652 



SKELETON. 



asternal, that is to say, falling short of sternal 

 junction. A comparison held between these 

 seven sternal and five asternal ribs, must lead 

 the reason to draw the conclusion that the 

 difference between both orders of these ribs 

 is caused by the subtraction of a certain 

 osseous quantity from the asternal ribs, which 

 circumstance has dissevered them from the 

 sternal median line ; and hence follows the 

 relationary inference, that if this osseous quan- 

 tity had not suffered subtraction or meta- 

 morphosis from those ribs which are now in 

 asternal character, these would have per- 

 sisted in their original archetypal or plus 

 quantities, and would thereby have joined a 

 sternal median line, just in the same way as 

 the seven true ribs still do. In this case, 

 we should have had twelve true or sternal 

 ribs forming the human thoracic cavity. 

 In the same way, again, I may remark, that if 

 the five ribs which are now lost to the lumbar 

 vertebras, and which loss has rendered these 

 bodies in the lumbar fashion, had still per- 

 sisted in their original archetypal proportions, 

 these ribs would also have joined a sternal 

 median line, and would have thereby com- 

 pletely enclosed ventral space. In such case 

 we should have had seventeen true or sternal 

 ribs. Again, if the original or archetypal 

 costo-vertebral osseous quantities, from which 

 the sacro-caudal series of vertebra have been 

 metamorphosed, had still persisted, these also 

 should have joined a sternal median line, and 

 completely enclosed space. In this case we 

 should have had twenty-eight true or sternal 

 ribs. And if the original archetypal osseous 

 quantities, from which the seven cervical ver- 

 tebras have been metamorphosed, had also 

 still persisted, we should then have had thirty- 

 five true or sternal ribs. In which case the 

 human skeletal axis, instead of numbering, as 

 it does, thirty-five spinal segments of variable 

 proportions, such as those of cervix, thorax, 

 loins, sacrum, and caudex, would have pre- 

 sented to us, in its original or archetypal quan- 

 tity, the number of thirty-five sternal costo- 

 vertebral spinal segments. In such a form, I 

 imagine that the sternal median line would 

 range from one extremity to the other of the 

 serial spinal axis. And now let us examine, 

 whether this ideal archetype coincides with all 

 natural evidence derivable from general com- 

 parison. 



Not only does a numerical variation occur 

 in human species as to the true or sternal 

 ribs (for I have seen them counting from 7 to 

 10), but I will venture to predict, that we 

 should find this numerical variation, as to 

 sternal ribs, happening amongst the indi- 

 viduals of anj' other species of the four 

 classes, if we dissected them as frequently, 

 and with as much interest, as we do the 

 human body. In the human skeletal form, we 

 are accustomed to name the seven sternal 

 ribs as normal to this type ; and all excess of 

 costo-sternal union as abnormal or anomalous. 

 The like variation, from normal to abnormal, 

 occurs amongst the individuals of every known 

 species of skeleton ; and the reason which I 



assign for this variety of infinite account is, 

 that all such variety, whether normal or ab- 

 normal, is but a minus condition, degraded 

 from a plus or archetype condition of skeletal 

 form, which latter has all the vertebral pieces 

 holding homologous series behind, all the 

 costal pieces holding homologous series late- 

 rally, and all the sternal pieces holding their 

 own order anteriorly. In such an archetypal 

 skeleton there could be no such hiatuses or 

 gaps, in series, as those of the cervix and the 

 venter, &c., where, be it remembered, all 

 variety and " anomalous" creation occurs. 



Now is there not every good reason to be- 

 lieve that the contrast, which the normal con- 

 dition of any one species bears to the abnormal 

 condition of that same species in respect to the 

 number of ribs meeting at a sternal median 

 line, is only a part of that general contrastive 

 condition which all species bear to one ano- 

 ther, in respect to this same costo-sternal 

 union or non-union ? Let us examine this 

 truly marvellous law, whereby all contrasts 

 of formation result, not only for the one spe- 

 cies, but for all species : for it is this law 

 which I conceive to be the proper aim of the 

 osteologist. Let us not weary patience with 

 recounting the facts that skeletal forms do 

 differ, but let us rather furnish imagination 

 with the one over-arching fact, as to hoiv they 

 are differenced, each one to each, and all to 

 archetypal uniformity. 



All individuals of one species will, when 

 viewed collectively, manifest the normal and 

 abnormal contrasts to that same species, in 

 respect to variation in the number of sternal, 

 and the number of asternal ribs. All species, 

 viewed collectively, will manifest the same, 

 only in a greater degree, and in broader con- 

 trast. When I compare the normal and the 

 abnormal conditions of costo-sternal union in 

 individuals of the same species, and also the 

 numerical variety as to the number of sternal 

 and asternal ribs, I find that the abnormal is 

 to the normal condition of the one species, 

 nothing more than what the normal condition 

 of one species is to the normal condition of 

 another ; hence, I say that it is the same law 

 which produces, in the one case, the normal 

 and abnormal castes of form in the one spe- 

 cies, and the normal castes of form in diverse 

 species. If one human skeleton differs from 

 another, as to the number of sternal ribs and 

 of asternal ribs, and that in one we find 

 the cervical ribs, in another the lumbar ribs, 

 and in all some number of ribs or other, what 

 is this variety, and whence has it occurred, 

 but by the operation of that same law of 

 metamorphosis which fashions the skeletal 

 axis of a baboon of one number of ribs, that 

 of a horse of another number, that of a sloth 

 of another number, that of a cetacean of ano- 

 ther number, that of a bird of another number, 

 that of a reptile of another number, that of a 

 fish of another number ? Is it not this same 

 law which has fashioned all individual species 

 of mammals of variable numbers of ribs ? all 

 individual species of birds of variable numbers 

 of ribs ? all individual species of reptiles of 



