That the subcortical centers are capable of memory seems to have been shown for the first time by Rothmann’s dog. This mindless animal proved to be capable of a certain amount of education. It learned to avoid hitting against objects, and to do certain tricks—jumping over a hurdle and following on its hind legs a stool upon which its fore feet were placed as the stool was dragged forward. “In the perfection of all these performances the influence of practice was easily recognized.” This means, if the interpretation given is correct, that new dispositions and new connections may be acquired within the lower centers _without the intervention of the integrating influence of the cortex_ or conscious intelligence.[129] This is an important contribution for apparently the attempt to educate brainless animals had not been previously made, and their capability for education demonstrated. The important bearing which this fact has upon this discussion is that it shows that unconscious processes are capable of memory, that is physiological memory. It may be said that this statement needs some modification if the sensory “impressions” guiding the decerebrate animal are to be interpreted as true psychological, however elementary, “sensations.” It would seem to me on the contrary only to accentuate the fact that the processes of the brainless animal are on a transition level between the purely unconscious processes of the spinal animal and the purely (if ever wholly so) conscious processes of the normal animal, and that intrinsically all are of the same nature. If sensation enters into the complex reflex reactions of the brainless animal it would seem that it can only be an elemental conscious factor in a complicated unconscious physiological mechanism. In this mechanism it can have no more specific importance in determining behavior, because of the fact of its being a psychological state, than if it were a receptor “impression” intercalated in the arc of an innate process. It is not linked with any associative memories of the past or foresight into the future; it does not constitute conscious intelligence. As a conscious experience it cannot have that kind of “meaning” which in the normal animal modifies instinctive processes and determines conduct. It probably plays simply the same part in the whole process, which otherwise is wholly unconscious, that the associative sensory image plays in determining the flow of thick or thin saliva in Pawlow’s dogs—simply a single link in a chain of associated reflex processes.