In order to answer this question we must determine more specifically what we mean by the term "training". Usually we take it to mean the establishment in the animal, of definite habits of motor reaction in response to certain stimuli purposely selected by the trainer, and without involving any process of animal consciousness other than association. Such a conception may be applied also to man, if we assume that the higher thought processes can be eliminated. If that were the case, the above definition would not have to be changed, not even with regard to the word "animal", for we must take it in the antique sense of "zoon", a signification readopted by modern zoology. The concept may be widened, however, by omitting the differentia of "purpose", or even more, by including the habitual association of ideas or images (instead of movements) with certain sensory stimuli. But in so doing, we must bear in mind that we are going beyond the usual content which in everyday practice is put into the term "training". Especially, when we cease to regard the presence of purpose in the trainer's mind (both in giving the stimulus as well as in the habituation of the animal to them) as essential. When this is done, the conception of training really resolves itself into the much wider conception of habit-building, and the whole discussion becomes merely a quarrel over words. In order to obviate this, let us bear in mind that in the following, the word "training" is always taken in the usual and narrower sense. The term then is still ambiguous only in so far as it has not merely its original significance of the _act_ of purposely habituating (a person or an animal) to perform certain definite movements, but by transference is also used to denote the _effect_, i. e., the occurrence of the movements in question. But this does not really detract from the clearness of the concept itself.