with well-ordered leg-movements, though swimming is not an act that is habitually performed by the members of their race?