{"collection":"myth-cosmogony","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_58939/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_58939","id":"gutenberg_58939","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/58939","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Archaeology & Anthropology","Category: Mythology, Legends & Folklore","Category: Science - Biology","Dolphins -- Folklore"],"text":"Produced by Stephen Hutcheson and the Online Distributed\nProofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net\n\n\n\n\n\n\n    [Illustration: The Dionysos Cup by Exekias, _c._ 540 B.C.\n    _Staatliche Antikensammlungen, Munich. Photograph by Dr. Max\n    Hirmer._]\n\n\n\n\n                              The Dolphin\n                               in History\n\n\n                  _Papers delivered by Ashley Montagu\n                    and John C. Lilly at a symposium\n                 at the Clark Library, 13 October 1962_\n\n\n                 WILLIAM ANDREWS CLARK MEMORIAL LIBRARY\n                 _University of California, Los Angeles\n                                 1963_\n\n\n\n\n                               _Foreword_\n\n\nRecently the dolphin has become the focus of much scientific interest\nand investigation which have led to flattering pronouncements about its\nremarkable intelligence, amiability, and astonishing friendliness\ntowards man. It was in consequence of such activities that a symposium\nwas held at the William Andrews Clark Memorial Library to consider the\nbackground to contemporary studies of the dolphin. The presentations of\nDr. Ashley Montagu and Dr. John C. Lilly were received so favorably that\nit was decided to make them more widely available in the present form.\n\nAs will be readily apparent to any reader, Dr. Montagu has demonstrated\nconclusively that had the writings of the ancients been heeded we should\nlong since have paid proper respect to this intelligent mammal, and Dr.\nLilly has reinforced such classical appreciation by an account of his\nown astonishing observations of dolphin behavior. It is to be hoped that\nthese two accounts will contribute to a lasting appreciation of our\nremarkable aquatic friend.\n\n                                                           C.D. O\u2019Malley\n\n  DIVISION OF MEDICAL HISTORY\n  UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES\n\n\n\n\n                       THE HISTORY OF THE DOLPHIN\n\n\n                          _by_ Ashley Montagu\n\n  _The friendly_ Dolphin, _while within the maine,\n  At libertie delightes, to sport and play,\n  Himselfe is fresh, and doth no whit retaine\n  The brinish saltnes of the boundless Sea\n  Wherein he lives. Such is the secret skill\n  Of Nature working, all thinges at her will._\n                                 Henry Peacham, _Minerva Britanna_, 1612\n\n\n\n\n                      _The History of the Dolphin_\n\n\n                           By ASHLEY MONTAGU\n\n  _I have met with a story, which, although authenticated by undoubted\n  evidence, looks very like a fable._\n                                                     _Pliny the Younger_\n\nThe history of the dolphin is one of the most fascinating and\ninstructive in the historiography and the history of ideas in the\nwestern world. Indeed, it provides one of the most illuminating examples\nof what has probably occurred many times in human culture\u2014a virtually\ncomplete loss of knowledge, at least in most segments of the culture, of\nwhat was formerly well understood by generations of men. \u201cNot in entire\nforgetfulness\u201d in some regions of the world, but certainly in \u201ca sleep\nand a forgetting\u201d in the most sophisticated centers of the western\nworld.\n\nDolphins are mammals. They belong in the order Cetacea, suborder\nOdontoceti, family Delphinidae. Within the Delphinidae there are some\ntwenty-two genera and about fifty-five species. The count includes the\nKiller Whale, the False Killer Whale, the White Whale, and the Pilot\nWhale, all of which are true dolphins. There are two subfamilies, the\nDelphinapterinae, consisting of the two genera _Monodon monocerus_, the\nNarwhal, and _Delphinapterus leucas_, the White Whale or Beluga. These\ntwo genera are distinguished by the fact that none of the neck vertebrae\nare fused, whereas in all remaining genera, embraced in the subfamily\nDelphininae, at least the first and second neck vertebrae are fused.\n\nIt was Aristotle in his _History of Animals_ (521b) who first classified\nwhales, porpoises, and dolphins as Cetacea,\u03c4\u1f70 \u03ba\u03ae\u03c4\u03b7 \u03bf\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03c6\u03c9\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\u03bd\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c6\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1. Aristotle\u2019s account of the Cetacea was\nastonishingly accurately written, and quite evidently from firsthand\nknowledge of these animals.\n\nWhile most dolphins are inhabitants of the seas, there are some that\nlive in rivers, and quite a few that are denizens of fresh-water rivers\nremoved many miles from the sea. With one exception the diet of dolphins\nis principally fish. The one exception is _Sotalia teuszii_, which lives\nin the Kamerun River, and is believed to feed exclusively on vegetable\nmatter. The Ting Ling dolphin (_Lipotes vexillifer_) lives in Ting Ling\nLake, six hundred miles up the Yang-tse-Kiang. Another dolphin, the Susu\nor Ganges dolphin (_Platanista gangetica_) of Brahmapootra, the Ganges,\nand the Indus, has lenseless eyes and is almost blind. The fresh-water\ndolphins belong in the family Platanistidae.\n\nIt is of interest to note that, in connection with the vegetable feeding\nhabits of the Kamerun dolphin, Lycophron, in his _Alexandra_, makes his\ndolphins feed on trees, and Ovid, in the _Metamorphoses_ (III, 1, 202),\ndescribes a flood in which the dolphins take possession of the woods.\nNonnus Panopolitanus, in the _Dionysiaca_ (VI, 265-266), also describes\ndolphins as feeding on trees.\n\nThe normal range of length of dolphins is from 5 to 14 feet; the larger\nspecies, the whales, are considerably longer. Brain weight is between\n1600 and 1700 grams in the familiar dolphins, and reaches 9200 grams and\nmore in the whales. The large brain is associated with what, all\nobservers familiar with these animals agree, is a quite considerable\nintelligence.\n\nHere we must pause to make a plea for the proper usage of common names.\nThe term \u201cporpoise\u201d refers to the small, beakless Delphinidae, which\nhave a triangular dorsal fin and spade-shaped teeth. The name \u201cdolphin\u201d\nembraces all other members of the family, except the larger forms, which\nare called whales. The porpoises mostly belong in the genus _Phocaena_,\nthe best known species of which, the Common Porpoise (_Phocaena\nphocaena_), never reaches a length exceeding 6 feet and weighs 100 to\n120 pounds. There are some six species. The finless black porpoise\nconstitutes the only other genus with a single species _Neomeris\nphocaenoides_.\n\nAll porpoises are dolphins. The Bottle-Nosed Dolphin, _Tursiops\ntruncatus_, is sometimes called a porpoise. This is incorrect.\n_Tursiops_ is a true dolphin, and should not be called what it is not.\n\nHere we shall be principally concerned with the Bottle-Nosed Dolphin and\nwith the Common Dolphin. The Bottle-Nosed Dolphin has a short,\nwell-defined snout two or three inches long, and is characterized by a\nprominent fin in the middle of the back. Coloration is dark above and\nlight below. Gestation lasts some ten months, birth is monotocous, and\nthe young are suckled for about 18 months. The tail is delivered first,\nand the infant, about three feet long and weighing about twenty-five\npounds, is immediately quite active, though much in need of the care of\nits devoted mother. The infant will eventually grow to be between 11 and\n12 feet in length, and weigh about 300 kilograms. _Tursiops_ has an\nenormously wide range, being commonest along the Atlantic coast of\nAmerica, from Maine to Florida, and occurs in the Bay of Biscay, in the\nMediterranean Sea, and as far south as New Zealand.\n\nThe Common Dolphin, _Delphinus delphis_, is readily recognized by its\nwell-defined narrow beak and distinctive coloration. The beak is some 5\nto 6 inches narrower and finer than in the Bottle-Nosed Dolphin, and is\nsharply marked off by a deep V-shaped groove from the low reclining\nforehead. The Common Dolphin reaches a length up to 8\u00bd feet. Its range\nof distribution is very wide, for it may be met in any temperate or warm\nsea throughout the world, and occurs at times in vast schools.\n\nWhether the dolphin of classical antiquity is _Delphinus_ or _Tursiops_\nis not usually determinable, although each undoubtedly played its\nindependent role in the stories told of dolphins. From the recorded\nevidence available to us it is clear that, except for the larger\nspecies, the whales, all dolphins appear to be characterized by\nplayfulness and friendliness toward man. There are, however, differences\nwhich appear to express themselves mostly in captivity. At least,\n_Tursiops_ adjusts much better to captivity than does _Delphinus_. At\nmarine studios _Tursiops_ has established itself as a highly\nintelligent, playful, and friendly performer. _Delphinus_, on the other\nhand, while naturally all these things, in captivity tends to be timid\nand not very playful.\n\nThe Common and Bottle-Nosed Dolphins are those best known to the western\nworld, but many of the traits which have recently been rediscovered\nconcerning these creatures have been well known to other peoples for\nmillennia. It is only a certain segment of the western world, its more\nsophisticated representation, and particularly the learned world, which\ndismissed as myths the tales told about dolphins in classical antiquity.\nAnd this is the real burden of the story I have to tell you. Some of\nthese antique tales may have been myths, but as we shall see, many of\nthem were not, and undoubtedly a number of the myths were based on real\nevents partially embroidered by the imagination and improved, like good\nwine, by time. But good wine needs no bush, and I shall sample this wine\nas palatably as I find it.\n\nThe earliest representation of a dolphin I have been able to find is\nfrom a pictographic seal from Crete, estimated to date from 3500 to 2200\nB.C. The earliest _painting_ of a dolphin thus far recovered is from the\nancient Peloponnesian city of Tiryns. The date is about 1600 B.C. In\nthat city it is also represented in stucco floors. Several good examples\nof dolphins are furnished by seventh century Corinthian art. The dolphin\nis also well represented in Minoan art. In Cyprus it is frequently\nrepresented in Late Helladic vases, shards, amphorae, in metalwork,\nengravings, and in stucco floors as at Tiryns. Among the importations\nfrom Crete into Helladic art appear to have been certain stylized forms\nof the dolphin.\n\nAn early literary reference to the dolphin occurs in Aesop\u2019s fable, \u201cThe\nMonkey and the Dolphin.\u201d During a violent storm a ship was capsized, and\namong those thrown into the water was a monkey. Observing its distress a\ndolphin came to its rescue, and taking the monkey upon its back the\ndolphin headed for shore. Opposite Piraeus, the harbor of Athens, the\ndolphin inquired of the monkey whether he was an Athenian. \u201cOh, yes,\u201d\nreplied the monkey, \u201cand from one of the best families.\u201d \u201cThen you know\nPiraeus,\u201d said the dolphin. \u201cVery well, indeed,\u201d said the monkey, \u201che is\none of my most intimate friends.\u201d Whereupon, outraged by so gross a\ndeceit, the dolphin took a deep dive and left the monkey to its fate.\n\nI take it that ever since that day monkeys have very sensibly refrained\nfrom speech. It is far better to remain silent even at the risk of being\ntaken for a fool or a rogue, than to open one\u2019s mouth and remove all\ndoubt.\n\nAesop flourished about 600 B.C. His story suggests a considerable\nknowledge of the ways of dolphins, and this indicates that knowledge of\nthe dolphin was already old in his time.\n\nThere are several variant Greek myths on the origin of the dolphin. All\nof them relate to Dionysos. In one version Dionysos is an adult, in\nanother he is a child. The first group of legends represent the epiphany\nof Dionysos, symbolizing the battle between winter and summer. Winter is\nrepresented by the death of Dionysos who disappears into the water, from\nwhich he is brought back on the top of a dolphin as the returning\nspringtime (Apollodorus, III, 5, 3). Another version has Dionysos,\nwhether as child or adult varies, being conveyed by ship to Naxos by\nTyrrhenian mariners. The latter conceive the idea of kidnaping him.\nDionysos senses their treachery, and bidding his companions strike up on\ntheir musical instruments, he produces a Bacchic wild dance in the\nmariners who throw themselves overboard and are changed into dolphins.\n\nThe popular belief in antiquity in the human intelligence of dolphins\nand their kindly feeling toward man was explained by the ancient writers\nin the light of the transformation of the Tyrrhenian pirates into\ndolphins. (See Lucian, _Marine Dialogues_, 8; Oppian, _Halieutica_, I,\n649-654, 1098, V, 422, 519f; Porphyry, _De Abstinentia_, III, 16.) As\nOppian (I, 1089) in his _Halieutica_ has it, in William Diaper\u2019s\ncharming translation:\n\n  So _Dolphins_ teem, whom subject Fish revere,\n  And show the smiling Seas their Infant-Heir.\n    All other Kinds, whom Parent-Seas confine,\n  _Dolphins_ excell; that Race is all divine.\n  _Dolphins_ were Men (Tradition hands the Tale)\n  Laborious Swains bred on the _Tuscan_ Vale:\n  Transform\u2019d by _Bacchus_, and by _Neptune_ lov\u2019d,\n  They all the Pleasures of the Deep improv\u2019d.