scribed by Professor Morgan. In taking a "pleasurable satisfaction" in "the resemblance of the sounds he utters to the sounds he hears" is not something akin to reflection on the results necessary? Moreover, are the performances of the Mockingbird and the Parrot analogous? I do not believe they are. The mimicry of the Parrot is certainly associated with different instincts and emotional conditions than is that of the Mockingbird; for the Mockingbird—the male Mockingbird, let it be pointed out—is uttering his song, which, as is commonly agreed, is an emotional expression intimately connected with the sexual instinct, whereas, unless I am much mistaken, the "talking" of the Parrot rests on no such basis and bears no relation to sex feelings, but is more akin to mimicry as an instinct in itself such as we perceive in the actions and gestures of monkeys.
The Parrot undoubtedly does not rise above the second or "intelligent" stage, if indeed he attains it at all. He is forced to imitate, he is taught to imitate; he is removed from his natural environment, confined in a cage, and worked upon by designing minds that happen to know that his trachea is naturally suited to the production of human-like sounds. The Mockingbird on the other hand carries on his mimicry in the wild state. He needs no urging—sex is his urge and, unless his behavior is very misleading, he not only takes a "pleasurable satisfaction" in the results of his vocal efforts, but he does so because he dwells upon those results with pardonable appreciation. After having, on so many occasions, noted the characteristic manner in which the Mockingbird "plays with" imitated sounds, rolling them about on his tongue one might say, as with the greatest gusto, trying them over and over, sometimes with little variations in inflection and intensity, seeming to be constantly experimenting with his material—I, for one, cannot avoid thinking that his mental state is characterized by a sort of reflectivehess.
I do not believe, however, that any practical considerations mark the bird's reflectivehess. I do not believe that the social economy of his life in any way determines or is determined by the results achieved. I believe that the bird's interest in his own mimicry is "artistic"—and the social economy can take care of itself as best it can. My reasons for holding the above beliefs are as follows.
The Mockingbird, as typically shown in the above described song, imitates a comparatively large number of birds, and he imitates them with sufficient skill to deceive them, provided they are susceptible to that sort of deception. Of the imitated birds concerned in our particular record five are permanent residents and four are summer residents in the habitat of the imitator. In the summer they are all more or less prominent "citizens" of that part of the Lower Sonoran Zone where our Mocker is found. And our Mocker, without any too fine discrimination or apparent regard for the "feelings" of his neighbors, mimics them right and left, appropriating any and all sounds that are persistent enough to impress him at all. The affair is of social significance in that the whole community is involved. The Mockingbird drags all his most prominent neighbors into the performance and holds them up to mimicry. Are his neighbors aware of this fact? If so, does it make any difference to them, and how, if at all, do they re-act? And the mimic himself—what does he derive from the performance ? Does he gain therefrom anything in a practical way for himself and for his species, especially for his mate ? Or, on the contrary, does he cause himself and his kind only trouble and confusion ?
