believe that--with the help of
their own publications, properly analysed--it would not be too
difficult to attribute one or the other of such physio-psychic
varieties to those persons who have up to the present obtained the best
results with "thinking animals."

More interesting appears to me the investigation of the question
whether animals themselves have already given any clear proof of being
able to be "sensitive" in the mediumistic sense. And I must say that
such a proof seems to have almost been reached.

I may refer on this subject to the exhaustive monograph published
in 1905 by Bozzano (1) and written with the special competency and
clearness that distinguish the well-known Genoese psychist.

Bozzano at that time was necessarily ignorant of the "thinking"
animals, for it was only afterwards that they came to notice. But
there were other authors who introduced the possibility (or the
necessity) of a supernormal relationship in order to explain the
Elberfeld facts, as soon as they were known. Perhaps the first in
chronological order was De Vesme, who published in 1912 an
interesting article in that sense (3), showing the many analogies
between the phenomena of Elberfeld and mediumistic phenomena
generally, e.g. the typtological particularities; the wrong
orthography ("Firaz" tapped by the horse to express its own name
"Zariff," "Dref" instead of "Ferd," etc.); solutions of difficult
problems and invincible resistance to simple inquiries; immediate
promptitude of correct replies to complicated mathematical
problems, etc.

A similar work was Maeterlinck's, written in 1909 for a German
review, and then transformed into a long and interesting chapter of
the well-known volume, "L'hote Inconnu" (10).

Then in 1914 was published a book by E. G. Sanford (5) containing
some useful comparisons between "thinking" animals and mediumistic
psychology.

In Italy there were indications in the same sense, in the work of
Stefani (1913), Professor Siciliani (1914), and others. But the
subject was but little followed up.

Even psychologists by profession seemed for a time to be willing to
accept the hypothesis of some "telepathic" transmission of thought from
the investigators to the Elberfeld horses.

Already Claparede (1912) had been forced to refer to this, although
he refused, so to speak, to discuss the mat