\n  When new-made Fish the God\u2019s Command obey\u2019d,\n  Plung\u2019d in the Waves, and untry\u2019d Fins displayed,\n  No further Change relenting _Bacchus_ wrought,\n  Nor have the _Dolphins_ all the Man forgot;\n  The conscious Soul retains her former Thought.\n\nThe god of the golden trident who rules over the seas, Poseidon, would\nnot have prospered in his wooing of Amphitrite if it had not been for\nthe assistance of a dolphin, who apprized Poseidon of her hiding-place.\nFor this service, as is well-known, Poseidon set the dolphin among the\nstars in the constellation which bears its name to this day.\n\nIt is interesting in this connection that in a modern Greek folktale\nfrom Zacynthos, Poseidon changes a hero who has fallen into the sea into\na dolphin until such time as he should find a maiden ready to be his\nwife. After some time the dolphin rescues a shipwrecked king and his\ndaughter, the princess by way of reward takes him for her husband, and\nthe spell is broken (Bernhard Schmidt, _Das Volksleben der Neugriechen_,\np. 135).\n\nThe cult of Apollo Delphinus was initiated, so legend has it, by Icadius\nwho, leaving his native land of Lycia, which he had named for his\nmother, set out for Italy. Shipwrecked on the way, he was taken on the\nback of a dolphin, which set him down near Mount Parnassus, where he\nfounded a temple to his father Apollo, and called the place Delphi after\nthe dolphin. For this reason the dolphin became among the things most\nsacred to Apollo (Servius, _Commentarii in Vergilii Aeneidos_, III, 332;\nalso Cornificius Longus, _De Etymis Deorum_).\n\nHerodotos, writing of Periander (fl. 600 B.C.) tyrant of Corinth, tells\none of the most famous of all stories of the dolphin (it is mentioned by\nShakespeare in the first act of _Twelfth Night_). \u201cIn his time,\u201d writes\nHerodotos (b. 484 B.C.), \u201ca very wonderful thing is said to have\nhappened. The Corinthians and the Lesbians agree in their account of the\nmatter. They relate that Arion of Methymna, who, as a player on the\nlyre, was second to no man living at that time, and who was, so far as\nwe know, the first to invent the dithyrambic measure, to give it its\nname, and to conduct in it at Corinth, was carried to Taenarum on the\nback of a dolphin.\n\n\u201cHe had lived, it is said, at the court of Periander, when a longing\ncame upon him to sail across to Italy and Sicily. Having made rich\nprofits in those parts, he wanted to recross the seas to Corinth. He\ntherefore hired a vessel, the crew of which were Corinthians, thinking\nthat there was no people in whom he could more safely confide; and,\ngoing on board, he set sail from Tarentum. The sailors, however, when\nthey reached the open sea, formed a plot to throw him overboard and\nseize upon his riches. Discovering their design, he fell on his knees,\nbeseeching them to spare his life, and making them welcome to his money.\nBut they refused; and required him either to kill himself outright, if\nhe wished for a grave on the dry land, or without loss of time to leap\noverboard into the sea. In this strait Arion begged them, since such was\ntheir pleasure, to allow him to mount upon the quarter-deck, dressed in\nhis full costume, and there to play and sing, and promising that, as\nsoon as his song was ended, he would destroy himself. Delighted at the\nprospect of hearing the very best singer in the world, they consented,\nand withdrew from the stern to the middle of the vessel: while Arion\ndressed himself in the full costume of his calling, took his lyre, and\nstanding on the quarter-deck, chanted the Orthian [a very high-pitched\nlively and spirited song]. His strain ended, he flung himself, fully\nattired as he was, headlong into the sea. The Corinthians then sailed on\nto Corinth. As for Arion, a dolphin, they say, took him upon his back\nand carried him to Taenarum, where he went ashore, and thence proceeded\nto Corinth in his musician\u2019s dress, and told all that had happened to\nhim. Periander, however, disbelieved the story, and put Arion in ward,\nto prevent his leaving Corinth, while he watched anxiously for the\nreturn of the mariners. On their arrival he summoned them before him and\nasked them if they could give him any tidings of Arion. They returned\nfor answer that he was alive and in good health in Italy, and that they\nhad left him at Tarentum, where he was doing well. Thereupon Arion\nappeared before them, just as he was when he jumped from the vessel: the\nmen, astonished and detected in falsehood, could no longer deny their\nguilt. Such is the account which the Corinthians and Lesbians give; and\nthere is to this day at Taenarum an offering of Arion\u2019s at the shrine,\nwhich is a small figure in bronze, representing a man seated upon a\ndolphin.\u201d (_The History of Herodotus_, Clio, I, 23-24.)\n\nCommenting on this tale the poet Bianor, in _The Greek Anthology_\n(_Declamatory Epigrams_, 308), remarks, \u201cSo the sea presumably contains\nfish whose righteousness exceeds that of mankind.\u201d\n\nCoins of Methymna, in Lesbos, Arion\u2019s birthplace, show him riding a\ndolphin. In one form or another the dolphin is represented on the coins\nof some forty Greek cities, and doubtless most Greeks knew the reason\nwhy.\n\nPliny the Elder, in his _Natural History_ (IX, 8, 24-28), writes as\nfollows:\n\n\u201cThe dolphin is an animal that is not only friendly to mankind but is\nalso a lover of music, and it can be charmed by singing in harmony, but\nparticularly by the sound of the water-organ. It is not afraid of a\nhuman being as something strange to it, but comes to meet vessels at sea\nand sports and gambols round them, actually trying to race them and\npassing them even when under full sail. In the reign of the late\nlamented Augustus a dolphin that had been brought into the Lucrine Lake\nfell marvellously in love with a certain boy, a poor man\u2019s son, who used\nto go from the Baiae district to school at Pozzuoli, because fairly\noften the lad when loitering about the place at noon called him to him\nby the name of Snubnose and coaxed him with bits of the bread he had\nwith him for the journey,\u2014I should be ashamed to tell the story were it\nnot that it has been written about by Maecenas and Fabianus and Flavius\nAlfius and many others,\u2014and when the boy called to it at whatever time\nof day, although it was concealed in hiding, it used to fly to him out\nof the depth, eat out of his hand, and let him mount on its back,\nsheathing as it were the prickles of its fin, and used to carry him when\nmounted right across the bay to Pozzuoli to school, bringing him back in\nsimilar manner, for several years, until the boy died of disease, and\nthen it used to keep coming sorrowfully and like a mourner to the\ncustomary place, and itself also expired, quite undoubtedly from\nlonging. Another dolphin in recent years at Hippo Diarrhytus on the\ncoast of Africa similarly used to feed out of people\u2019s hands and allow\nitself to be stroked, and play with swimmers and carry them on its back.\nThe Governor of Africa, Flavianus, smeared it all over with perfume, and\nthe novelty of the scent apparently put it to sleep: it floated\nlifelessly about, holding aloof from human intercourse for some months\nas if it had been driven away by insult; but afterwards it returned and\nwas an object of wonder as before. The expense caused to their hosts by\npersons of official position who came to see it forced the people of\nHippo to destroy it. Before these occurrences a similar story is told\nabout a boy in the city of Iasus, with whom a dolphin was observed for a\nlong time to be in love, and while eagerly following him to the shore\nwhen he was going away it grounded on the sand and expired; Alexander\nthe Great made the boy head of the priesthood of Poseidon at Babylon,\ninterpreting the dolphin\u2019s affection as a sign of the deity\u2019s favour.\nHegesidemus writes that in the same city of Iasus another boy also,\nnamed Hermias, while riding across the sea in the same manner lost his\nlife in the waves of a sudden storm, but was brought back to the shore,\nand the dolphin confessing itself the cause of his death did not return\nout to sea and expired on dry land. Theophrastus records that exactly\nthe same thing occurred at Naupactos too. Indeed there are unlimited\ninstances: the people of Amphilocus and Taranto tell the same stories\nabout boys and dolphins; and these make it credible that also the\nskilled harper Arion, when at sea the sailors were getting ready to kill\nhim with the intention of stealing the money he had made, succeeded in\ncoaxing them to let him first play a turn on his harp, and the music\nattracted a school of dolphins, whereupon he dived into the sea and was\ntaken up by one of them and carried ashore at Cape Matapan.\u201d\n\nA very similar but apparently quite independent account of these stories\nis given by the younger Pliny, in his _Letters_ (IX, 23).\n\nThe elder Pliny then goes on to tell of the manner in which dolphins\nassist fishermen, which corresponds closely with the accounts given by\nrecent observers of this cooperative activity between fishermen and\ndolphins. (For accounts of these see Antony Alpers, _Dolphins_, 146 sq.)\n\nThere are numerous other stories similar to those given by the Plinys\nfrom classical antiquity, but it is quite impossible to recount them\nhere.[1] What they all have in common is the friendliness of the dolphin\nfor human beings, their rescue of them when they were thrown into the\nsea, their playfulness, especially with children, and their interest in\nalmost any sort of sound. All these traits came to be regarded as\nmythical by later and more sophisticated ages, and Usener (_Die\nSintfluthsagen_) comments on the effect that the prevalence of these\ntales had even upon the scientific thought of antiquity, making it\ndifficult for such thinkers as Aristotle to get away from the belief in\nthe dolphin\u2019s ability to carry a rider, and in its capacity for human\nfeeling (Aristotle, _History of Animals_, 631a). But Aristotle was right\nand Herr Usener wrong. The delightful thing about most of these myths is\nthat they all appear to be based on solid fact, and not on the fancies\nattributed to the original narrators. Another typical modern gloss by a\nhighly sophisticated writer, biologically not unknowledgeable, Norman\nDouglas, is the following: Commenting on the delphic mythology, he\nwrites, \u201cFrom these and many other sources, we may gather that there was\nsupposed to exist an obscure but powerful bond of affection between this\nanimal and humanity, and that it was endowed with a certain\nkindheartedness and man-loving propensity. This is obviously not the\ncase; the dolphin cares no more about us than cares the haddock. What is\nthe origin of this belief? I conjecture that the beast was credited with\nthese social sentiments out of what may be called poetic reciprocation.\nMankind, loving the merry gambols and other endearing characteristics of\nthe dolphin, which has a playful trick of escorting vessels for its own\namusement, whose presence signified fair weather, and whose parental\nattachment to its offspring won their esteem\u2014quite apart from its\nfabled, perhaps real, love of music or at least of noisy sounds\u2014were\npleased to invest it with feelings akin to their own. They were fond of\nthe dolphin; what more natural and becoming than that the dolphin should\nbe fond of them?\u201d (_Birds and Beasts of the Greek Anthology_, p. 161.)\n\nBut Douglas was undisillusionedly wrong, and the dolphins are right, and\nso is the \u201cmankind\u201d that believed in their friendliness. Though pleased\nto see the dolphins play, it is to be regretted that Douglas did not\nmind his compass and his way, for:\n\n  Had the curteous Dolphins heard\n  One note of his, they would have dar\u2019d\n  To quit the waters, to enjoy\n  In banishment such melody.\n                                                        John Hall, 1646.\n\nIn order to avoid any imputation that I may be attempting to play\nEuhemerus[2] to the dolphin\u2019s tale, the facts may be allowed to speak\nfor themselves\u2014always remembering that facts never speak for themselves,\nbut are at the mercy of their interpreters. All, then, that I am\nconcerned to show here, by citing the contemporary evidence, is that, in\nessence, the so-called myths of the ancients were based on solid facts\nof observation and not, as has hitherto been supposed, on the imaginings\nof mythmakers.\n\nLet us begin with a brief account of the most recent and most thoroughly\ndocumented story of a free-dwelling dolphin\u2019s social interaction with\nhuman beings. This is the story of Opo, a female _Tursiops_ that made\nits appearance early in 1955 at Opononi, a small township just outside\nthe mouth of Hokianga Harbour, on the western side of the North Island\nof New Zealand. From allowing itself at first to be rubbed with an oar\nor mop carried on the fishermen\u2019s launches, it began to glide in near\nthe beach among the bathers. The cheerful _putt-putt_ of a motor-launch\nor of an outboard motor was an irresistible attraction for Opo, and she\nwould follow the boat like a dog, playing or cruising round it. If she\nhad an urge to wander, starting up the motor would invariably draw her\nback again. Mr. Piwai Toi, a Maori farmer, who was the first to observe\nOpo, writes, \u201cShe was really and truly a children\u2019s playmate. Although\nshe played with grownups she was really at her charming best with a\ncrowd of children swimming and wading. I have seen her swimming amongst\nchildren almost begging to be petted. She had an uncanny knack of\nfinding out those who were gentle among her young admirers, and keeping\naway from the rougher elements. If they were all gentle then she would\ngive of her best.\u201d (Antony Alpers, _The Dolphin_, pp. 228-229.)