bviate this, let us bear in mind that in the following, the word
"training" is always taken in the usual and narrower sense. The term
then is still ambiguous only in so far as it has not merely its original
significance of the _act_ of purposely habituating (a person or an
animal) to perform certain definite movements, but by transference is
also used to denote the _effect_, i. e., the occurrence of the movements
in question. But this does not really detract from the clearness of the
concept itself.

Having cleared up the question of definition, let us return to our
original problem: Does the hypothetical account of the probable
development of the horse's reactions, which is given on pages 213 to
220, represent a case of training? This must be denied decidedly with
regard to the tapping of numbers and the solution of arithmetical
problems. For here the sensory stimuli which were purposely given, i.
e., the wooden pins, the balls, and the spoken words, were intended to
subserve the function of arousing not movement, but thought processes in
the horse; whereas the function of the horse's movements was to give
expression to these thought processes. Of the really effective
stimuli--the slight movements on his part--the master was never
conscious, much less were they purposely made. The same holds true for
the "up" and "down", "yes" and "no", etc., for here also Mr. von Osten
counted upon the rise of the corresponding concepts, and not merely upon
a purely external, mechanical association of meaningless sounds with
certain movement-responses on the part of the horse. This might also
explain the genesis of Mr. von Osten's belief that Hans was able
mentally to put himself in the place of the questioner, (page 19). At
any rate it is very improbable that he, Mr. von Osten himself, clearly
distinguished between the concept: "up" and the sound of the word "up".
When we come to consider the horse's selection of the colored cloths,
and even more his leaping and rearing, we find that the distinction
between "training" and "instruction" vanishes. If we had to deal only
with this class of achievements, we might perhaps say, without fear of
going very far wrong, that the only difference between this and the
ordinary form of training was that Mr. von Osten had intended to train
the horse to respond to auditory signs (words), but had unintentionally
trained him to respond to visual signs instead. But it is not this type
of performance tha