8/12/2019 SPR_Vol62.pdf

1/6

PERCEPTIVE PETS: A STIRVEY IN NORTH.WEST CALIFORNIAby Dewo Jey BnowNand RupnntSnproruxn

ABSTRACTA telephone survey of 200 households was carried out in North-West California tofind out how many pet owners claim to have observed seemingly psychic abilities intheir animals. 132 of the households urveyedhad pets. 45% of. og owners claimedtheir animal knew in advance when a member of the household was on the wayhorne, compared with 3l% of cat owners, and around 20% of these animals weresaid to react more than 10 minutes in advance.650/o f dog owners and 37% of catowners said their pets knew that they were going out before they showed anyphysical signs of doing so. 46Vo f dogowners and.4L%of cat owners said that theirpet responded to their thoughts or silent commands, and 42o/o f dog owners and34% of.cat owners said that their pet was sometimes telepathic with them. 49% ofpet owners and 31%of non-pet-owners aid that someof the animals that they hadknown in the past were telepathic. Significantly more pet owners claimed to havehad psychic experiences themselves than non-pet-owners, and a significantlyhigher proportion of 'psychic' pet owners claimed that their pets exhibited psychicpowers than'non-psychic'owners. These indings are in general agreement with aprevious survey in England. Some mplications of these results are discussed.

INrnonucrroNMany pet owners claim that their animals sometimes exhibit an uncanny'sixth sense'. Some believe that they have a telepathic connection with theirdog or cat. Anecdotes about'psychic' pets are regularly reported in the mediaand in popular literature (e.g.Gaddis,1970;Brown, 1971;Schul, L977;Bardens,1987). But these seemingly mysterious phenomena have so far been neglectedby scientific researchers. Even parapsychologistshave ignored the interactionsbetween people and companion animals, with a few notable exceptions @hine,1951,1953;Rhine & Feather,1962;Pratt, 1964).This survey was carried out as part of a wider investigation into claimsabout seemingly unexplained abilities of animals (Sheldrake, 1994).Preliminary enquiries among pet owners revealed that many people areconvinced that their pets are sometimes uncannily perceptive, and thequestions in the survey explored some of the most commonly reportedexamples of such behaviour, namely the apparent ability of some animalsto know in advance when their owner is coming home, to know when their

owner ie intending to go out, and to respond to their owner's thoughts or silentcommands. The format was the same as that of a survey carried out in GreaterManchester (Sheldrake & Smart, 1997) so that the resuits can be compareddirectly.Of course, the fact that some pet owners believe their pets have uncannypowers does not prove that these beliefs are correct. Systematic observationsare necessary to establish whether the reported phenomena do in fact occur.And if they do, experimental investigations are necessary to find out whetherthey are explicable in terms of sensory information, routines or subtle cues, orwhether they depend on forms of connection or communication as yet unknown

;;. Preliminary investigations suggest that an unknown form ofcommunication may well be involved (Sheldrake & Smart, 1998)MmHops

This surveywasconductedy telephone y David Brown D.8.) n SantaCruz County, North-West California, in November 1996, and involved 200randomly-selected households. D.B. lives in that county, and telepleningwithin the local area helped to minimize the cost of the study.Households were selected from the Pacific Bell Santa Cruz County 1996telephone directory (area code 408) using an electronic random numbergenerator to determine the page and column number, as well as its position onthe page. Most households surveyed were in and around the university-beachtown of Santa Cruz, population 52,700.D.B. introduced himself as follows: "My name is David Brown. I'mconducting a survey on pets and animals. I was wondering if I could ask youa few questions?" Approximately 2oo/o f. he people reached by phone agreedto take part in the survey. When a co-operative subject was found, D.B. thenasked a series of questions and recorded the answers on a standard form asfollows.Name Tel:Address

1) Do you or does anyone in your household own a pet? Yes No2) What type of animal? Species:3) Have you or anyone in your household ever noticed the pet gettingagitated before a family member has arrived home? Yes No4) How long before you/they arrive is your pet agitated?G-5 mins 5-10 mins 10-20 mins 20 mins or more5) Would you agree or disagree that your pet knows you are going out beforeyou show any physical signs of doing so?Agree Disagree Don't Know6) Would you agtee or disagree that your pet responds to your own thoughtsor silent commands?Agree Disagree Don't know7) Wouldyou? you agree or disagree that your pet is sometimes telepathic withAgree Disagree Don't Know8) Would you agree or disagree that any of the pets you have known in thepast were telepathic?Agree Disagree Don't know9) How frequently have you yourself had what you would consider to be apsychic experience?Never Sometimes Frequently

In caseswhere respondents currently had no pets (i.e. they answered No tothe first question), they were only asked questions 8 and 9.