\n\nThe child the dolphin favored was a thirteen-year-old girl named Jill\nBaker. At fourteen Jill wrote the following account of her experience\nwith Opo:\n\n\u201cI think why the dolphin became so friendly with me was because I was\nalways gentle with her and never rushed at her as so many bathers did.\nNo matter how many went in the water playing with her, as soon as I went\nin for a swim she would leave all the others and go off side-by-side\nwith me. I remember on one occasion I went for a swim much further up\nthe beach than where she was playing, and I was only in the water a\nshort while when she bobbed up just in front of my face and gave me such\na fright. On several other occasions when I was standing in the water\nwith my legs apart she would go between them and pick me up and carry me\na short distance before dropping me again. At first she didn\u2019t like the\nfeel of my hands and would dart away, but after a while when she\nrealized I would not harm her she would come up to me to be rubbed and\npatted. She would quite often let me put little children on her back for\na moment or two.\u201d (In Antony Alpers, _The Dolphin_, p. 229.)\n\nOpo\u2019s choice of the gentle Jill Baker for the rides which she gave this\nthirteen-year-old, suggests not only a sensitive discrimination of the\nqualities of human beings, but also that the reports of similar\nincidents which have come down to us from antiquity were based on\nsimilarly observed events. The one element in these stories which seemed\nmost difficult to accept, and which is so often represented in ancient\nart, the boy riding on the back of a dolphin, is now removed from the\nrealm of fancy and placed squarely in the realm of fact. It has been\ncorroborated and sustained.\n\nMr. Antony Alpers in his book on the dolphin, and especially that part\ndevoted to the eyewitness accounts of Opo\u2019s behavior, goes far toward\nestablishing the fact of the dolphin\u2019s remarkable capacity for rapport\nwith human beings. But for those striking facts I must recommend you to\nMr. Alper\u2019s charming book.\n\nThe dolphin\u2019s extraordinary interest in and, what we will I am sure not\nbe far wrong in interpreting as, concern for human beings, is\ndramatically told by George Llano in his report _Airmen Against the\nSea_. This report, written on survival at sea during the Second World\nWar, records the experience of six American airmen, shot down over the\nPacific, who found themselves in a seven-man raft being pushed by a\nporpoise toward land. Unfortunately the land was an island held by the\nJapanese. The friendly porpoise must have been surprised and hurt when\nhe found himself being dissuaded from his pushing by being beaten off\nwith the oars of the airmen.\n\nDr. Llano also reports that \u201cMost observers noted that when porpoises\nappeared sharks disappeared, and they frequently refer to the \u2018welcome\u2019\nappearance of porpoises, whose company they preferred to that of\nsharks.\u201d This confirms all earlier reports that sharks are no match for\nthe dolphin kind.\n\nDolphins have been known to push a mattress quite empty of human beings\nfor considerable distances at sea. Possibly it is merely the pushing\nthat interests them, and not the saving of any human beings that might\nbe atop of them.\n\nIs there any evidence that dolphins save drowning swimmers? There is.\n\nIn 1945 the wife of a well-known trial attorney residing in Florida was\nsaved from drowning by a dolphin.[3] This woman had stepped into a sea\nwith a strong undertow and was immediately dragged under. Just before\nlosing consciousness, she remembers hoping that someone would push her\nashore. \u201cWith that, someone gave me a tremendous shove, and I landed on\nthe beach, face down, too exhausted to turn over ... when I did, no one\nwas near, but in the water almost eighteen feet out a porpoise was\nleaping around, and a few feet beyond him another large fish was also\nleaping.\u201d\n\nIn this case the porpoise was almost certainly a dolphin and the large\nfish a fishtail shark. A man who had observed the events from the other\nside of a fence told the rescued woman that this was the second time he\nhad seen a drowning person saved by a \u201cporpoise.\u201d\n\nMore recently, on the night of February 29, 1960, Mrs. Yvonne M. Bliss\nof Stuart fell from a boat off the east coast of Grand Bahama Island in\nthe West Indies.[4] \u201cAfter floating, swimming, shedding more clothing\nfor what seemed an eternity, I saw a form in the water to the left of\nme.... It touched the side of my hip and, thinking it must be a shark, I\nmoved over to the right to try to get away from it.... This change in my\nposition was to my advantage as heretofore I was bucking a cross tide\nand the waves would wash over my head and I would swallow a great deal\nof water. This sea animal which I knew by this time must be a porpoise\nhad guided me so that I was being carried with the tide.\n\n\u201cAfter another eternity and being thankful that my friend was keeping\naway the sharks and barracuda for which these waters are famous, the\nporpoise moved back of me and came around to my right side. I moved over\nto give room to my companion and later knew that had not the porpoise\ndone this, I would have been going downstream to deeper and faster\nmoving waters. The porpoise had guided me to the section where the water\nwas the most shallow.\n\n\u201cShortly I touched what felt like fish netting to my feet. It was\nseaweed and under that the glorious and most welcome bottom.\n\n\u201cAs I turned toward shore, stumbling, losing balance, and saying a\nprayer of thanks, my rescuer took off like a streak on down the\nchannel.\u201d\n\nThe reader must be left to make what he can of such occurrences. Dr.\nGeorge G. Goodwin of the American Museum of Natural History doubts the\nintention of dolphins to save drowning persons.[5] \u201cAnything floating,\u201d\nhe writes, \u201con or near the surface of the sea will attract his\nattention. His first action on approaching the object of his curiosity\nis to roll under it. In doing so, something partly submerged, like the\nbody of a drowning person, is nudged to the surface of the water. The\nsea does its part and automatically drives floating objects toward the\nbeach.\u201d This may well be so in some cases, but it is an explanation\nwhich does not fit the incidents described by Mrs. Bliss, in which she\nwas not pushed but guided. Occam\u2019s razor should not be too bluntly\napplied.\n\nThe cooperativeness of dolphins with fishermen in various parts of the\nworld has gone on for several thousand years without its significance\nhaving registered much upon the consciousness of the rest of the\nworld\u2014including the learned and the scientific.\n\nIn the Mediterranean from the earliest days, as recorded by Aelian in\nhis _On the Characteristics of Animals_, VI, 15, to the present day,\ntorchlight fishing with the aid of dolphins has been a traditional way\nof fishing. This has been described by Nicholas Apostolides in his book\n_La P\u00eache en Gr\u00e8ce_, who tells how fishermen of the Sporades catch their\ngarfish \u201cin the darkest nights of the month of October\u201d by methods very\nsimilar to those described by Aelian. Briefly, the fish attracted by the\nfishermen\u2019s flares begin to collect, whereupon the dolphins appear and\ndrive them into the fishermen\u2019s nets.\n\nSimilar methods of fishing were practiced in the Antipodes, off the New\nZealand and Queensland coasts. The aborigines of Moreton Bay,\nQueensland, used to catch mullet with the aid of dolphins, at a place\nappropriately enough called Amity Point. The aborigines recognized\nindividual dolphins and called them by name. With their nets ready on\nthe beach the aborigines waited for a shoal of fish to appear, whereupon\nthey would run down and make a peculiar splashing in the water with\ntheir spears, and the dolphins on the outside of the shoal would drive\nthe fish towards the nets for the aborigines to catch. Fairholme, who\ndescribed these events in 1856, writes, \u201cFor my part I cannot doubt that\nthe understanding is real, and that the natives know these porpoises\n[actually the dolphin _Tursiops catalania_], and that strange porpoises\nwould not show so little fear of the natives. The oldest men of the\ntribe say that the same kind of fishing has always been carried on as\nlong as they can remember. Porpoises abound in the bay, but in no other\npart do the natives fish with their assistance.\u201d\n\nThe Irrawaddy River dolphin is also an assistant-fisherman. John\nAnderson reports that \u201cThe fishermen believe that the dolphin purposely\ndraws fish to their nets, and each fishing village has its particular\nguardian dolphin which receives a name common to all the fellows of his\nschool; and it is this superstition which makes it so difficult to\nobtain specimens of this Cetacean. Colonel Sladen has told me that suits\nare not infrequently brought into the native courts to recover a share\nin the capture of fish, in which a plaintiff\u2019s dolphin has been held to\nfill the nets of rival fishermen.\u201d (John Anderson, _Account of the\nZoological Results of Two Expeditions to Western Yunnan_.)\n\nThe Pink-Bellied river dolphin (_Inia geoffrensis_) of the Trapaj\u00f3s, a\ntributary of the Amazon, also helps its human friends with fishing. Dr.\nF. Bruce Lamb[6] says that this dolphin, locally known as the _boto_,\n\u201cis reported to have saved the lives of helpless persons whose boats\nhave capsized, by pushing them ashore. None of the dreaded flesh-eating\n_piranhas_ appear when a porpoise is present, for they themselves would\nbe eaten.\u201d And he goes on to give an eye-witness account of fishing with\nthe aid of a trained dolphin. \u201cMy curiosity was aroused,\u201d he writes, \u201cby\nthe paddler, who began tapping on the side of the canoe with his paddle\nbetween strokes and whistling a peculiar call. Asking Rymundo about\nthis, he startled me by casually remarking that they were calling their\n_boto_, their porpoise.... As we approached the fishing grounds near the\nriverbank, Rymundo lit his carbide miner\u2019s lamp, adjusted the reflector,\nchose his first harpoon, and stood up in the bow ready for action.\nAlmost immediately on the offshore side of the canoe about 50 feet from\nus we heard a porpoise come up to blow and take in fresh air.\u201d The\nporpoise then chased the fish toward the canoe and Rymundo harpooned\nthem with ease.\n\nMany ancient writers have referred to the brilliancy of the changeful\ncolors when the dolphin is dying. Byron makes reference to this in\n\u201cChilde Harold\u2019s Pilgrimage,\u201d\n\n                \u201cParting day\n  Dies like the dolphin, whom each pang imbues\n  With a new colour as it gasps away;\n  The last still loveliest, till \u2019tis gone, and\n                all is gray.\u201d\n\nHere is a peculiar confusion, for this is not the mammalian dolphin of\nwhich we have been speaking, but the swift piscivorous oceanic fish\n_Coryphaena hippurus_, the dolphin of sailors. It is blue with deeper\nspots, and gleaming with gold. It is, indeed, famous for the beauty of\nits changing colors when dying. The mammalian dolphin exhibits no such\nspectacular color changes when dying.\n\nHappily, it is not with dying dolphins or with _their_ changing colors\nthat we are concerned here, but rather with ours, the changing color of\nthe complexion of our once too sophisticated beliefs. Beliefs which, in\ntheir own way, were very much more in the nature of myths than the\nancient ones which we wrote off a little too disdainfully as such. The\nhistory of the dolphin constitutes an illuminating example of the\neclipse of knowledge once possessed by the learned, but which was\nvirtually completely relegated to the outermost fringes of mythology\nduring the last eighteen hundred years. Perhaps there is a moral to be\ndrawn here. If so, I shall leave it to others to draw. But now that\nscientific interest in the dolphin has been aroused we are entering into\na new era of delphinology, and with the confirmation of so many of the\nobservations of the ancients already made, we may look forward with\nconfidence to others. Dolphins have large brains; possibly they will\nsome day be able to teach us what brains are really for.\n\n\n\n\n                              _Appendix A_\n                        A Note for Bibliophiles\n\n\nIt was an ancient belief, as Camerarius tells us, that \u201cwhen tempests\narise, and seamen cast their anchor, the dolphin, from its love to man,\ntwines itself round it, so that it may more safely lay hold of the\nground.\u201d I know of no verifying evidence for this statement, but should\nnot be surprised to find some element of truth in it. The dolphin twined\nabout an anchor is the device which Aldus Manutius (1450-1515) adopted\nfor his Aldine Press, which began publication in 1494. This device was\nlater adapted to his own use by the English publisher William Pickering\n(1796-1854).\n\nThe representation of the dolphin twined about the anchor refers to no\nmaritime supremacy of that creature, but rather to its kindly regard for\nman. The following poem in George Wither\u2019s _A Collection of Emblemes_\n(1635), throws some additional light on the meaning of the emblem.\n\n  If Safely, thou desire to goe,\n  Bee nor too Swift, nor overslow.\n            [Emblem]\n      [Dolphin and Anchor]\n        Illvstr.X. Book 2.\n\n  Our Elders, when their meaning was to shew\n    A native-speedinesse (in Emblem wise)\n    The picture of a Dolphin-Fish they drew;\n  Which, through the waters, with great swiftnesse, flies.\n  An Anchor, they did figure, to declare\n  Hope, stayednesse, or a grave-deliberation:\n  And therefore when those two, united are,\n  Its giveth us a two-fold Intimation.