grip and i have come out for a morning stroll among the close-cropped pastures beside the beck, in the very centre of our green little dingle. here i can sit, as is my wont, on a dry knoll, and watch the birds, beasts, insects, and herbs of the field, while grip scours the place in every direction, intent, no doubt, upon those more practical objects—mostly rats, i fancy—which possess a congenial interest for the canine intelligence. from my coign of vantage on the knoll i can take care that he inflicts no grievous bodily injury upon the sheep, and that he receives none from the quick-tempered cow with the brass-knobbed horns. for a kind of ancestral feud seems to smoulder for ever between grip and the whole race of kine, breaking out every now and then into open warfare, which calls for my prompt interference, in an attitude of armed but benevolent neutrality, merely for the friendly purpose of keeping the peace.

this ancient feud, i imagine, is really ancestral, and dates many ages further back in time than grip's individual experiences. cows hate dogs instinctively, from their earliest calfhood upward. i used to doubt once upon a time whether the hatred was not of artificial origin and wholly induced by the inveterate human habit of egging on every dog to worry every other animal that comes in its way. but i tried a mild experiment one day by putting a half-grown town-bred puppy into a small enclosure with some hitherto unworried calves, and they all turned to make a common headway against the intruder with the same striking unanimity as the most ancient and experienced cows. hence i am inclined to suspect that the antipathy does actually result from a vaguely inherited instinct derived from the days when the ancestor of our kine was a wild bull, and the ancestor of our dogs a wolf, on the wide forest-clad plains of central europe. when a cow puts up its tail at sight of a dog entering its paddock at the present day, it has probably some dim instinctive consciousness that it stands in the presence of a dangerous hereditary foe; and as the wolves could only seize with safety a single isolated wild bull, so the cows now usually make common cause against the intruding dog, turning their heads in one direction with very unwonted unanimity, till his tail finally disappears under the opposite gate. such inherited antipathies seem common and natural enough. every species knows and dreads the ordinary enemies of its race. mice scamper away from the very smell of a cat. young chickens run to the shelter of their mother's wings when the shadow of a hawk passes over their heads. mr. darwin put a small snake into a paper bag, which he gave to the monkeys at the zoo; and one monkey after another opened the bag, looked in upon the deadly foe of the quadrumanous kind, and promptly dropped the whole package with every gesture of horror and dismay. even man himself—though his instincts have all weakened so greatly with the growth of his more plastic intelligence, adapted to a wider and more modifiable set of external circumstances—seems to retain a vague and original terror of the serpentine form.

if we think of parallel cases, it is not curious that animals should thus instinctively recognise their natural enemies. we are not surprised that they recognise their own fellows: and yet they must do so by means of some equally strange automatic and inherited mechanism in their nervous system. one butterfly can tell its mates at once from a thousand other species, though it may differ from some of them only by a single spot or line, which would escape the notice of all but the most attentive observers. must we not conclude that there are elements in the butterfly's feeble brain exactly answering to the blank picture of its specific type? so, too, must we not suppose that in every race of animals there arises a perceptive structure specially adapted to the recognition of its own kind? babies notice human faces long before they notice any other living thing. in like manner we know that most creatures can judge instinctively of their proper food. one young bird just fledged naturally pecks at red berries; another exhibits an untaught desire to chase down grasshoppers; a third, which happens to be born an owl, turns at once to the congenial pursuit of small sparrows, mice, and frogs. each species seems to have certain faculties so arranged that the sight of certain external objects, frequently connected with food in their ancestral experience, immediately arouses in them the appropriate actions for its capture. mr. douglas spalding found that newly-hatched chickens darted rapidly and accurately at flies on the wing. when we recollect that even so late an acquisition as articulate speech in human beings has its special physical seat in the brain, it is not astonishing that complicated mechanisms should have arisen among animals for the due perception of mates, food, and foes respectively. thus, doubtless, the serpent form has imprinted itself indelibly on the senses of monkeys, and the wolf or dog form on those of cows: so that even with a young ape or calf the sight of these their ancestral enemies at once calls up uneasy or terrified feelings in their half-developed minds. our own infants in arms have no personal experience of the real meaning to be attached to angry tones, yet they shrink from the sound of a gruff voice even before they have learned to distinguish their nurse's face.