- v J v . . r v v . L r v r . v a v .

396 s97

8/12/2019 SPR_Vol62.pdf

2/6

I Y v ^ , ^. ,

In cases where households had both dogs and cats, they were included inthe totals for both dog and cat owners, as shown in Tables L tD 4, and theirreplies referring to their dogs or cats were tabulated accordingly. If their replyreferred only to their dog or to their cat, the other animal was assigned to the'no'category for question 3 and'don't know'category for questions 5 to 7.Statistical aualysis was carried out using 2 x 2 contingency tables and thechi-squared test (Campbell, 1989). Probability values for two-tailed tests wereused.Rpsut sPet OwnershipOut of 200 households surveyed, L32 (660/o) ad pets, a somewhat higherpercentage than the U.S. national average of 58o/o Jaegermann, 1992). Catswere the most common pet, followed by dogs. The figures were as follows:-

Dogs and Cats that Seem to Anticipate the Arrivat of a Member of theHouseholdThe majority of animals that appeared to anticipate their owner's arrivalwere dogs and cats, but there were three bird-own"m in the study who claimedthat their birds displayed such anticipatory behaviour. Data for dogs and catsin reply to Questions 3 and 4 are shown in Table 1.A higher proportion of dogs than cats appear to anticipate arrivals. In thissurvey the figures were 45% and 31% respectively, but this difference was notstatisticaily significant.48o/o f the dog owners and 31% of the cat owners who reported that theirpets anticipated arrivals said that the behaviour occurred less than fiveminutes beforehand. L9% of dog owners and 22% of cat owners who reportedthis phenomenon said that it occurred more than ten minutes before thehousehold members' arrival.The birds in the survey said to anticipate a household member's arrivalwere a parrot, parakeet and cockatoo. The cockatoo was said to respondbetween 5 and 10 minutes in advance,while the other two birds responded essthan 5 minutes before the arrival.

Pets that Seern to Respond to their Owners' Thoughts ond IntentionsMany pet owners report that their animals seem to know when they aregoing out before they show any physical signs of doing so. Some also claim thattheir pets can actually respond directly to their thoughts or silent intentions

(Sheldrake & Smart, 1997). Some refer to this type of communication as aform of 'telepathy', and some attribute it to a 'sixth sense'.Questions 5, 6 and ?were asked to find out how common these impressions are, and the results aresummarized in Table 2.Table2Replieso Questions , 6 and,7

would you agree or disagree that your pet knows you are going outbefore you show any physical signs of doing so?Numbers (and percentages)of pets

CatsDogsBirds (excl. chickens)RabbitsFishLizards

83 Horses69 Chickens7 Rats6 Hamster6 Snake3

Yes No3L (45%) 38 (55"/o)26 (3L%) 57 (69Yo)

22211Most of these households had one kind of pet: 49 had cats only, and 34 haddogs only; 28 had both dogs and cats, and 5 of these had other pets as well; 6had cats and other pets (excluding dogs);2 had dogs and other pets; t had only

other pets.These Santa Cruz households were unusual in that more had cats thandogs, whereas both nationally and in the state of California more householdshave dogs thau cats. A slightly lower proportion of households had dogs(35%) than the U.S. national average of 37% (Jaegerman, 1992) and a higherproportion had cats (42%) han the national average of 3I% (Jaegerman, 1992).TableReplies o Qucstions and 4

Have you or anyone in your household ever noticed your petgetting agitated before a family member has arrived home?Numbers (and percentages) of dogs or cats

:'.':'ta,":,s;+IEs-airFileaJIrd$d4'E$4F$t,l4't.Il,$ftt:i

TotalDogs 69Cats 83

Total Agree DisagreeDogs 69 45 (650/0) 10 (1570)Cats 83 3L (37%) 15 (18%)

Total Agree DisagreeDogs 69 32 (46%) 11 (16%0)Cats 83 34 (4lo/o) 12 (L4%)

Don't Kttow14 (20%)37 (45%)

Don't Know26 (38%)37 (45%)

How long before you/they arrive is your pet agitated?Would you agree or disagree that your pet responds to your ownthoughts or silent commands?