\n  For, as the Dolphin putteth us in minde,\n  That in the Courses, which we have to make,\n  Wee should not be, to slothfulnesse enclin\u2019d;\n  But, swift to follow what we undertake:\n  So, by an Anchor added thereunto,\n  Inform\u2019d wee are, that, to maintaine our speed,\n  Hope, must bee joyn\u2019d therewith (in all we doe)\n  If wee will undiscouraged proceed.\n  It sheweth (also) that, our speedinesse,\n  Must have some staydnesse; lest, when wee suppose\n  To prosecute our aymes with good successe,\n  Wee may, by Rashnesse, good endeavors lose.\n    They worke, with most securitie, that know\n  The Times, and best Occasions of delay;\n  When, likewise, to be neither swift, nor slow;\n  And, when to practise all the speed, they may.\n  For, whether calme, or stormie-passages,\n  (Through this life\u2019s Ocean) shall their Bark attend;\n  This double Vertue, will procure their ease:\n  And, them, in all necessities, befriend.\n    By Speedinesse, our works are timely wrought;\n    By Staydnesse, they, to passe are, safely, brought.\n _From_ A Collection of Emblemes, Ancient and Moderne, by George Wither.\n                                            London, 1635. Book 2, p. 72.\n\n\n\n\n                              _Appendix B_\n                    Dolphins and Their Distribution\n\n\n  Order: CETACEA\n  Suborder: ODONTOCETI\n  Family: Delphinidae\n  Subfamily: Delphininae\n  Genus: _Delphinus_\n  Subfamily: Delphinapterinae\n  Genus: _Monodon_\n  Genus: _Delphinapterus_\n\nThe Suborder Odontoceti of the Order Cetacea consists of the toothed\nwhales, in contrast to the toothless whalebone or baleen whales, the\nMystacoceti. The whales are large dolphins or one may say that dolphins\nare small whales. The members of the Odontoceti are the Dolphin,\nFreshwater Dolphin, Porpoise, Sperm Whale or Cachalot, Lesser Sperm\nWhale, Bottle-Nose Whale, Narwhal or Sea-Unicorn, White Whale, Pilot\nWhale or Black-Fish, Killer Whale or Grampus.\n\n_Delphinus delphis_: The Common Dolphin. It is easily recognized by its\nwell-defined narrow beak and distinctive coloration, being darker above\nthan below. There is a narrow beak, which is sharply marked off from the\nlow reclining forehead by a V-shaped groove. A length of up to 8\u00bd feet\nhas been recorded. Range of distribution is very wide. May be met in any\ntemperate or warm sea throughout the world, and occurs at times in vast\nschools.\n\n_Delphinus roseiventris_: The Red-Bellied Dolphin. Moluccas and Torres\nStraits, Australia; 3 feet 10 inches.\n\n_Prodelphinus attenuatus_: Tropical and sub-tropical parts of Atlantic\nOcean; 6 feet.\n\n_P. plagiodon_: Atlantic coast of North America from Cape Hatteras, Gulf\nof Mexico; 7 feet.\n\n_P. froenatus_: The Bridled Dolphin. Atlantic and Indian Oceans; about 6\nfeet.\n\n_P. malayanus_: East Indies; more than 6 feet.\n\n_P. coeruleoalbus_: South America, near mouth of River Plate; about 4\nfeet.\n\n_P. euphrosyne_: Atlantic Ocean to South Africa; about 8 feet.\n\n\nGenus _Tursiops_\n\n_T. truncatus_: The Bottle-Nosed Dolphin. Has a short well-defined snout\n2 or 3 inches long. There is a prominent fin in the middle of the back.\nReaches a length of 11 to 12 feet. Has a very wide range. Commonest\nalong the Atlantic coast of America from Maine to Florida. Found in Bay\nof Biscay, in the Mediterranean Sea, and in New Zealand waters.\n\n_T. abusalam_: Red Sea; 6 feet.\n\n_T. catalania_: Indian and Australian seas.\n\n\nGenus _Steno_\n\n_S. rostratus_: The Rough-Toothed Dolphin. Long-beaked, with roughened\nor furrowed teeth. Atlantic and Indian Oceans; about 8 feet.\n\n\nGenus _Orcaella_\n\n_O. brevirostris_: Irrawaddy River Dolphin. From Bay of Bengal,\nVizagapatam, Singapore, and Siam (i.e., S.E. Asia).\n\n\nGenus _Lissodelphis_ or _Tursio_\n\n_Lissodelphis_: The Right Whale Dolphin. All oceans.\n\n\nGenus _Grampus_\n\n_G. griseus_: Risso\u2019s Dolphin. North Atlantic, Mediterranean, New\nZealand, and Cape of Good Hope; 12 to 13 feet.\n\n\nGenus _Cephalorhynchus_\n\nThese are the Southern, mostly cold-water dolphins.\n\n_C. heavisidei_: Heaviside\u2019s Dolphin. Cape of Good Hope; about 4 feet.\n\n_C. hectori_: Hector\u2019s Dolphin. New Zealand; about 6 feet.\n\n_C. albiventris_: White-Bellied Dolphin. A very rare form, found off the\ncoast of South America; about 4 feet 6 inches.\n\n_C. commersonii_: Commerson\u2019s Dolphin; also known as the Piebald\nPorpoise or Le Jacobite. Southern oceans; up to 5\u00bc feet.\n\n\nGenus _Lagenorhynchus_\n\nCharacterized by great number of vertebrae (80 to 90), great length of\ntransverse and vertical bony processes from vertebrae, moderately\npointed high back fin having concave posterior border; the beak is\nshort.\n\n_L. acutus_: The White-Sided Dolphin. North Atlantic; about 9 feet.\n\n_L. australis_: Peale\u2019s Porpoise. Cape Horn, Chile, Patagonia, Falkland\nIslands; over 7 feet.\n\n_L. albirostris_: The White-Beaked Dolphin. North Atlantic; 9 to 10\nfeet.\n\n_L. cruciger_: South Pacific; 5 to 6 feet.\n\n_L. fitzroyi_: Fitzroy\u2019s Dolphin. Southern end of South America; 5 feet\n4 inches.\n\n_L. obscurus_: Dusky Dolphin. South Africa, New Zealand, Falkland\nIslands; 7 feet.\n\n\nGenus _Sotalia_\n\nConcentrated in the tropical seas or rivers of South America, Africa,\nIndia, and the Far East.\n\n_S. pallida_: Buffeo blanco. Upper Amazon; 5 feet 6 inches.\n\n_S. fluviatalis_: Buffeo negro. Upper Amazon; 3 feet 7 inches.\n\n_S. tucuxi_: Upper Amazon.\n\n_S. guianensis_: N. E. coast of South America.\n\n_S. teuszii_: Noteworthy as being the one Cetacean believed to feed\nexclusively on vegetable matter. Kamerun River.\n\n_S. gadamu_: Vizagapatam; averages 7 feet; snout 6 inches.\n\n_S. lentigiosa_: Vizagapatam.\n\n_S. plumbea_: Malabar coast of India; about 8 feet; very long snout.\n\n_S. borneensis_: Gulf of Siam to Sarawak in Borneo.\n\n_S. sinesis_: Chinese White Dolphin.\n\n\nThe Fresh Water Dolphins.\n\n\nGenus _Platanista_\n\n_P. gangetica_: The Susu or Gangetic Dolphin; about 8 feet; snout and\nbeak drawn into long forceps-like beak, 7 or 8 inches long; confined to\nRiver Ganges and River Indus. It is almost blind.\n\n\nGenus _Inia_\n\n_I. geoffrensis_: Amazonian Dolphin or Boutu. Upper Amazon; 7 feet; long\nbeak.\n\n\nGenus _Pontoporia_\n\n_P. blainvillei_: La Plata Dolphin. Estuary of Rio de la Plata; about 5\nfeet.\n\n\nGenus _Lipotes_\n\n_L. vexillifer_: Chinese River Dolphin. Ting Ling Lake, 600 miles up the\nYang-tse River; 7 feet 6 inches; slightly upcurved jaws.\n\n\nThe Porpoise\n\nThe small beakless Delphinidae, which have a triangular dorsal fin and\nspade-shaped teeth, black above and white below; travels in large\nschools. The word \u201cporpoise\u201d is derived from the French _porc-poisson_,\n\u201cpig-fish.\u201d Never larger than 6 feet.\n\n\nGenus _Phocaena_\n\n_P. phocaena_: The Common Porpoise. Chiefly North Atlantic and North\nPacific; never larger than 6 feet.\n\n_P. spinipinnis_: Burmeister\u2019s Porpoise. Rare. La Plata round Horn to\nPeru.\n\n_P. dalli_: Dall\u2019s Harbor Porpoise. Very rare. Alaska; less than 5 feet.\n\n_P. truei_: True\u2019s Porpoise. Japan; less than 5 feet.\n\n_P. dioprica_: River Plate to South Georgia.\n\n\nGenus _Neomeris_\n\n_N. phocaenoides_: Finless Black Porpoise. Cape of Good Hope to Japan.\n\n\nGenus _Lissodelphis_\n\n_L. peronii_: New Zealand and Tasmania; about 6 feet.\n\n_L. brealis_: North Pacific; about 8 feet.\n\nThe Right Whale Dolphins\n\n\nThe Whales with Teeth\n\nThe toothed whales are big dolphins, and are on the average much smaller\nthan the Whalebone or Baleen toothless Whales.\n\n\nFamily Physeteridae\n\n\nSubfamily Physeterinae\n\n\nGenus _Physeter_\n\n_P. catodon_: The Sperm Whale or Cachalot. All oceans. Male may reach 60\nfeet, the female usually half the length of the male. This is the whale\nthat has suffered the relentless persecution of whalers, always a\ncoveted prize on account of its spermaceti-permeated blubber, and its\nexcretory ambergris. The most dangerous of whales.\n\n\nSubfamily Kogiinae\n\n\nGenus _Kogia_\n\n_K. breviceps_: The Pigmy or Lesser Sperm Whale. Atlantic, Pacific,\nIndian, and Antarctic oceans; about 10 feet.\n\n\nFamily Ziphiidae\n\nGenus: _Hypero\u00f6don rostratus_: The Bottle-Nose Whale. North Atlantic,\nMediterranean, South Pacific, and Antarctic; 20 to 30 feet.\n\nGenus: _Mesoplodon_: \u201cThe Cow Fish;\u201d Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian\noceans.\n\nGenus: _Ziphius_: The Two-Toothed Whale. All oceans.\n\nGenus: _Tasmacetus_: South Pacific.\n\nGenus: _Berardius_: Pacific.\n\n\nFamily Monodontidae or Delphinapteridae\n\n\nSubfamily Delphinapterinae\n\nGenus: _Monodon monocerus_: Narwhal or Sea Unicorn. Arctic seas south of\nthe ice-field. The male is characterized by an immense tusk, sometimes 9\nfeet long, projecting like a spear from the left side of the\nbluntly-rounded muzzle. The tusk is spirally grooved, and is the source\nof the horn of the unicorn of heraldry. Mottled in color, and about 18\nfeet long.\n\nGenus: _Delphinapterus leucas_: The White Whale or Beluga. Resembles the\nNarwhal in size, shape, and habitat, but the tusk is absent.\n\n\nFamily Delphinidae\n\n\nGenus _Globiocephala_\n\n_G. melas_: Pilot Whale or Black-Fish or Ca\u2019ing Whale. Temperate or\ntropical seas. Rounded head with dorsal fin. Takes its name from the\nfact that one whale or pilot leads the way of the sometimes huge\nschools; about 25 feet.\n\n\nGenus _Orcinus_\n\n_O. orca_: Killer Whale or Grampus. All seas. With a high dorsal fin and\nblack and white coloring, aggressively bold and carnivorous, with\nsingular cunning and intelligence. Fourteen seals and thirteen porpoises\nhave been found in the stomach of a male measuring 21 feet. The male is\nusually about 30 feet in length.\n\n\nGenus _Pseudorca_\n\n_P. crassidens_: The False Killer Whale or Lesser Killer Whale. All\nseas.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES\n\n\n[1]Among the many well-known figures of classical mythology said to have\n    been saved by dolphins from the sea are Eikadios, Enalos, Koiranos,\n    Phalanthos, Taras, etc. In many other cases the corpses were brought\n    ashore by a dolphin, which then expired on reaching land (similarly,\n    with minor variations, was this so with Palaimon or Melikertes,\n    Dionysios and Hermias of Iasos, Hesiod, and the boys already\n    referred to from Baiae and Naupaktos). Similar incidents reappear in\n    the writings of the hagiographers. Saints Martinianos of Kaisareia,\n    Kallistratos of Carthage, Basileios the younger of Constantinople,\n    were each saved from a watery grave by a couple of dolphins. The\n    corpse of Saint Loukianos of Antioch was brought ashore by a large\n    dolphin, which then expired on the sand. See Klement, _Arion_, 1-64,\n    and Usener, _Die Sintfluthsagen_, 138-180.\n\n[2]Euhemerus (_circa_ second half of the fourth century B.C.) attempted\n    a rationalistic explanation of the mythology prevailing in his time.\n    The theory he propounded, in his novel of travel, _Sacred History_,\n    was simply an extension of the current skeptical-scientific attitude\n    to matters which until that time had been accepted without question.\n    That theory was that the gods were merely men who because of their\n    great exploits or beneficence had been accorded divine honors. In\n    Crete, coming upon the remains of a tomb bearing the name of Zeus,\n    Euhemerus argued that even Zeus had probably been no more than a\n    great conqueror, who died and was buried in Crete, and afterwards\n    deified. This creditable anthropological attempt to historicize\n    mythology, though it failed to convince, is nevertheless worthy of\n    great respect. As A. B. Cook wrote, if Euhemerus said that Zeus was\n    a Cretan king when he ought to have said that Cretan kings played\n    the part of Zeus, it is a pardonable error. (_Zeus_, I, 662.)\n\n[3]\u201cSaved by a Porpoise,\u201d _Natural History_, LVIII (1949), 385-386.\n\n[4]Winthrop N. Kellogg, _Porpoises and Sonar_, University of Chicago\n    Press, 1962, p. 14.\n\n[5]George G. Goodwin, \u201cPorpoise\u2014Friend of Man?\u201d _Natural History_, LVI\n    (1947), 337.\n\n[6]F. Bruce Lamb, \u201cThe Fisherman\u2019s Porpoise,\u201d _Natural History_, LXIII\n    (1954), 231-2.\n\n\nREFERENCES\n\n  Aelian. _On the Characteristics of Animals._ Bk. VI, 15.\n  Aesop. _Fables._ \u201cThe Monkey and the Dolphin.\u201d\n  Alpers, Antony. _Dolphins: the Myth and the Mammal._ Boston: Houghton\n          Mifflin, 1961.\n  Anderson, John. _Anatomical and Zoological Researches: Comprising an\n          Account of the Zoological Results of the Two Expeditions to\n          Western Yunnan._ London: Bernard Quaritch, 1878.\n  Apollodorus. _The Library._ III, 5, 3.\n  Apostolides, Nicholas. _La P\u00eache en Gr\u00e8ce._ Athens, 1907.\n  Aristotle. _History of Animals._ Bk. I, 5; II, 1, 13, 15; III, 1, 7,\n          20; IV, 8-10; V, 5; VI, 12; VIII, 2, 13; IX, 48.\n  Biedermann, Paul. _Der Delphin in der dichtenden und bildenden\n          Phantasie der Griechen und Roemer._ Halle, 1881.\n  Cook, Arthur B. _Zeus: A Study in Ancient Religion._ Cambridge, Eng.:\n          The University Press, 1914, vol. 1, p. 662.\n  Douglas, Norman. _Birds and Beasts of the Greek Anthology._ London:\n          Chapman and Hall, 1928, p. 161.\n  Euhemerus. _Sacred History._\n  Fairholme, J. K. E. \u201cThe Blacks of Moreton Bay, and the Porpoises,\u201d\n          _Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London_, XXIV\n          (1856), 353-354.\n  Goodwin, George G. \u201cPorpoise\u2014Friend of Man?\u201d _Natural History_, LVI\n          (1947), 337.\n  _The Greek Anthology._\n  Herodotos. _History._ Clio I, 23-24.\n  Hill, Ralph N. _Window in the Sea._ New York: Rinehart, 1956.\n  Kellogg, Winthrop N. _Porpoises and Sonar._ Chicago: University of\n          Chicago Press, 1961.\n  Klement, Carl. _Arion._ Vienna, 1898.\n  Lamb, F. Bruce. \u201cThe Fisherman\u2019s Porpoise,\u201d _Natural History_, LXIII\n          (1954), 231-232.