The romance of the animal world : $b Interesting descriptions of the strange & curious in natural historySelous, Edmund
Science
The romance of the animal world : $b Interesting descriptions of the strange & curious in natural history
Selous, Edmund
Animal behavior; Animals
jaws to fly up, it must act on the same diabolical principle. Something
is set loose by it—something that flies out to where the meat is, and
kills the fox that is eating it. Something—but what? No matter; whatever
it is, it is death. It comes and it kills, and it can only come from that
long, ominous-looking tube, which is hollow at one end, and only one.
Just from that end it was—quite a long way in front of the trigger—that
the flame of fire flashed out. To be in front of that, then, and to pull
the string, is death; but once behind it, the string may be pulled with
impunity. Still, there is the trigger. To be behind that must be safer
still, and if the string can be gnawed so as not to pull the trigger
at all, that will be the safest of all. As for the string, there is
no danger in _it_. It is to start the trap merely. It is not the trap
itself. _That_ is obvious. Even a cub might see that. The whole thing
lies in the trigger. If you pull that, you let off the trap: but if you
can gnaw through the string without pulling it, you can take the meat
without the trap going off, or if you can let the trap off without its
hurting you, you can take the meat afterwards.
It may be thought that not even foxes, though they are known to be
cunning, could reason in this way; but if facts are to be taken as
evidence, they must reason still more strongly. Not only do they draw the
conclusion that to be behind the muzzle of the gun is to be in safety,
but they even adopt a plan by which they are able, with almost equal
safety, to go up to the meat and let the gun off, by taking it in their
mouth. In the latter case, of course, the string need not be cut at
all—except, indeed, afterwards, to eat the meat—but when it has to be, it
is always that part of it which is near the trigger, that the fox gnaws
through. This shows plainly that the danger must be connected in the
animal’s mind not only with the string and trigger, but with the muzzle
of the gun; but though it must, therefore, know that, being where it is
the gun might be fired with impunity, the fox, having decided to sever
the string before seizing the bait, does not do this, but leaves the
trigger still on the cock. Now, as it must be as easy to gnaw through the
string without discharging the gun, at one part as at another, it must
be as a precaution against a possible accident that the fox does so at a
point where, if it did go off, it could not hurt him: since it assures
itself doubly, it cannot be said that it has not room for more than one
idea in its head, at the same time.[17]
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account