supplies its young with five victims; another 10, 15, and even up to 24.  The number appears to be constant in each species.  How does the insect know when her task is fulfilled?  Not by the cell being filled, for if some be removed, she does not replace them.  When she has brought her complement she considers her task accomplished, whether the victims are still there or not.  How, then, does she know when she has made up the number 24?  Perhaps it will be said that each species feels some mysterious and innate tendency to provide a certain number of victims.  This would, under no circumstances, be any explanation; but it is not in accordance with the facts.  In the genus Eumenes the males are much smaller than the females....  If the egg is male, she supplies five; if female, 10 victims.  Does she count?  Certainly this seems very like a commencement of arithmetic."[4]

Many writers do not agree with the conclusions which Lubbock reaches; maintaining that there is, in all such instances, a perception of greater or less quantity rather than any idea of number.  But a careful consideration of the objections offered fails entirely to weaken the argument.  Example after example of a nature similar to those just quoted might be given, indicating on the part of animals a perception of the difference between 1 and 2, or between 2 and 3 and 4; and any reasoning which tends to show that it is quantity rather than number which the animal perceives, will apply with equal force to the Demara, the Chiquito, and the Australian.  Hence the actual origin of number may safely be excluded from the limits of investigation, and, for the present, be left in the field of pure speculation.

A most inviting field for research is, however, furnished by the primitive methods of counting and of giving visible expression to the idea of number.  Our starting-point must, of course, be the sign language, which always precedes intelligible speech; and which is so convenient and so expressive a method of communication that the human family, even in its most highly developed branches, never wholly lays it aside.  It may, indeed, be stated as a universal law, that some practical method of numeration has, in the childhood of every nation or tribe, preceded the formation of numeral words.

Practical methods of numeration are many in number and diverse in kind.  But the one primitive method of counting which seems to have been almost universal throughout all time is the finger method.  It is a matter of common experience and observation that every child, when he begins to count, turns instinctively to his fingers; and, with these convenient aids as counters, tallies off the little number he has in mind.  This method is at once so natural and obvious that there can be no doubt that it has always been employed by savage tribes, since the first appearance of the human race in remote antiquity.  All research among uncivilized peoples has tended to confirm this view, were confirmation needed of anything so patent.  Occasionally some exception to this rule is found; or some variation, such as is presented by the forest tribes of Brazil, who, instead of counting on the fingers themselves, count on the joints of their fingers.[5] As the entire number system of these tribes appears to be limited to three, this variation is no cause for surprise.