\n  Llano, George A. _Airmen Against the Sea._ Maxwell Air Force Base,\n          Alabama; Arctic, Desert, Tropic Information Center [1955 or\n          1956], p. 74.\n  Longman, Heber. \u201cNew Records of Cetacea,\u201d _Memoirs of the Queensland\n          Museum_, VIII (1926), 266-278.\n  Longus, Cornificius. _De Etymis Deorum._\n  Lucian. _Marine Dialogues._ 8.\n  Lycophron. _Alexandra._\n  Nonnus Panopolitanus. _Dionysiaca._ VI, 265-266.\n  Norman, John R., and Fraser, F. C. _Giant Fishes, Whales, and\n          Dolphins._ London: Putnam, 1937.\n  Oppian. _Halieutica._ I, 649-654, 1089; V, 422, 519f.\n  Ovid. _Metamorphoses._ III, 1, 202.\n  Pliny the Elder. _Natural History._ IX, 8, 24-28.\n  Pliny the Younger. _Letters._ IX, 23.\n  Plutarch. _On the Cleverness of Animals._\n  Porphyry. _De Abstinentia._ III, 16.\n  Rabinovitch, Melitta. _Der Delphin in Sage und Mythos der Griechen._\n          Dornach: Hybernia-Verlag, 1947.\n  \u201cSaved by a Porpoise,\u201d _Natural History_, LVIII (1949), 385-386.\n  Schmidt, Bernhard. _Das Volksleben der Neugriechen._ Leipzig, 1871.\n  Servius. _Commentarii in Vergilii Aeneidos._ III, 332.\n  Stebbins, Eunice B. _The Dolphin in the Literature and Art of Greece\n          and Rome._ Menasha, Wisconsin: Banta Publishing Co., 1929.\n  Usener, Hermann. _Die Sintfluthsagen._ Bonn: F. Cohen, 1899.\n  Xenophon. _Anabasis._ V, 4, 28.\n\n\n\n\n     _Modern Whales, Dolphins, and Porpoises, as Challenges to Our\n                             Intelligence_\n\n\n                            By JOHN C. LILLY\n\nThe intelligence of whales has been the subject of speculation by\nwriters since Ancient Greece.[1][2] The discovery of the large brains of\nthe Cetacea in the eighteenth century led to inevitable comparisons of\nthese brains to those of the humans and of the lower primates. The winds\nof scholarly opinions concerning the whales have anciently blown\nstrongly for high intelligence but during later centuries shifted\nstrongly against high intelligence. At the time of Aristotle (384-322\nB.C.) the dolphin, for example, was held in high esteem, and many\nstories of the apparently great abilities of these animals were\ncurrent.[2] By the time of Plinius Secundus (A.D. 23-79) the beginning\nof a note of skepticism was introduced. Plinius said, \u201cI should be\nashamed to tell the story were it not that it has been written about by\n... others.\u201d[1]\n\nIn the middle ages the strong influence of religious philosophy on\nthinking placed Man in a completely separate compartment from all other\nliving creatures, and the accurate anatomy of the whales was neglected.\nThis point is illustrated by Figure 1, published in the 1500\u2019s in\n_Historia Animalium_ by Konrad Gesner. This was apparently a baleen\nwhale. It has two tubes which apparently symbolize the double blowhole\nof the Mystacocetae. There is no modern whale known that has such tubes\nsticking out of the top of his head. There is a huge eye above the angle\nof the jaw. All whales have the eye at or near the posterior angle of\nthe jaw. The eye is very much smaller than the one shown here. A print\npublished in 1598 of the anatomy of these animals is shown in Figure 2.\nThe drawing of the male organ is accurate (apparently it was measured\nwith a walking stick), but the eye is too large and is misplaced.\n\nThese pictures illustrate very well man\u2019s most common relationship to\nthe whale, which has continued to the present day. For commercial\nreasons man continues to exploit these creatures\u2019 bodies.\n\nIt was not until the anatomical work of Vesalius and others that the\nbiological similarities and differences of man and other mammals were\npointed out. It was at this time that the investigation of man\u2019s large\nand complex brain began.\n\nAll through these periods intelligence and the biological brain factors\nseemed to be completely separated in the minds of the scholars. At the\ntimes of the Greeks and the Romans there was little, if any, link made\nbetween brain and mind. Scholars attributed man\u2019s special achievements\nto other factors than excellence of brain structure and its use.\n\nAfter the discovery of man\u2019s complicated and complex brain and the\nclinical correlation between brain injury and effects on man\u2019s\nperformance, the brain and mental factors began to be related to one\nanother. As descriptions of man\u2019s brain became more and more exact and\nclinical correlations increased sufficiently in numbers, new\ninvestigations on the relationships between brain size and intelligence\nin _Homo sapiens_ were started. The early work is summarized by\nDonaldson.[3]\n\nIn the late 1700\u2019s and the early 1800\u2019s the expansion of the whaling\nindustry offered many opportunities for examination of these interesting\nmammals. Figures 3 and 4 are dramatic examples of the state of the\nindustry in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries.\n\nOne of the earliest drawings of the complex brain of one of the cetacea\nis that of Gottfried Reinhold Trediramus in 1818 (Fig. 5). This is an\nanterior view of the brain of the common porpoise _Phocaena phocaena_.\nThis is one of the earliest pictures showing the complexity of the\nfissuration and the large numbers of gyri and sulci.\n\nBy the year 1843 the size of the brain of whales was being related to\nthe total size of the body. The very large brains of the large whales\nwere reduced in importance by considering their weight in a ratio to the\nweight of the total body. This type of reasoning was culminated with a\nlong series of quantitative measures published by Eug\u00e8ne Dubois\n(_Bulletins de la Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 d\u2019Anthropologie de Paris_, Ser. 4, VIII\n[1897], 337-376).\n\nDescriptions from those of Hunter and Tyson onwards agree that, in\nabsolute size, the brains are as large and larger than those of man. All\nwere agreed that the smaller whales, i.e., the dolphins and porpoises,\nhave very large brains with relation to their body size. It was argued,\ntherefore, with respect to the dolphin, \u201cthis creature is of more than\nordinary wit and capacity.\u201d (Robert Hamilton, _The Natural History of\nthe Ordinary Cetacea or Whales_, p. 66, in Sir William Jardine, _The\nNaturalist\u2019s Library_, volume 7, Edinburgh, 1843.)\n\nTiedemann\u2019s drawings of the brain of _Delphinus delphis_ and of\n_Delphinus phocaena_ were published by H. G. L. Reichenbach in his\n_Anatomia Mammalium_ in 1845. The four drawings are shown in Figure 6.\nThese drawings show the improved awareness of the complexities of these\nlarge brains in regard to cerebral cortex, the cerebellum, and the\ncranial nerves. Correlations between the structure of this brain and the\nbehavior of the animal possessing it, were (and are) woefully lacking.\nThe only behavioral accounts were those of whalers hunting these\nanimals. Hunters tend to concentrate on the offensive and defensive\nmaneuvers of the animal, and can give useful information for other kinds\nof evaluation of the animal\u2019s behavior and presumed intelligence.\n\nIn 1787 John Hunter, writing in the _Philosophical Transactions of the\nRoyal Society of London_ (LXXVII, 423-424), said the following: \u201cThe\nsize of the Brain differs much in different genera of this tribe, and\nlikewise in the proportion it bears to the bulk of the animal. In the\nPorpoise, I believe, it [the proportion] is largest, and perhaps in that\nrespect comes nearest to the human....\n\n\u201cThe brain is composed of cortical and medullary substances, very\ndistinctly marked; the cortical being, in colour, like the tubular\nsubstance of a kidney; the medullary, very white. These substances are\nnearly in the same proportion as in the human brain.... The thalami\nthemselves are large; the corpora striata small; the crura of the fornix\nare continued along the windings of the ventricles, much as in the human\nsubject.\u201d\n\nFlatau and Jacobsohn in 1899 wrote, \u201cthe large brain of the Porpoise is\none of the smallest in the Cetacean Order in which the organ attains to\na much greater absolute size than any other.\u201d\n\nIn 1902 G. Elliot Smith wrote of the brain of a species of dolphin\ncalled \u201cDelphinus tursio\u201d (which may be the modern _Tursiops\ntruncatus_): \u201cThis brain is larger and correspondingly richer in sulci\nthan that of the porpoise: but the structure of the two organs is\nessentially the same.\u201d His drawings are shown in Figures 7 and 8. He\nsaid further, \u201cthe brains of the Beluga and all the dolphins closely\nresemble that of the porpoise.\u201d\n\nSmith summarizes the discussion of the huge size of the whale\u2019s brain.\n\u201cThe apparently extraordinary dimensions of the whale\u2019s brain cannot\ntherefore be considered unusual phenomena, because this enormous extent\nof the cerebral cortex to receive and \u2018store\u2019 impressions of such vast\nsensory surfaces becomes a condition of survival of the animal.\n\n\u201cThe marvelous complexity of the surface of the cerebrum is the direct\nresult of its great size. In order, apparently, that the cerebral cortex\nmay be efficiently nourished and at the same time be spared to as great\na degree as possible the risk of vascular disturbances [such as would be\nproduced by large vessels passing into it], its thickness does not\nappreciably increase in large animals. [He then quotes Dubois\u2019 figures\nshowing that the whale\u2019s cortex is the same thickness as that of the\nhuman.] Such being the case, it naturally results that the increased\nbulk of cortex in large animals can only be packed by becoming thrown\ninto increasing number of folds, separated by corresponding large number\nof sulci.\u201d[4]\n\nIn regard to communication between individual whales, Scammon in 1874\nwrote the following: \u201cIt is said that the Cachalots [Sperm Whales] are\nendowed with the faculty of communicating with each other in times of\ndanger, when miles ... distant. If this be true, the mode of\ncommunication rests instinctively within their own contracted\nbrains.\u201d[5] Let us not forget that Scammon was talking about the mammal\nwith the largest known brain on this planet. Instinct as the sole cause\nof communication with a brain this size seems rather improbable. This\nbrain is not any longer considered \u201ccontracted.\u201d Both of these\nstatements illustrate an authoritative view of that time. If one peruses\nthe paper by Tokuzo Kojima, \u201cOn the Brain of the Sperm Whale\u201d (in the\n_Scientific Reports_ of the Whales Research Institute, Tokyo, VI, 1951,\n49-72), one can obtain a modern clear view of this brain. The largest\none that he obtained (from a 49-foot sperm whale) was 9,200 grams. The\naverage weight of the sixteen brains presented in his paper is 7,800\ngrams for average body lengths of 50 feet. (The brain weight per foot of\nbody length varied from 118 to 187 grams per foot, averaging 157; man\u2019s\nratio averages about 250 grams per foot.)\n\nIn the literature of the time of Scammon, the scholars failed to give us\nnew information about the behavior of cetacea. There seems to have been\na distinctly ambivalent attitude towards these animals which is\ncontinued today. This point of view can be summarized as follows: the\nwhale is a very large animal with a brain larger than that of man. This\nbrain is the result of the huge growth of its body. All of this large\nbrain is needed to control a large body. Because these tasks are so\ndemanding, there is not enough brain substance left for a high degree of\nintelligence to develop. Thus the large brain cannot give the degree of\nintellectual capability that man has.\n\nAs an example of man\u2019s attitudes to cetaceans, consider the case of the\nU. S. Fisheries Bureau _Economic Circular_ No. 38, of November 6, 1918,\nby Lewis Radcliffe, entitled \u201cWhales and Porpoises as Food.\u201d Roy Chapman\nAndrews is quoted as saying that hump-backed whale meat is the best of\nthe larger cetaceans but that porpoise and dolphin meat is even better\neating than that of the larger whale. The composition of the whale meat\nis given as 30% protein, 6% fat, and less than 2% ash. From a hump-back\nwhale one obtains six tons of meat, from a Sei Whale, five tons, and\nfrom a Finback, eight tons. Directions are given to remove the\nconnective tissue between the blubber and the muscle to avoid the oily\ntaste. For those who are interested, the paper includes twenty-two whale\nmeat recipes and ten porpoise meat recipes.\n\nIt can well be imagined, if we ever do communicate with whales,\ndolphins, or porpoises, the kind of reception that this sort of\nliterature will receive from the cetaceans.\n\nThe limited point of view of the whales as \u201cdumb beasts\u201d neglects the\nadaptations that have taken place in non-mammalian forms with very much\nsmaller brains but with comparable bulk of body. The 60-foot whale\nshark, a plankton eater, and like the rest of the sharks a\nwater-breather, has a bulk of body comparable to that of the larger\nwhales. It has a large brain cavity but a very small brain in a small\npart of this large cavity. (It is very difficult to find the weight of\nthese brains to compare with that of the cetacea and other mammals.) The\nproblem of brain weight versus body weight versus intelligence is most\nclearly expressed by Gerhardt von Bonin in his paper in the _Journal of\nGeneral Psychology_ (1937).[6] He gives a very extensive table for\nmammals, their brain weight, their body weight, and the values of 2\nparameters for their specification. He then states, \u201cit is clear from\nall that has been said above that the figures given here are nothing but\na description of facts, a description which, in the mathematical sense\nof the term, is the \u2018best\u2019 one. It does not pretend to make any\nenunciation about the relation of intelligence and brain weight. For\nthat purpose we need a much broader psychological basis than we have at\npresent.