Birds and all Nature, Vol. IV, No. 6, December 1898

Various

Various

Birds and all Nature, Vol. IV, No. 6, December 1898

VOICES

W. E. WATT

ALL animals with lungs have some sort of contrivance in the windpipe that is able to set the air in vibration as it is expelled or inhaled. Some have not only this means of making vocal sound, but have also power to vary the quality and intensity of it. Out of this second ability come speech and song.

Ants converse with their antennæ, having no lungs nor windpipe. Bees do the same. Those of her attendants who first perceive the absence of the queen from the hive apply their antennæ to the feelers of their companions. The ensuing excitement settles the question as to their ability to talk. This shows that while voice is the usual organ of language there is yet a good deal of conversation going on about us that is not expressed in words, just as there is much music performed by insect orchestras with no vocal contributions.

Hares and Rabbits never use their voices except when suffering intensely. When caught by an enemy or wounded in the chase they utter the only cry that ever escapes from their throats. Spasmodic agitation of the chest muscles and the larynx gives forth the sound. Such unintentional utterances are frequent in other animals that use their voices freely when nothing has injured them, as the death shrieks of cattle and the screams of horses attacked by wolves.

It is of little use to ask why animals are equipped with voices, for the fact is an animal could hardly be constructed with lungs and apparatus for controlling ingress and egress of air without the controlling organ's being more or less noisy or even musical. Snorts, snores, whistles, purrs, groans, and trumpetings follow naturally where the bellows and pipe are active.

Although Darwin considers that the habit of uttering musical sounds was first acquired for courtship, and that in man it was early associated only with his strongest emotions, such as love, rivalry, and triumph, the writer holds the opinion that both significant and musical utterance originated not in any desire to move others, but was cultivated solely for the pleasure it gave the one who made it.

If primitive man did not receive language ready-made at creation, but developed it as the philologists claim, it was a gradual acquisition. While our early ancestor dug in the ground he emitted certain sounds, as he pursued he uttered others, and as he devoured he indulged in a different grunt or exclamation. When he wished to call the attention of others to one of these acts he merely reproduced the sound that went naturally with it. And so clamor concomitans became clamor significans. But the sound as it came forth at first had no meaning and no design. The man made the sound rather instinctively than mentally and he enjoyed making sounds as much as a baby now enjoys crowing or a youngster delights in yelling when he has no ideas he cares to convey. Much of the singing of birds is done merely because the birds wish to please themselves with the sounds peculiar to themselves. They are, as a rule, in no-wise trying to charm their mates, and they are not at all desirous of pleasing anyone but themselves. It would be as reasonable to claim that the carpenter on the roof is whistling to please his sweetheart or that the lumberman alone with his cattle in the forest trolls forth his jolly song for any amorous reason. There are times when these purposes are the cause of singing, but the fact is that the great majority of the singing and whistling done by men, birds, and beasts sounds far better to the ones that produce it than to any other. In fact, society itself would be in a far better state if the men and women who sing would only acknowledge that they are doing so mainly to please themselves, and they might then be persuaded in part to leave off trying to surprise their hearers at times by singing louder or higher or faster than nature intended they should do. Most people enjoy listening to song, but no on