The faculty of distant orientation, by Ed. Claparède, 1904

Reading report published in the Journal of Normal and Pathological Psychology, Volume I, 1904, p. 79-81.   See the original in Gallica

in: IX. Zoological psychology and comparative psychology
(46) — The faculty of distant orientation, by ED. CLAPAREDE (Geneva).
Extract from the Archives of Psychology, vol. II, n° 6. March 1903. (1 paperback. 46 p. with bibliography.)

To raise the problem of the faculty of distant orientation in all its complexity, to indicate, without going into the general discussion of theories, the most precise experiments which gave rise to them, while emphasizing the gaps which they leave remaining, such was the author's aim and his work only aims to be a sort of clarification of the question.

Theories on the faculty of orientation are quickly recalled. The facts will teach us the problems to be resolved: only two cases, let us note, will be able to pose in a pressing manner, requiring special hypotheses (counter-position, magnetism, etc.), the problem of distant orientation: the case where the goal would already be known, but not perceptible, and without a reference point that could help find it, and, in secondly, the case where the goal being unknown and not perceptible, no intermediate stimulant could provide information, at different times, on the direction to follow.

The facts. — I. First of all, can the goal be unknown, or the faculty is orientation reduced, in all cases, to the sense of return? On this point, nothing yet allows us to conclude and the author limits himself to indicating which experiments would be necessary to institute.

he. Let's move on to the question relating to the path taken to achieve a given goal. Sometimes the animal taken far away returns by the route it took followed on the way out (exp. by Regnaud). Sometimes on the contrary it is by a path different which sometimes happens to be the straight line (exp. Vineq, Valade, Fabre, etc.): from which seems to result the insufficiency of the theory of the opposite which wants to explain the return, in all cases, by a faculty to record the various directions followed on the way out. Probative experiments could also be instituted on this theory on the condition to place the animals in a place that is unknown to them, where they cannot find any visual or olfactory reference point. But the uselessness of such points of reference is not yet demonstrated and C. is thus brought to research their role in the return to the shelter.

On this question, and after having examined the experiences relating to role of light rays in orientation, the author distinguishes and examines apart from the observations made on ants, bees and wasps, finally on the pigeons.

Orientation involves two distinct problems in ants: 1° of what nature are the landmarks which mark the route followed? 2° how is the direction in which the anthill is located? (placed on any point of the road which goes to the nest, the ant never makes a mistake and always takes the direction in which it will find its anthill (exp. by Forel).

On the first point, it seems that the benchmarks are sometimes perceived by sight (Fabre), sometimes by smell (Wasman-Forel) or by two at a time, depending on the species. Deprived of antennae, certain ants get lost; deprived of eyes, they still find their way, but no longer with difficulty (exp. of Forel). But how can an olfactory trace indicate a direction? This is the second question. Among the theories which claim to resolve it, the author cites that of Bethe for whom the ants leave behind them a polarized chemical trace, that of Forel for whom ants, creating, thanks to the antennal organ, a whole topography of a chemical nature, recognize on return the “form” olfactory of the points touched on the way out by their antennas. Perhaps also the decrease in the scent of the nest with which the track is impregnated, decrease which increases as we get closer to the anthill, can it serve to guide the ant?

For bees and wasps, knowledge of places seems to hold a large place in orientation. Released in an unknown country, the bees do not do not come back (exp. de Fabre, Romanes, Yung). Landmarks appear mainly visual in nature. Motor or kinesthetic memories are undoubtedly added to this. It is still impossible to establish, by sufficiently scientific experiments, if the pigeon can do without landmarks to return home. Visual memories appear, in many cases, of real importance: pigeons travelers are only educated in progressive stages; the young pigeon, on the other hand, can only return to his dovecote if he knows its external appearance perfectly. Four leagues from their dovecote, pigeons blind people, once good messengers, are lost (exp. of Hodge, Rodenbach, Hachet-Souplet).

Remaining in the field of facts, C. again quickly examines the questions of the importance of winds or atmospheric states for orientation, the hypothesis of magnetism (according to which certain animals would have a sense capable of perceiving the direction of the current(s) terrestrial magnetics), cases of orientation reversal. On all these points it does not seem that a definitive conclusion can yet be made: the immediate interpretation of the facts still leaves too much to be desired, the same observation can take on a completely different meaning depending on the more or less intelligence that we grant to the animal observed. No theory, on the other hand, seems entirely satisfactory: the hypothesis of topographical memory, that of the opposite cannot explain the cases of migration to an unknown country. There is, moreover, no reason to hold to an exclusive theory and it is very probable that the animal, like we do it ourselves, uses all possible data to find its way back.

J. PAULHAN.