\n\n\u201cFormer attempts to analyze the relations between body weight and brain\nweight suffer from three deficits: (1) they presuppose a correlation\nbetween intelligence and brain weight, (2) they make suppositions about\nthe intelligence of animals which are unproven, and (3) they are based\non a conception of cortical function which can no longer be considered\nvalid.... There is a close correlation between the logarithms of brain\nand body weight, and this co-relation is linear. Brain weight increases\nas the 0.655th power of body weight. The value of the cephalization\nco-efficient k differs from species to species. _Whether or not this is\nan indication of the intelligence of animals must be left to the\npsychologists to answer._\u201d\n\nOne of the problems that the whales have, as compared to, say, the large\nshark, is breathing air while living in the sea. This requires that\nthese animals reach the air-water interface relatively frequently\u2014at\nleast every one hour and a half for the bottlenose whale (_Hypero\u00f6don_),\nthree-quarters of an hour for the Sperm Whale (_Physeter catadon_), and\nevery six minutes for _Tursiops truncatus_. This puts very stringent\nrequirements on the relationship of the whales to other events within\nthe sea. Each whale must know where the surface of the sea is at each\ninstant and compute his future actions so that when he does run out of\nair he is near the surface. He is essentially a surface-to-depth and\ndepth-to-surface oriented animal. He must travel at high speed at times\nin order to recapture enough air to continue whatever he is doing under\nthe surface. This means that he must calculate his chances of obtaining\na good breath of air during rain storms and similar situations. He can\nbe violently thrown around at the surface unless he comes up in the\ntrough rather than at the crest of the wave. Such calculations probably\nrequire an exercise of something more than just \u201cinstinct.\u201d\n\nWater-breathing animals, on the other hand, have no need for such\ncalculations. If the surface gets rough, they move downward and stay\nthere. The required maneuvers are very much simpler and the amount of\ncomputation is very much less.\n\nThis requirement for the whales implies that the information coming from\nevery one of the senses, not just the skin, needs to be correlated very\nrapidly and in complex patterning to allow the animals to predict their\nfuture course safely and accurately. It also requires the use of large\namounts of information from memory.\n\nThe predators of the sea, other than the whales themselves, make life in\nthe sea rather a complex business for mammals. The very large sharks can\nand do attack whales, dolphins, and porpoises. At times such attacks are\nby overwhelming numbers of sharks on a relatively small number of\ndolphins. All of the older animals in our experience have at least one\nshark bite on them\u2014the younger animals are protected by the older ones\nand most of them are not so dramatically scarred.\n\nThe whales, in turn, must track their own prey in order to obtain food.\nWith the single known exception of _Orca_, none of their predators are\nair-breathers. In general, the whales\u2019 diet consists of fish, squid, or\nother water-breathing organisms of the sea.\n\nA scientific assessment of the position of these animals in the\ncompetitive environment of the sea is not yet fully evaluated\nquantitatively. Any pronouncement of the requirements in regard to new\ncomplex adaptations to new complicated situations and hence the\nevaluation of intelligence of these animals at this time is premature\nand presumptuous. The whole issue of the meaning and the use of these\nlarge brains is still very much unknown. As I say in _Man and\nDolphin_,[7] I am espousing a plea for an open-minded attitude with\nrespect to these animals. It would be presumptuous to assume that we at\nthe present time can know how to measure their intelligence or their\nintellectual capacity. The usual behavioral criteria used in evaluation\nof intelligence of other animals are obviously inapplicable to a mammal\nliving in the sea. As McBride and Hebb[8] so clearly stated, they cannot\nplace the dolphin in any sort of intellectual comparative intelligence\nscale; they did not know the appropriate experimental questions to ask\nin order to compare the dolphins with the chimpanzees, for example.\nComparing a handed-mammal with a flippered-mammal, each of which lives\nin an entirely separate and distinctive environment, is a very difficult\nintellectual task even for _Homo sapiens_.\n\nIn pursuing possible measures of intellectual and intelligent capacity,\nwhat line should one pursue? I explored this question somewhat in _Man\nand Dolphin_, but wish to summarize and extend it here in this\ndiscussion. The invariants that we are seeking somehow do not seem to be\nas concrete as \u201ctool-making and tool-using ability\u201d by means of the\nhands which has been one of the major alleged criteria for human\nadaptation and success. The chimpanzee and the gorilla have the hands\nbut they do not have the brains to back up the use of the hands. Man has\nboth the hands and the brain. Thus we can quite simply and concretely\ncontrast the performance of the large brains of man with his hands to\nthe smaller brains of the primates with their hands. When we consider\nthe whales, we seem obsessed, as it were, with the necessity of our own\nnature to look for an analog of the hand and the manipulative ability.\nMay it not be better to find a more general principle than just\nhandedness and its use?\n\nI suggest that we think more in terms of a physiologically appropriate\nset of more general mechanisms which may subsume several other human\nfunctions under the same principle. It seems to me that we must look for\nabilities to develop generalized dexterity of use for certain kinds of\nend purposes for any or all muscular outputs from the central nervous\nsystem. If there is a task to be done, such as lifting a stone, whether\nin water or air, a given animal may turn it over with his foot, with his\nflipper, with his hand, with his tail, or with any other body part with\nwhich he could obtain a purchase on the stone. The end task is turning\nover the stone, to obtain food or whatever. It makes little difference\nwhat kind of muscular equipment he uses just so he uses it\nappropriately.\n\nLet me illustrate with a more complex example seen in our own\nlaboratory. A baby dolphin was being nursed in a small tank\nartificially. It apparently needed the constant attention of a human\nattendant. Its mother had not been caught with it. After several days it\ndiscovered that if it banged on the bottom of the tank with its flipper\nin a rhythmic fashion it could bring the humans from the other room. (We\nheard a loud thumping sound transmitted from a hydrophone in its tank.)\nPrevious to this it attempted to bring the humans from the other room by\nwhistling the distress call of the dolphins; unlike its mother, the\nhumans did not respond to the whistle. In a sense this distress call is\nin his instinctual pattern for obtaining food and aid by other dolphins.\nThe secondary adaptation and the new effort was that of manipulating the\nflipper rather than the phonation mechanism in the blowhole. Thus driven\nby whatever the instinctual need is, it tried different outputs from its\nbrain and finally discovered one which brought the desired results. This\nability to change the output from unsuccessful ones to successful ones\nseems to me to be evidence of a \u201chigher nervous system\u201d function. Of\ncourse in fine gradation and small differences, the same kind of pattern\ncan be shown for smaller-brained animals. It is the seeking a new\noutput, not necessarily instinctually tied in, and the radicalness of\nthe change of output, plus the relating of many of the variables to one\nanother thus generating the new output, that seems to be the hallmark of\nthe large brain. These problems are not single variable ones with simple\ncause and effect, but are simultaneous multiple variable ones.\n\nAmong the manipulable outputs (muscular groups) I would include those of\nrespiration and phonation. The dexterous and finely differentiated use\nof these muscles generates all the complexities of human speech. As more\nof the physiology and psychology of human speech are analyzed and made\npart of our sciences, the sharper will be our criteria for separating\nman from the other animals, and from those with smaller brains.\nScientific descriptions of human speech are of relatively recent origin.\nScientific descriptions of the physiology of the vocal tract are\nanything but a closed book at the present time. The neuroanatomy and\nneurophysiology of speech is in a relatively primitive state of\ndevelopment as a science. With such a lack of knowledge of the intimate\nand detailed mechanisms concerned, it would be rather presumptuous to\nevaluate at the present time their role in the measurement and testing\nof intelligence and intellectual capacity.\n\nHowever, I wish to point out that these factors are important in such an\nevaluation and become even more important in terms of evaluating a\nspecies that is not human. Thus it is necessary, in order to evaluate\nthe intelligence of even the dolphins, much less the whales, to know\nsomething of their abilities in the areas of phonation and other kinds\nof bodily gestures and manipulations and hence in their abilities to\ncommunicate with one another. As I implied in _Man and Dolphin_, it is\nnot possible to measure accurately the intelligence of any other being\nthan that of a human being, mainly because we do not exchange ideas\nthrough any known communication mode with such beings.\n\nThe difficulties of such understanding as we can possibly gain of the\nreal situation of the whales in the sea and their adaptation as mammals\nto this particular environment, can be illustrated by their use of sonic\ngenerators for the location of their prey and of the boundaries of their\ncontainer by means of the perception of echoes. As is well known, the\nsmall mammals, such as the bat, use this mechanism in air.[9] The\nbottlenose dolphin also uses this same kind of mechanism underwater.[7]\n[9][10] Because these animals are immersed in a medium of a density and\na sound velocity comparable to the density and sound velocity of their\nown bodies, they can presumably use their sonar also in looking, as it\nwere, inside one another\u2019s body.[7] The sonar view of the inside of the\nbody of a dolphin may possibly be very instructive to other dolphins and\npossibly even aid in diagnosis of the causes of certain problems,\nespecially of those of the baby by the mother. For example, their\nbuoyancy depends upon maintaining their center of gravity below their\ncenter of buoyancy; otherwise they turn over and drown. If the baby\ndevelops gas in stomach #1, he can develop problems in his buoyancy\nrelationship which turn him over; however, the mother dolphin can\nprobably easily find out whether or not there is a bubble of gas in the\nbaby\u2019s stomach by her echo ranging abilities. When she discovers such a\nbubble, she can then burp the baby by banging on the belly with her\nbeak. We have seen such operations take place in our tanks. Here is\nanother instance of the animal using a given output, coupled with the\nproper input, to diagnose a problem and to manipulate other outputs in\nthe solution of that problem. How much of this is labeled \u201cinstinctual,\u201d\ni.e., \u201cunlearned,\u201d is purely a matter of intellectual taste.\n\nIn the sea it is necessary to use sonic mechanisms for sightings and\nrecognition. If one goes into the sea one realizes that one\u2019s range of\nvision even under the best of circumstances is rarely beyond 100 feet\nand most of the time is less than that even near the brilliantly lit\nsurface of the tropical seas. With sonic means, one\u2019s range is extended\nup to several miles under the best of circumstances and under the worst\nto a few hundred feet.\n\nRecently we have obtained evidence that shows that the dolphins\ncommunicate most of their information in the band of frequencies\nextending from about 8 kilocycles to 20 kilocycles by means of whistles\nand sonic clicks.[11] However, as shown by Schevill and Lawrence, they\ncan hear sounds at least to 120 kilocycles[12] and as shown by Kellogg\ncan produce sounds at least to 170 kilocycles.[10] We have recently been\ninvestigating the higher frequency bands in these animals and have\nreliable evidence that they can hear at least to 200 kilocycles and can\nproduce sounds to at least 200 kilocycles.[7][13] With the proper\nelectronic equipment one can listen to the nearer portions of the upper\nband and quickly determine that they can transmit in these bands without\nthe necessity of transmitting in the (lower frequency) communication\nband. The high frequency information is broadcast in a narrow beam off\nthe front of the beak as was first detected by Kenneth Norris.[14]\n\nIn these bands we find that they can produce musical tones or individual\nclickings or hissing-like noises. Recently we have found that an\nemotionally upset animal threatens other animals and humans by\nproductions of very large amounts of energy both in the sonic\ncommunication band and in the ultrasonic bands. Recently we have had the\nopportunity of working with an old bull of 450 pounds weight who is so\nold his teeth have been ground down flat. In terms of his skeleton, he\nis the most massive animal we have ever seen. When he is irritated, his\n\u201cbarks\u201d have sizable amounts of energy from about 0.5 to at least 300\nkilocycles. He is also capable of transmitting in bands between 100 to\n300 kilocycles without transmitting anything in the band from 8\nkilocycles to 20 kilocycles in a narrow beam straight ahead of his body.