M. Foster: A Text Book of Physiology, 1895, page 726. Footnote 125: Von M. Rothmann: Demonstration des Hundes ohne Grossirn. _Bericht über den V Kongress f. Experiment. Psychol. in Berlin, 1912_, page 256. The report is too meager to admit of independent judgment of the animal’s behavior in many of its details. Footnote 126: Until the basal ganglia have been microscopically examined it cannot be determined that the loss of function was not due to secondary organic lesions. In Goltz’ dog, which acted like a blind dog, one optic nerve was cut and the corpora striata and optic thalami were partly involved in the lesion. Footnote 127: Quoted from Schräder by Loeb. Footnote 128: Cf. Lloyd Morgan: Instinct and Experience, 1912. Footnote 129: Dr. Morgan in his work, “Instinct and Experience,” 1912, published before Rothmann’s observations, remarks that this “is not inherently improbable” although it had not as yet been demonstrated. Footnote 130: From the point of view here adopted, the recent discussions and controversies over the problems of “instinct and intelligence” have been much muddled by the arbitrary denial of conscious elements to an instinctive process, and by the acceptation of consciousness or conscious experience as the criterion of intelligence. In this view instinct and intelligence become contrasted concepts which to my way of thinking they are not necessarily at all. If it is admitted that instinct is an innate disposition, its contrasted quality is that which is _acquired_ and not the quality of consciousness. It is true that acquired behavior is commonly if not always determined by conscious processes (conscious experience), but likewise innate behavior may be determined by processes which contain conscious elements. Surely fear is instinctive and is a conscious element in an innate process; and so must be visual and other sensory images, as in the first peck of a chicken. To look upon the first visual image simply as conscious “experience,” as an “onlooker,” and reject it as a factor in the process which determines that first peck, seems to me to be arbitrary psychology if not physiology. If consciousness may be a quality of an innate process—and why not?—it cannot be a criterion of intelligence. The true converse of the conscious is the unconscious.