Here, however, I must refer to a view which is held by some psychologists, namely, that amongst the higher animals, even on the occasion of the first performance of an instinctive act, there is some vague awareness of the proximate end to be attained. Discussing the nature of instincts, Dr M'Dougall[3] says, "Nor does our definition insist, as some do, that the instinctive action is performed without awareness of the end towards which it tends, for this, too, is not essential; it may be, and in the case of the lower animals no doubt often is, so performed, as also by the very young child, but in the case of the higher animals some prevision of the immediate end, however vague, probably accompanies an instinctive action that has often been repeated." A similar view seems to be held by Dr Stout.[4] "As I have already shown," he says, "animals in their instinctive actions do actually behave from the outset as if they were continuously interested in the development of what is for them one and the same situation or course of events; they actually behave as if they were continuously attentive, looking forward beyond the immediately present experience in preparation for what is to come. They apparently watch, wait, search, are on the alert. They also behave exactly as if they appreciated a difference between relative success and failure, trying again when a certain perceptible result is not attained and varying their procedure in so far as it has been unsuccessful. All these characters are found in the first nest-building of birds as well as in the second; they are found also in courses of conduct which occur only once in the lifetime of the animal." Both these writers would, I imagine, contend that, even when a female is absent, the idea of the female, as the end in view throughout, is present; and they would argue that the fact of her absence during the fighting in no way disposes of the belief that she is the condition under which the pugnacious instinct of the male is rendered susceptible to stimulation. What reason is there to think that this interpretation is applicable to the case under consideration? When a female is present, we observe that the males are pugnacious, and, when she is absent, that they still continue to be hostile--that is to say, they behave _as if_ she were present. Now, as far as I can ascertain, the "_as if_" is the only ground there is for supposing that the female is represented in imaginal form--there is no evidence of the fact, if fact it be. On the contrary, the behaviour of the male affords some fairly conclusive evidence that no such image is the primary factor in exciting the instinctive reaction. For if it be the actual presence of the female, or, in the absence of such, a mental image, that renders the pugnacious nature of the male responsive; provided the usual stimulus were present, the instinct ought surely to respond, not only under one particular circumstance, but under all circumstances. Yet, as we shall