\nWhen he is upset by the activities of a younger male, they face one\nanother and blast at one another with short barks of this sort,\nmeanwhile \u201cthreatening\u201d by opening their mouths.\n\nSince they live immersed in an acoustic world quite strange to us, we\nhave great difficulty in appreciating the full life of these animals\nwith respect to one another and their environment. From birth they are\nconstantly bombarded with signals from the other animals of the same\nspecies and by echoes from the environment which they can apparently use\nvery efficiently. Their ultrasonic (to us) emissions are not merely\n\u201csonar,\u201d but are interpersonal and even emotional. These animals are not\ninanimate, cold pieces of sonar apparatus. They use their ultrasounds\nand their high-pitched sounds interpersonally with fervor in everything\nthey do.[15]\n\nWe have demonstrated that the dolphins are quite capable of using vocal\noutputs as a demand for further rewards or for surcease from punishment.\nTheir ability in the vocal sphere is quite sophisticated. In addition to\nthe ultrasonic matters mentioned above, their sonic performance, when in\nclose contact with man, is astonishing. In 1957 I discovered their\nability to produce sounds similar to our speech sounds.[16] During the\nlast two years we have had many opportunities to pursue further\nobservations in this area. This emerging ability seems to be an\nadaptation to a new environment which includes Man.[17] They quickly\ndiscover that they can obtain various kinds of rewards by making what we\nnow call \u201chumanoid emissions.\u201d When they make a sound which sounds\nsimilar to a human syllable or word, we express our pleasure by\nrewarding the animals in various ways. We have been exploring what some\nof these rewards are in order to elicit further such behavior under\nbetter control.\n\n    [Illustration: Figure 1. _A 16th-Century Impression of a Whale_ (by\n    Konrad Gesner).\n\n    Notice the four large human-like breasts, the two long tubes on top\n    of the head, the beetling brow, the misplaced giant eye, the teeth\n    and the doglike snarling facial expression, the rays in the tail.\n    None of these exist in any known modern whale or dolphin or\n    porpoise. All modern whales, dolphins, and porpoises have two teats,\n    at the genital slit only, which are long and narrow, not\n    hemispherical; the blowhole slits are flush with the skin at the\n    true forehead; the relatively small eyes are at the posterior angle\n    of the jaw; baleen whales have no teeth; large toothed whales have\n    only a few teeth; no \u201cfacial\u201d expression is detectable on whales,\n    dolphins, or porpoises; the tale flukes of all species are smooth\n    skinned, not rayed like a fish.]\n\n             NAVTAE IN DORSA CETORVM, QVAE INSVLAS PVTANT,\n   anchoras figentes s\u00e6pe periclitantur. Hos cetos Trolual sua lingua\n                   appellant, Germanice _Te\u00fcffelwal_.\n\n    [Illustration: Figure 2. _An Improved Portrayal of a Whale_ (Gilliam\n    van de GouWen, 1598).\n\n    Apparently this is a toothed whale, a sperm whale. The lower body\n    (flukes, penis, lower jaw and moth and teeth) is quite accurate. The\n    ear is fanciful, as is the eye.]\n\n    [Illustration: Figure 3. _Whaling in the 19th Century._\n\n    Sperm whale being lanced and blowing blood. (Painting in the\n    collection of the Old Dartmouth Historical Society, New Bedford\n    Whaling Museum, New Bedford, Mass.; copy through the courtesy of\n    Phillip Purrington, Curator.)]\n\n    [Illustration: Figure 4. _Whaling in the 19th Century._\n\n    A sperm whale is attacking a whale boat with his jaws after being\n    provoked by Man. There is no record of an unprovoked attack on a man\n    or a boat or a ship by a whale. (Courtesy of Phillip Purrington, New\n    Bedford.)]\n\n    [Illustration: Figure 5. _One of the First Drawings of a Porpoise\u2019s\n    (Phocaena) Brain_ (Gottfried Reinhold Trediramus, 1818).\n\n    This is an anterior view. The hemispheres are artificially separated\n    for unknown reasons. The optic nerves and tracts are shown. The\n    complex fissuration is obvious. (Courtesy of Dr. Mary A. B. Brazier,\n    UCLA.)]\n\n    [Illustration: Figure 6. _Early Drawings of the Brain of the Dolphin\n    and of the Porpoise by Tiedemann._\n\n    These drawings were reproduced by H. G. L. Reichenbach in his\n    _Anatomia Mammalium_ in 1845. These are more accurate renditions and\n    show the lateral expansion of these fine brains. (Courtesy of the\n    Library of Congress, Washington, D.C.)]\n\n    [Illustration: Figure 7. _The First 20th-Century Drawing of a\n    Dolphin Brain_ (G. Elliot Smith, 1902).\n\n    Lateral view. The proportions are excellent, as are the gyri and\n    sulci. Smith gives the species as _Delphinus tursio_; this probably\n    corresponds to the modern _Tursiops truncatus_ or bottlenose\n    dolphin. This brain closely resembles that of _Tursiops_ shown in\n    photos in reference 7. Langworthy\u2019s 1931 drawings (\u201cPorpoise\u201d) are\n    also similar (Brain, 54, 225, 1931).]\n\n    [Illustration: Figure 8. _Mesial View of Same Brain as in Figure\n    7._]\n\nWe demonstrated that, like other animals, the monkey, the rat, etc.,\nthese animals can be rewarded by stimulating the proper places in their\nbrains.[16][18] In a recent series of experiments we have been\nestablishing the controls necessary to understanding what brain rewards\nmean in terms of natural physiology. We have demonstrated quite formally\nthat rubbing the skin of these animals with our hands is a rewarding\nexperience to them; they will seek it vocally and by body gestures and\ngive certain kinds of performance in order to obtain this reward.\n\nRecently we have found that \u201cvocal transactions\u201d are a reward to these\nanimals.[7][13] (See below for human analogies in the child.) This seems\nto be one of the basic factors in our being able to elicit humanoid\nemissions. The vocal transactions are started by a human shouting some\nwords over the water of the tank in which the animal is residing. A\nsingle word may be used or many words\u2014it makes little difference.\nEventually the animal in the tank will raise his blowhole out of water\nand make some sort of a humanoid emission or whistle or clicks in a\ndelphinese fashion. If the human immediately replies with some word or\nwords, the animal may immediately respond, the human answers, and a\nvocal transaction is under way. We have shown that dolphins naturally do\nthis with one another in both their whistle and clicking spheres, and\nsometimes do it in the barking sphere.[13] How much of this is\n\u201cinstinctual\u201d and how much is not, there is no way of knowing at the\npresent time.\n\nA physical analysis of such vocal transactions shows them to be formally\nquite as complex as the vocal transactions between human beings. In\nother words, the dolphin may say one word or a syllable-like emission,\nor many, one right after the other, as may the humans. If the human says\none word, the dolphin may say one, two, three, or four, and if the human\nsays one, two, three, or four, the dolphin may say one. There is no\nnecessary master-slave kind of relationship in the delphinic emissions.\n\nIn our early reports we gave examples which were single words which\nsounded like the words that the human made.[16][7] This presentation led\nto misunderstandings among our scientific colleagues. It looked as if\nthe animals were doing a slavish tape-recorder rendition of what we were\ndoing in a fashion similar to that of a parrot or a Mynah bird. All\nalong we have known that the dolphins did not do such a slavish job and\nwere obviously doing a much more complicated series of actions. We are\njust beginning to appreciate how to analyze and what to analyze in these\ntransactions. As I stated in _Man and Dolphin_ about 10% of these\nemissions sound like human speech. In other words, the dolphin is\n\u201csaying\u201d far more than we have transmitted to the scientific community\nto date. We hesitate to say anything more about this until we begin to\nunderstand what is going on in greater detail. We are making progress\nslowly.\n\nLet me then make an appeal to you\u2014a long appeal to your logical and\nrational views of man and cetaceans. Here I review the above points in\nmore general terms, and develop a plea for a new science\u2014a new\ndiscipline combining the best of science with the best of the\nhumanities.\n\nSeveral old questions should be revived and asked again with a new\nattitude, with more modern techniques of investigation and with more\npersistence. It may take twenty years or more to develop good answers;\nmeanwhile the intellectual life of man will profit in the undertaking.\nThere is something exciting and even at times disturbing in this\nquest.[19] The bits and pieces may have started before historical times.\nIn each age of man a new fragment was allowed to be recorded and passed\non to subsequent generations. Each generation judged and rejudged the\nevidence from the older sources on the basis of its then current beliefs\nand on the basis of its new experiences, if any. At times good evidence\nwas attenuated, distorted, and even destroyed in the name of the then\ncurrent dogma.\n\nToday we have similar problems; our current beliefs blind us, too.\nEvidence right before the eye can be distorted by the eye of the\nbeholder quite as powerfully as it has been in previous ages of man. We\ncan only hope that we have achieved greater insight and greater\nobjectivity than some of our ancestors. The winds and currents of bias\nand prejudice blow hard and run deep in the minds of men. In one\u2019s own\nmind these factors are difficult to see, and when seen, difficult to\nattenuate and to allow for their influence. If at times I scold my own\nspecies, do not take it too personally; I am scolding myself more than\nyou.\n\nYou can see by now that I believe that some of the answers to the quest\nare in our own minds. We must develop, imaginatively and humbly, numbers\nof alternative hypotheses to expand the testable areas of the intellect\nand bring to the investigation new mental instruments to test and to\ncollect facts germane to our questions.\n\nTo ask about the intelligence of another species, we somehow first ask:\nhow large and well-developed is its brain? Somewhat blindly we link\nbrain size (a biological fact) to intelligence (a behavioral and\npsychological concept). We know, in the case of our own species, that if\nthe brain fails to develop, intelligence also fails to develop.\n\nHow do we judge in our own species that intelligence develops or fails\nto develop? We work with the child and carefully observe its\nperformances of common tasks and carefully measure its acquisition of\nspeech quantitatively. We measure (among other factors) size of word\nvocabulary, adequacy of pronunciation, lengths of phrases and sentences,\nappropriateness of use, levels of abstraction achieved, and the quality\nof the logical processes used. We also measure speed of grasping new\ngames with novel sets of rules and strategy; games physical and/or games\nverbal and vocal.\n\nNormal mental growth patterns of human children have been measured\nextensively in both performance and in vocal speech acquisition. I have\ntaken the liberty of relating these to the normal growth of brain weight\nof children.\n\n\n                                TABLE I\n  Threshold Quantities for Human Acquisition of Speech: Age and Brain\n                               Weight[7]\n\n       _Age_        _Brain  _Speech stages_[9] (_first appearances_)\n  (_months_)    weight_[8]\n                 (_grams_)\n\n           2           480  Responds to human voice, cooing, and\n                            vocalizes pleasure.\n           4           580  Vocal play. Eagerness and displeasure\n                            expressed vocally.\n           6           660  Imitates sounds.\n           9           770  First word.\n          11           850  Imitates syllables and words. Second word.\n          13           930  Vocabulary expands rapidly.\n          17         1,030  Names objects and pictures.\n          21         1,060  Combines words in speech.\n          23         1,070  Uses pronouns, understands prepositions,\n                            uses phrases and sentences.\n\n\n[7]Lilly, John C. _Man and Dolphin: A Developing Relationship_. London:\n    Victor Gollancz, 1962.\n\n[8]Boston Children\u2019s Hospital data from 1,198 records, in Coppoletta,\n    J.M., and Wolbach, S.B., \u201cBody Length and Organ Weights of Infants\n    and Children,\u201d _American Journal of Pathology_, IX (1933), 55-70.\n\n[9]Summarized from McCarthy, Dorothea, \u201cLanguage Development in\n    Children,\u201d in Carmichael, Leonard, ed., _Manual of Child\n    Psychology_. New York: John Wiley, 1946, pp. 476-581.\n\n\nTable 1 shows relations between age, brain weight, and speech\nperformance, up to 23 months, 1070 grams, and the use of full sentences.\nBy 17 years, the brain reaches and levels off at 1450 grams and the\nnumber of words, levels of abstraction, etc., are so large as to be\ndifficult to assess.\n\nIn these processes, what are the minimum necessary but not necessarily\nsufficient factors?[20] On the biological side, modern theory\nconcentrates on two factors: total numbers of neurons and the number of\ninterconnections between them. On the psychological side, modern theory\nconcentrates on the numbers of occurrences of reinforced contingencies\nexperienced, the number of repetitions, and the number of adequate\npresentations from the accepted set of the consensus known as \u201cnative\nlanguage,\u201d and the total numbers of sets in the stored memories at a\ngiven age. In addition, of course, is the adequate development of the\ntransmitting and of the receiving equipment needed for speech and its\nancillary behaviors.