Numbers (and percentages) of pets

TotaIDogs 31Cats 26

Numbers andpercentages)f dogsor catsG-5min 5-10min 10-20min 20+ min Don't knowL5(48%) 7 (23W 5 (L6vA L G%) 3 (10%)8 (31%) 3 (LL%) 3 (1170) 3 (11olo) 9 (35%)

399

8/12/2019 SPR_Vol62.pdf

3/6

Journal of the Society for Psychicol Reseorch [VoI.62,No.852Would you agree or disagree that your pet is sometimes telepathicwith you?

Numbers andpercentages)fpetsTotal Agree Disagree Don't Know

Dogs 69 29 (42%') 20 (29%) 20 (29o/o)Cats 83 28 (34o/o) 16 (19%) 39 (47o/o\

Dog owners agreed more than cat owners (65% and 37o/o espectively) thattheir pet knows that they are going out before they show any physical signs ofdoing so. This difference was significant (p < 0.001).More dog than cat ownerc (460/o nd 4lo/o espectively) agreed that their petresponds to their own thoughts or silent commands, and more dog than catowners also believed that their pet is sometimes telepathic with them (42%and 34% respectively). In neither of these cases were the differences betweendogs and cats significant statistically.One rat owner thought the rat was telepathic with him, and three birdowners thought that their birds responded to their thoughts: these birds werea parakeet, a canary and finches.Telepathic Connections with Pets in the Past

Both pet owners and non-pet-owners were asked about telepathy with petsthey have known in the past, and the results are summarized in Table 3. 49%of current pet owners and 31% of non-pet-owners said that they had knownpets in the past that they considered to be telepathic. This difference wasstatistically significant (p < 0.02).Table3Repliee o Queetiona and 9

Would you agree or disagree that any of the pets you have known inthe past were telepathic?Numbers (and percentages)of people

July 19981 PerceptiuePets: A Survey in C,olifornbThe Respondents' Own Psychic Experience

More than half (56%) the respondents said that they had had what theyconsider to be a psychic experience at some point in their lives (Table 3).Slightly more cat than dog owners claimed to have had a psychic experience(67% and 63% respectively), but this difference was not significant statisti.cally.However, there was a very significant difference (p = 0.005) between petowners and non-pet-owners. Considerably more pet owners claimed to havehad psychic experiences themselves than non-pet-owners, 64%o s opposed to40%.In order to investigate further the significantly lower incidence of psychicexperience among non-pet-owners, D.B. telephoned the same non-pet-ownersagain in November 1.997, year after the main survey was conducted, to ask ifthey had ever kept pets in the past. He was able to reach 54 out of the 68 non-pet-owners originally surveyed. Out of these, 4L (76%)said they had previouslyowned a cat or a dog, and of these 4t, L7 (4Lo/o) ere psychic. Of the 13 whohad never owned a dog or cat, 4 (3L%) were psychic. However, this differencewas not statistically significant.Table4Comparison f the Responsesf Psychic nd Non-psychicet Ownerso Questiorts, 5, 6, 7and 8 about heir Dogsor Cats

Numbers andpercentages)fpeople ving positive esponses, nd he statisticalsignifrcance f differencesbetweenpsychicand non-psychic wner6.

i::

How frequently have you yourself had what you would consider tobe a psychic experience?Numbers (and percentages) of people

Total Frequently Sometimes NeverAll pet owners L32 L2 (9o/o) 72 (55yo) 48 (36%)Dog owners 69 6 (9%) 37 (54%\ 26 (38yo)Cat owners 83 7 (8W 49 (59%) 27 (33vo)Non-pet-owners 68 6 (9%") 2l (31%) 41 (607")

Differences Between Psychic and Non-Psychic Owners' ResponsesWe compared the answers about their pets given by dog and cat owners whosaid they had themselves had psychic experiences frequently or sometirnes

TotalPetsnow 132No petsnow 68

Agree Disagree Don't Know65 (49%> 29 (22Yo) 38 (29Y,)21(3I%) 7 (I0o/o) 40 (59o/o)

