It is true that the language of animals is most rudimentary and, in this respect, in harmony with the inferiority of their intelligence. We might say that it was almost entirely composed of interjections. Such as it is, however, this language is sufficient for the wants of the mammalia and birds who understand it perfectly, while man himself can learn it without very much trouble. The hunter can distinguish the accents of anger, love, pleasure, sorrow, the call and the signal of alarm and makes use of these indications as an unfailing guide, and often imitates these accents and cries in such a manner as to deceive the animal. Of course I exclude from the _language of brutes_, the song, properly so called, of birds, that of the nightingale for example. It appears to me void of all meaning, as are the notes of a singer, and I do not believe in the interpretation of Dupont de Nemours. It is not, therefore, in the phenomena connected with the intelligence that we shall find the basis of a fundamental distinction between man and animals. But in man the existence has been proved of fundamental phenomena of which nothing either in living beings or inanimate bodies has hitherto been able to give us any conception. 1st. Man has the _perception of moral good and evil_ independently of all physical welfare or suffering. 2nd. Man _believes in superior beings_ who can exercise an influence upon his destiny. 3rd. Man _believes in the prolongation of his existence after this life_. The last two phenomena have always been so closely connected that it is natural to refer them to the same faculty, to that namely of _Religion_. The first depends on _Morality_. Psychologists attribute religion and morality to the _reason_, and make the latter an attribute of man. But with the _reason_ they connect the highest phenomena of the intelligence. In my opinion, in so doing they confound and refer to a common origin, facts entirely different. Thus since they are unable to recognise either morality or religion in animals, which in reality do not possess these two faculties, they are forced to refuse them intelligence also, although the same animals, in my opinion, give decisive proof of their possession of this faculty every moment. The generality of the phenomena which we are discussing is, I believe, indisputable, especially since the investigation to which it has been subjected by the Society of Anthropology in Paris, where the question of the human kingdom has been long and seriously discussed. I cannot here reproduce the discussion, even in an abridged form, but refer my readers either to the summary in my _Rapport sur les progrès de l’anthropologie en France_, or to the _Bulletins_ of the Society. I shall, moreover, go into this subject in some detail in the chapters devoted to the moral and religious characters of the human races.