between brute intelligence and human intelligence and reason, though I strongly incline to the view that it should. I am not sure that every savage and yokel is capable of isolation, that he raises the predominant to the level of the isolate, or abstract idea. I am not sure that these simple folk submit the phenomena of nature around them, and of their own mental states to analysis. But they have in language the instrument which can enable them to do so, even if individually some of them have not the faculty for using language for this purpose. That is, however, a different question. But I do not at present see satisfactory evidence of the fact that animals form isolates, and I think that the probability is that they are unable to do so. I am, therefore, prepared to say, with John Locke, that this abstraction "is an excellency which the faculties of brutes do by no means attain to." I am anxious, however, not to exaggerate my divergence, more apparent, I believe, than real, from so able a student of animal psychology as Mr. Romanes. Let me, therefore, repeat that it is the power of analysis--the power of isolating qualities of objects, the power of forming "abstract ideas quite apart from the particular objects of which the particular qualities happen to be characteristic," as I understand these words--that I am unable to attribute to the brute. Animals can and do, I think, form predominants; they have not the power of isolation. Furthermore, it seems to me that this capacity of analysis, isolation, and abstraction constitutes in the possessor a new mental departure, which we may describe as constituting, not merely a specific, but a generic difference from lower mental activities. I am not prepared, however, to say that there is a difference in kind between the mind of man and the mind of the dog. This would imply a difference in origin or a difference in the essential nature of its being. There is a great and marked difference in kind between the material processes which we call physiological and the mental processes we call psychical. They belong to wholly different orders of being. I see no reason for believing that mental processes in man differ thus in kind from mental processes in animals. But I do think that we have, in the introduction of the analytic faculty, so definite and marked a new departure that we should emphasize it by saying that the faculty of perception, in its various specific grades, differs generically from the faculty of conception. And believing, as I do, that conception is beyond the power of my favourite and clever dog, I am forced to believe that his mind differs generically from my own. * * * * *