possession of a sunny place on the shore.  Sociability thus puts a limit to physical struggle, and leaves room for the development of better moral feelings.  The high development of parental love in all classes of animals, even with lions and tigers, is generally known.  As to the young birds and mammals whom we continually see associating, sympathy—­not love—­attains a further development in their associations.  Leaving aside the really touching facts of mutual attachment and compassion which have been recorded as regards domesticated animals and with animals kept in captivity, we have a number of well certified facts of compassion between wild animals at liberty.  Max Perty and L. Buchner have given a number of such facts.(29) J.C.  Wood’s narrative of a weasel which came to pick up and to carry away an injured comrade enjoys a well-merited popularity.(30) So also the observation of Captain Stansbury on his journey to Utah which is quoted by Darwin; he saw a blind pelican which was fed, and well fed, by other pelicans upon fishes which had to be brought from a distance of thirty miles.(31) And when a herd of vicunas was hotly pursued by hunters, H.A.  Weddell saw more than once during his journey to Bolivia and Peru, the strong males covering the retreat of the herd and lagging behind in order to protect the retreat.  As to facts of compassion with wounded comrades, they are continually mentioned by all field zoologists.  Such facts are quite natural.  Compassion is a necessary outcome of social life.  But compassion also means a considerable advance in general intelligence and sensibility.  It is the first step towards the development of higher moral sentiments.  It is, in its turn, a powerful factor of further evolution.

If the views developed on the preceding pages are correct, the question necessarily arises, in how far are they consistent with the theory of struggle for life as it has been developed by Darwin, Wallace, and their followers? and I will now briefly answer this important question.  First of all, no naturalist will doubt that the idea of a struggle for life carried on through organic nature is the greatest generalization of our century.  Life is struggle; and in that struggle the fittest survive.  But the answers to the questions, “By which arms is this struggle chiefly carried on?” and “Who are the fittest in the struggle?” will widely differ according to the importance given to the two different aspects of the struggle:  the direct one, for food and safety among separate individuals, and the struggle which Darwin described as “metaphorical”—­the struggle, very often collective, against adverse circumstances.  No one will deny that there is, within each species, a certain amount of real competition for food—­at least, at certain periods.  But the question is, whether competition is carried on to the extent admitted by Darwin, or even by Wallace; and whether this competition has played, in the evolution of the animal kingdom, the part assigned to it.