A. DOGSTotalsKnow when arrivingKnow when leavingSilent comrnandsTelepathyTelepathy: past petsB. CATSTotalsKnow when arrivingKnow when leavingSilent commandsTelepathyTelepathy: past pets

Non-Psychic Signifrcance (p)

268 (3170) NSL6 (62%) NSI (3570) NSe (35%) NS10 (38o/o) NS

278 (30olo) NSI (33%o) NS6 (22%) < 0.025 (19%) < 0.05I (33%) < 0.03

Psychic

4323 (53vo)29 (67Vo)23 (53o/o)20 QToA25 (58y,)

5618 (32o/o)22 ( eW28 (50o/o)23 (4r%)34 (610/o)

40100

8/12/2019 SPR_Vol62.pdf

4/6

Journol of the Socicty for Psychicol Research [VoI.62,No.852('psychic owners') with the answers given by owners who said they had neverhad psycb,ic experiences ('non-psychic owners'). For all questions, a higherproportion of psychic owners gave positive responses han non-psychic owners(Table 4). Although in most cases these differences were not statisticallysignificant, when the combined data for dog and cat owners were analysed,the differences between psychic and non-psychic owners were statisticallysignifrcant for questions 6, ? and 8, relating to silent commands (p < 0.005)'telepathy (p < 0.03) and telepathy with past pets (p < 0.03), but not forquestions 3 and 5, relating to the anticipation of arrivals and departures.Differences Between MoIe ond Femole Respondents

We compared the proportions of men and women who gave positive answersto the questions about their pets and themselves (Table 5). The greatestdifference was in relation to telepathy with their pet, with 460/o f women and3lo/o of.men agreeing that their pet was sometimes telepathic with them. And47o/o f.womensaid theyhad sometimes or frequently had a psychic experience,compared with 35% of men. More men than women agreed that their petanticipated their going out, 640/oas opposed to ,Lo/o. But none of thesedilferences was statistically significant at the p = 0'05 level of probability'Table 5C,omporisonf MaIe and FemoleRespondents

Questions 3, 5, 6 and 7 were applicable only to current pet owners, but allrespondents were asked Questions 8 and 9.Numbers (and percentages)of people giving positive responses.

Male Female

July 19981 PerceptiuePets: A Suruey in &lifornbPractically all the claims of unusual perceptivenessconcerned, ogs and cats.In both surveys a higher proportion of dogs than cats were said to anticipatethe arrival of a member of the household. the percentage of dogs said to rho*this behaviour was almost identical; 460/on Ramsbottom ^nd, +5% in SantaCruz. In Ramsbottom, only l4o/oof the cats were said to anticipate the returnof a member of the household, whereas in Santa Cruz BL%weie said to d,oso.This difference between the two locations was statistically significant(p= o.o1).The pattern of response to arrivals was very similar on both sides of the

Atlantic. In Ramsbottom, the proportion of dogs said to anticipate the arrivalof a member of the household 10 minutes or more in advance v/as 6yo,compared with 19% in Santa Cruz. For cats these figures were 23% and,22%respectively. In both Ramsbottom and Santa Cruz, the only other animals saidto show this anticipatory behaviour were birds: in Ramsbottom a cockatiel, andin Santa Cruz a parrot, a parakeet and a cockatoo.There was also a remarkable similarity in the responses to the question"Would you agree or disagree that your pet knows you are going o,tl b"fotuyou show any physical signs of doing so?". In Ramsbottom 69% oldog ownersagreed, and in Santa Qruz 65%. The proportion of cat owners that agreed,wassignificantly lower in both locations: 32% in Ramsbottom and, 87% in, SantaQruz.In both Ramsbottom and Santa Cruz a higher proportion of dogs than catswere said to respond to their owners' thoughts or silent commands and to betelepathic with their owners.In Ramsbottom and in Santa Cruz, around half the current pet owners saidthat some of the pets they had known in the past were telepathic (53% and49Yo cspectively). But more non-pet-owners in Ramsbottom than in Californiasaid that pets they had known in the past were telepathic (55% as opposed to3r%).In Santa Cruz a higher proportion of pet owners claimed to have had apsychic experience themselves than in Ramsbottom (64% compared with 54%).The Santa Cruz figures are in general agreement with other random sunreysof American adults, according to which between 60% (Haraldsson, 198b) and75% (Gallup and Newport, 1991)claim to have had psychic experiences.In Ramsbottom significantly more dog than cat owners claimed to havepsychic experiences themselves. By contrast, in Santa Cruz more cat than dogowners claimed to have had such experiences,although this difference was notsignificant statistically.In both surveys the proportion of households with dogs was similar: Bb%in Santa Cruz and 31% in Ramsbottom. However, the proportion of house-holds with cats was far higher in Santa Cruz, 42%ocompared with 24% inRamsbottom.Cornparison of Cats ond Dogs