\n\nOn the biological side, modern neurology says the number of neurons in\nthe human brain reaches maximum value before birth at about 13 billions.\nAfter this point, the increase in weight consists of increased numbers\nof fibers, increased connections, increased size of elements, and\nincreased efficiency and selectivity of transmission. Thus the increase\nin weight of the human brain from about 400 to 1400 grams seems to be\ndevoted to improving its internal (as well as external) communication,\nstorage, and computation networks. As I have stated elsewhere (_Man and\nDolphin_), it is my impression that there exist critical threshold\nvalues in the brain\u2019s growth pattern at which certain kinds of\nperformance become possible. Complex speech acquisition seems related to\nbrain weights of 800 to 1000 grams, but no smaller. This assumes, of\ncourse, numbers of neurons (10\u00b9\u2070) and numbers of connections and\nopportunities for learning and time to learn commonly found with humans.\n\nThe critical psychological factors in speech acquisition are slowly\nbeing dug out and described.[21][22] Among these the most important seem\nto be a continuous background of presentations to the child in rewarding\ncircumstances of speech and its close relations to objects, actions,\nsatisfaction of needs, and persons. Imitation of one\u2019s use of facial and\nvocal apparatus appears spontaneously in the happy child. The virtuosity\nof the child as a mimic is truly astonishing.\n\nI am also impressed by evidence for what I call the \u201ctransactional\ndrive.\u201d A bright child seems to seek and respond best to those persons\nwho respond in kind, back and forth in exchanges of sounds and linked\nactions. For example, if one starts such a transaction with a child of\n22 months with a loud word, if he is ready, he may return his version of\nthe word or a slight variant; if one replies with another variant the\nchild replies with still a third, or even suddenly with a new word, and\nso on back and forth in a transactional vocal dance. Or one may reply to\na child who invites such an exchange to begin. Such exchanges seem to\nfunction as rewards of themselves, and hence the name, \u201ctransactional\ndrive.\u201d This phenomenon is more than mere mechanical slavish mimicry. It\nseems to aid in perfecting pronunciation, increases vocabulary,\nincreases the bonds with other persons, serves to substitute the\n\u201cconsensus-dictionary\u201d words for the private baby words, and is thus\nessential to learning a language of one\u2019s own species. It is thus that\nthe child \u201cbecomes human.\u201d\n\nAs the child ages and grows, the exchanges lengthen, and the time during\nwhich each member of the dyad is quiet while the other speaks becomes\nlonger, until finally for a half hour or so, I am lecturing and you are\nat least quiet, if not listening.\n\nHow does all of this relate to modern dolphins, porpoises, and whales?\nFrom the vast array of scientific facts and theories about our own\nspecies, a few of those which I feel are useful in approaching another\nspecies to evaluate its intelligence are discussed above. But before I\nmake connections there, let us attenuate some interfering attitudes and\npoints of view, some myths not so modern; these interfering presumptions\ncan be stated as follows:\n\n  (1) No animal has a language comparable to a human language.\n  (2) No animal is as intelligent as man.\n  (3) Man can adapt himself to any environment quite as well as any\n          animal.\n  (4) Intelligence and intellect can be expressed only in the ways man\n          expresses or has expressed them.\n  (5) All animal behavior is instinct-determined.\n  (6) None of man\u2019s thought and behavior is so determined.\n  (7) Only man thinks and plans; animals are incapable of having a\n          mental life.\n  (8) Philosophy and contemplative and analytic thought are\n          characteristic only of man, not of any animal.\n\nAll of these statements stem from ignorance and anthropocentricity. For\nexample, who are we to say that whales, dolphins, and porpoises are to\nbe included as \u201cdumb beasts\u201d? It would be far more objective and humble\nto tell the truth\u2014we don\u2019t know about these animals because we haven\u2019t\n\u201cbeen there yet.\u201d We have not lived in the sea, naked and alone, or even\nin mobile groups, without steel containers to keep out the sea itself.\nFor purposes of discussion let us make the following assumptions which\npush counter to the current of bias running deep among us:\n\n  (1) Man has not yet been willing to investigate the possibility of\n          another intelligent species.\n  (2) Whales, dolphins, and porpoises are assumed to be \u201cdumb beasts\u201d\n          with little or no evidence for this presumption.\n  (3) We do not yet know very much about these animals\u2014their\n          necessities, their intelligences, their lives, the possibility\n          of their communications.\n  (4) It is possible for man to investigate these matters objectively\n          with courage and perseverance.\n  (5) To properly evaluate whales, dolphins, porpoises, we must use\n          everything we have intellectually, all available knowledge,\n          _humanistic_ as well as _scientific_.\n\nOur best knowledge of ourselves as a species, as humans, is in the\nhumanities and in the budding, growing sciences of man. In pursuit of\nunderstanding of the whales, dolphins, and porpoises, we need, at least\nat the beginning, a large view which is in the human sciences and in the\nhumanities. The sciences of animals are necessarily restrictive in their\nview, and hence not yet applicable to our problems.\n\nThe history of the animal sciences shows that they have had grave\ndifficulties with the fact that the observers are present and human.\nThese sciences, like physics, chemistry, and biology, play the game as\nif the human observer were not there and the systems were isolated from\nman. This is fine strategy for \u201cman-less nature\u201d studies and quite\nappropriate for such studies.\n\nHowever, I submit to you another view, for a science of man and animal,\ntheir relationships to one another. Modern man and modern dolphin and\nwhale may be best investigated in the framework of a new science one\nmight call \u201canthropo-zoology\u201d or \u201czoo-anthropology.\u201d This science is a\ndeep study of man, of the animal, of their mutual relations, present and\npotential. In this discipline scientists encourage close relations with\nthe animal, and study the developing relation between man and so-called\n\u201cbeast.\u201d\n\nFor the last three years in the Communication Research Institute[23] we\nhave been pursuing an investigative path in this new science with the\npair \u201cman and bottlenose dolphin.\u201d We have encouraged and pursued\nstudies in classical sciences such as neurophysiology, animal\npsychology, anatomy, biophysics, and zoology. We have also initiated and\npursued this new science of the man and dolphin relation; these\n\u201chomo-delphic\u201d studies, if you will, are triply demanding: we must not\nonly know our animal objectively but we must know man objectively, and\nourselves subjectively. We cannot fight shy of involving ourselves in\nthe investigation as objects also. In this science man, and hence one\u2019s\nown self, are part of the system under investigation. This is not an\neasy discipline. One must guard quite as rigorously (or even more so)\nagainst the pitfalls of wishful thinking and sensational fantasy as in\nother scientific endeavors. This field requires a self-candor, an inner\nhonesty, and a humility quite difficult to acquire. But I maintain that\ngood science can be done here, that the field is a proper one for\nproperly trained and properly motivated investigators.\n\n\nREFERENCES AND NOTES\n\n\n[1]Plinius Secundus. _Natural History._ III, Book IX.\n\n[2]Aristotle. _Historia Animalium._ Books I-IX.\n\n[3]Donaldson, Henry H. _The Growth of the Brain._ London: Walter Scott,\n    1895.\n\n[4]Smith, G. Elliot, in Royal College of Surgeons of England, Museum,\n    _Descriptive and Illustrated Catalogue of the Physiological Series\n    of Comparative Anatomy_. London: Taylor and Francis, 1902, pp. 349,\n    351, 356.\n\n[5]Scammon, Charles Melville. _The Marine Mammals of the North-Western\n    Coast of North America, Described and Illustrated: Together with an\n    Account of the American Whale-Fishery._ San Francisco: J. H.\n    Carmany, 1874, p. 78.\n\n[6]von Bonin, Gerhardt. \u201cBrain-Weight and Body-Weight in Mammals,\u201d\n    _Journal of General Psychology_, XVI (1937), 379-389.\n\n[7]Lilly, John C. _Man and Dolphin._ Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1961;\n    London: Victor Gollancz, 1962.\n\n[8]McBride, Arthur F., and Hebb, D.O. \u201cBehavior of the Captive\n    Bottle-Nose Dolphin, _Tursiops truncatus_,\u201d _Journal of Comparative\n    and Physiological Psychology_, XLI (1948), 111-123.\n\n[9]Griffin, Donald R. _Echoes of Bats and Men._ Garden City, N.Y.:\n    Doubleday, 1959.\n\n[10]Kellogg, Winthrop N. _Porpoises and Sonar._ Chicago: University of\n    Chicago Press, 1961.\n\n[11]Lilly, John C., and Miller, Alice M. \u201cVocal Exchanges between\n    Dolphins; Bottlenose Dolphins \u2018Talk\u2019 to Each Other with Whistles,\n    Clicks, and a Variety of Other Noises,\u201d _Science_, CXXXIV (1961),\n    1873-1876.\n\n[12]Schevill, William E., and Lawrence, Barbara. \u201cAuditory Response of a\n    Bottlenosed Porpoise, _Tursiops truncatus_, to Frequencies above 100\n    KC,\u201d _Journal of Experimental Zoology_, CXXIV (1953), 147-165.\n\n[13]Lilly, John C. \u201cVocal Behavior of the Bottlenose Dolphin,\u201d\n    _Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society_, CVI (1926),\n    520-529.\n\n[14]Norris, Kenneth S., Prescott, John H., Asa-Dorian, Paul V., and\n    Perkins, Paul. \u201cAn Experimental Demonstration of Echo-Location\n    Behavior in the Porpoise, _Tarsiops truncatus_: (Montagu),\u201d\n    _Biological Bulletin_, CXX (1961), 163-176.\n\n[15]Lilly, John C. \u201cInterspecies Communication,\u201d _McGraw-Hill Yearbook\n    of Science and Technology 1962_. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1962, pp.\n    279-281.\n\n[16]Lilly, John C. \u201cSome Considerations Regarding Basic Mechanisms of\n    Positive and Negative Types of Motivations,\u201d _American Journal of\n    Psychiatry_, CXV (1958), 498-504.\n\n[17]Lilly, John C. \u201cSome Aspects of the Adaptation of the Mammals to the\n    Ocean,\u201d in John Field, ed., _Handbook of Physiology_. Washington:\n    American Physiological Society (in press).\n\n[18]Lilly, John C., and Miller, A. M. \u201cOperant Conditioning of the\n    Bottlenose Dolphin with Electrical Stimulation of the Brain,\u201d\n    _Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology_, LV (1962),\n    73-79.\n\n[19]Lilly, John C. \u201cSome Problems of Productive and Creative Scientific\n    Research with Man and Dolphin,\u201d _Archives of General Psychiatry_\n    (1963, in press).\n\n[20]Lilly, John C. \u201cCritical Brain Size and Language,\u201d _Perspectives in\n    Biology and Medicine_ (in press).\n\n[21]Skinner, Burrhus F. _Verbal Behavior._ New York:\n    Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1957.\n\n[22]Lewis, Morris M. _How Children Learn to Speak._ New York: Basic\n    Books, 1959.\n\n[23]Support for the program of the Communication Research Institute, St.\n    Thomas, Virgin Islands, is from the National Institute of Mental\n    Health and the National Institute of Neurological Diseases and\n    Blindness of the National Institutes of Health; from the Coyle\n    Foundation; from the Office of Naval Research; from the U. S. Air\n    Force Office of Scientific Research; and from private gifts and\n    contributions to the Communication Research Institute.\n\n\n\n\n        _William Andrews Clark Memorial Library Seminar Papers_\n\n\n_Editing Donne and Pope._ 1952.\n\n  Problems in the Editing of Donne\u2019s Sermons, by George R. Potter.\n  Editorial Problems in Eighteenth\u2014Century Poetry, by John Butt.\n\n_Music and Literature in England in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth\nCenturies._ 1953.\n\n  Poetry and Music in the Seventeenth Century, by James E. Phillips.\n  Some Aspects of Music and Literature in the Eighteenth Century, by\n              Bertrand H. Bronson.\n\n_Restoration and Augustan Prose._ 1956.\n\n  Restoration Prose, by James R. Sutherland.\n  The Ironic Tradition in Augustan Prose from Swift to Johnson, by Ian\n              Watt.\n\n_Anglo-American Cultural Relations in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth\nCenturies._ 1958.\n\n  The Puritans in Old and New England, by Leon Howard.\n  William Byrd: Citizen of the Enlightenment, by Louis B. Wright.\n\n_The Beginnings of Autobiography in England_, by James M. Osborn. 1959.\n\n_Scientific Literature in Sixteenth and Seventeenth Century England._\n1961.\n\n  English Medical Literature in the Sixteenth Century, by C. D.\n              O\u2019Malley.\n  English Scientific Literature in the Seventeenth Century, by A. Rupert\n              Hall.\n\n  _Francis Bacon\u2019s Intellectual Milieu._ A Paper delivered by Virgil K.\n          Whitaker at a meeting at the Clark Library, 18 November 1961,\n          celebrating the 400th anniversary of Bacon\u2019s birth.\n\n_Methods of Textual Editing_, by Vinton A. Dearing. 1962.\n\n\n\n\n                          Transcriber\u2019s Notes\n\n\n\u2014Silently corrected a few typos.\n\n\u2014Retained publication information from the printed edition: this eBook\n  is public-domain in the country of publication.\n\n\u2014In the text versions only, text in italics is delimited by\n  _underscores_.","title":"The Dolphin in History","tradition":"myth-cosmogony","translated_text":null,"word_count":17317}