when grip gets among the sheep, their hereditary traits come out in a very different manner. they are by nature and descent timid mountain animals, and they have never been accustomed to face a foe, as cows and buffaloes are wont to do, especially when in a herd together. you cannot see many traces of the original mountain life among sheep, and yet there are still a few remaining to mark their real pedigree. mr. herbert spencer has noticed the fondness of lambs for frisking on a hillock, however small; and when i come to my little knoll here, i generally find it occupied by a couple, who rush away on my approach, but take their stand instead on the merest ant-hill which they can find in the field. i once knew three young goats, kids of a mountain breed, and the only elevated object in the paddock where they were kept was a single old elm stump. for the possession of this stump the goats fought incessantly; and the victor would proudly perch himself on the top, with all four legs inclined inward (for the whole diameter of the tree was but some fifteen inches), maintaining himself in his place with the greatest difficulty, and butting at his two brothers until at last he lost his balance and fell. this one old stump was the sole representative in their limited experience of the rocky pinnacle upon which their forefathers kept watch like sentinels; and their instinctive yearnings prompted them to perch themselves upon the only available memento of their native haunts. thus, too, but in a dimmer and vaguer way, the sheep, especially during his younger days, loves to revert, so far as his small opportunities permit him, to the unconsciously remembered habits of his race. but in mountain countries, every one must have noticed how the sheep at once becomes a different being. on the welsh hills he casts away all the dull and heavy serenity of his brethren on the south downs, and displays once more the freedom, and even the comparative boldness, of a mountain breed. a merionethshire ewe thinks nothing of running up one side of a low-roofed barn and down the other, or of clearing a stone wall which a leicestershire farmer would consider extravagantly high.

another mountain trait in the stereotyped character of sheep is their well-known sequaciousness. when grip runs after them they all run away together: if one goes through a certain gap in the hedge, every other follows; and if the leader jumps the beck at a certain spot, every lamb in the flock jumps in the self-same place. it is said that if you hold a stick for the first sheep to leap over, and then withdraw it, all the succeeding sheep will leap with mathematical accuracy at the corresponding point; and this habit is usually held up to ridicule as proving the utter stupidity of the whole race. it really proves nothing but the goodness of their ancestral instincts. for mountain animals, accustomed to follow a leader, that leader being the bravest and strongest ram of the flock, must necessarily follow him with the most implicit obedience. he alone can see what obstacles come in the way; and each of the succeeding train must watch and imitate the actions of their predecessors. otherwise, if the flock happens to come to a chasm, running as they often must with some speed, any individual which stopped to look and decide for itself before leaping would inevitably be pushed over the edge by those behind it, and so would lose all chance of handing down its cautious and sceptical spirit to any possible descendants. on the other hand, those uninquiring and blindly obedient animals which simply did as they saw others do would both survive themselves and become the parents of future and similar generations. thus there would be handed down from dam to lamb a general tendency to sequaciousness—a follow-my-leader spirit, which was really the best safeguard for the race against the evils of insubordination, still so fatal to alpine climbers. and now that our sheep have settled down to a tame and monotonous existence on the downs of sussex or the levels of the midlands, the old instinct clings to them still, and speaks out plainly for their mountain origin. there are few things in nature more interesting to notice than these constant survivals of instinctive habits in altered circumstances. they are to the mental life what rudimentary organs are to the bodily structure: they remind us of an older order of things, just as the abortive legs of the blind-worm show us that he was once a lizard, and the hidden shell of the slug that he was once a snail.