In both surveys, dogs were reported to'be more sensitive or responsive totheir owner's departures and arrivals than cats. This is in general agreementwith the fact that dog owners tend to have closer relationships with their petsthan cat owners (e.g.Albert & Anderson,1997),and cats tend to be lesssociable

4'4s;,i7

Total numbers in survey 66Total with pets 45 (68%)Pet ownersKnow when arrivingKnow when leavingSilent co--andsTelepathyAII respondents;i:T$il:Ti,'""::"..lSxnlfl:ffi

DrscussroNComparison with the Survey in Greater Manchester

This survey complements a previous study carried out in North'WestEngland, at Ramsbottom,Greater Manchester (Sheldrake& Smart, 1997).Theresults of the two surveys are in remarkably goodagreement.

13 487 (65%)

18 (40Y,) 39 (45Yo)2e (64%) 45 (52%)20 (44%) 39 (45%)14 3r%) 40 (46%)

8/12/2019 SPR_Vol62.pdf

5/6

and more independent than dogs (Hart, 1995). Likewise, in both surveys dogswere said to be more responsive than cats to their owners'thoughts and silentcommands than cats, and also to be more telepathic with their owners.Pet Ownership and Psychic Experience

One of the most surprising features of this survey was the large differencebetween what pet owners and non-pet-owners said about their own psychicexperience. 64% of pet owners said they had had psychical experiences them-selves; whereas only 40o/o f people without pets said so. This difference wasstatistically significant at the p = 0.005 level.There was a similar but less pronounced pattern among non-pet-owners: 17out of 4L (4L%) of those who had kept pets in the past were psychic, comparedwith 4 out of 13 (31%) who had never kept pets. This difference was notstatistically significant.Why should pet owners appear to be more psychic than non-pet-owners?Here are three possibilities:-1 Living with animals can bring out a psychic awareness in people, anawareness that might otherwise be latent or unrecognized.

2 People who think of themselves as psychic are more likely to keep pets.3 This difference may not be real, but an artefact of the surveying process.Perhaps pet and non-pet-owners think of themselves as psychic to about thesame extent, but the way the question was asked in this survey may have putoff non-pet-owners from admitting it. This could have happened because petowners were asked this question after answering a series of questions about

their pets. This may have made them more open to anwering a personalquestion. Non-pet-owners, by contrast, were asked about their own psychicexperience much sooner, and may have been less prepared to speak about sucha personal matter to a stranger.Some light is shed on this possibility by the results of another surveyrecently carried out in l,ondon, where there was practically no differencebetween the replies of pet owners and non-pet-owners:39% of pet owners saidthey had had a psychical experience themselves, compared with 38% of non-pet-owners (Sheldrake, Turney and Lawlor, 1998).This shows that argument 3is not very strong, because n Iondon pet and non-pet-owners seemed equallyprepared (or unprepared) to affirm that they had had psychical experiences, nspite of the presenceor absenceof preceding questions about present pets.Although the London data did not confirm the difference found in SantaCruz between current pet owners and non-pet-owners in their psychicexperience, they showed a striking difference between non-pet-owners whohad kept pets in the past and those who had never kept pets. Those who hadnever kept pets were significantly less psychic than those who had. A similar,but lesspronounced,pattern was found in Santa Cruz.If further research reveals that there are indeed differences in psychicexperience between people who have kept pets compared with those whohave not, then it will be important to devise ways of distinguishing betweenpossibilities 1 and 2 above.

The Reliability of People's ReportsAll surveys raise questions of reliability. In this study a possible sourceof bias may stem from a tendency for pet owners to exaggerate their pets'abilities, owing to their emotional attachment to their animals. Conversely,people who pay relatively little attention to their animals may not observethem closely enough to be aware of their responsesInterestingly, as in Ramsbottom, a higher proportion of psychic pet ownersclaimed that their pets were psychic than non-psychic owners (Table 4). Theowners' own experience and beliefs about psychic phenomena could wellhave biased their observations and responses, with psychic owners tendingto exaggerate their pets'psychic powers and non-psychic owners tending to

disregard them. Nevertheless, a considerableproportion of non-psychic ownersreported that their pets were uncannily perceptive, with 31% claiming thattheir dogs anticipated the return of a member of the household, and Bb%claiming that their dogs were sometimes telepathic with them.We do not know how much these and other forms of bias influenced ourdata. What is evident, however, is that many pet owners report that theiranimals appear to possess eeminglyunexplained abilities.The Need for Experimental Inuestigations

The results of this survey do not necessarily imply the existence of a 'sixthsens'e'or psychic abilities in animals. But they certainly show that many petowners believe that their animals show such abilities, and the results aresuggestiveenoughto justify further research.Some of the seemingly mysteriousphenomena discussed in this paper may ultimately be explicable in terms ofthe impressive sensory range of cats and dogs, combined with subtle cues ofwhich their owners are unaware. However, some of their perceptive behaviourmay be due to influences at present unknown to science. Experimentalinvestigations are needed o teaseapart thesepossibilities.Inthe caseofa dogthat appearstoanticipatehisowner'sarrival,prel iminaryexperiments have already shown that this response does not seem to beexplicable in terms of routine, the sounds of familiar vehicles or other auditorycues, or knowledge by the. people at home when the owner will return(sheldrake & smart, 1998).These nvestigationsare continuing.AcTNowT,EDGEMENTS

We would like to thank all the people who took part in this survey, as wellas Pamela Smart, Nina Graboi and Ralph Abraham for their valuable help.We are grateful to the Lifebridge Foundation, New York and the Institute ofNoetic sciences,Sausalito, california, for their {inancial support.P.O. Box 1082Ben LomondCA 95005, U, S, A,20 WiIIow RoadLondon NW? lTJ

3tti

Devro BnowN

RupnRr SHplonexn[Correspondencend reprint requestso R.S.J

40504

8/12/2019 SPR_Vol62.pdf

6/6

REFERENCESAlbert, A- and Anderson, M. (1997) Dogs,cats and morale maintenance. Anthromds 70,L2L-L24.Bardens, D. (1987) Peychic,4nimols. Iondon: Robert Hale.Browa, B. (1971) ESP with Plants and Animafs. New York: EssandessSpecial Editione.Qarnpbell,R. C. (1989) Stntisticl for Bblogisle. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Gaddis, V. and Gaddis, M. (1970) Tlu Strange World,of Animals and Pets. New York:C,owlesBook Company, Inc.Gallup, G. H. and Newport, F. (1991) Belief in paranormal phenomena among Anericanadults. Shepticol nquirer 15, L37-L46.Haraldsson, E. (1985) Representative national suneys of psychic phenomena. JSPB 53,

L37-L46.Hart, L. A (1995) Dogs as human companions:a review of the relationship. In Serpell, J.(ed.) Thc Domestic Dog: Its Evolution, Behouiour ond Interactione with People.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Jaegerman, M. (1992) Price tag: the top ten pets. New Yorh Times (Notional Edition)November 12, B-5.Pratt, J. G. (1964) Poropsychology:An Insider's View of ESP, Chapter 8. London: W. H.Allen.Rhine, J. B. (1951) Tbe present outlook on the question of psi in qni",als. JP 15, 230-l25L.Rhine, J. B. (1953) New World of the Mind, Chapter 5. New York: Willio"' SloaneAssociates.Rhine, J. B. and Feather, S. R. (1962) The study of casesof psi-trailing in animals. JP 26,L-22.Schul, B. (L97n The Psychic Powers of Animals. Greenwich, CT: Fawcett Publications.Sheldrake, R. (1994) Seuen Experiments that huld Clwnge the World. London: FourthEstate.Sheldrake, R. and Smart, P. (1997) Psychicpets: a suryey in North-West England. JSPR6J, 353-64.Sheldrake, R. and Smart, P. (1998) A dog hat seerns o know when his owner is retuning:prelirninarlr investigations. JSPB 62, 22V232.Sheldrake, R., Turney, J. and Lawlor, C. (f998) Perceptive pets: a survey in Iondon.Biology Forum 91, 57-74.

t:igt.

r

406