642 



SKELETON. 



and enclosing thoracic space completely, ap- special design of an ophidian hyoid apparatus, 



pears the new apparatus named hyoid. The By an actual necessity, therefore, and in the 



absence of the sternum and sternal ends of relationship of cause and effect, it appears 



the ribs becomes the presence of the simple that the presence of a hyoid apparatus (1,2 



Fig. 463. 



The. cervical spine of the osseous Fish, 



Exhibiting the hyoid apparatus 1, 2, 3, 4, as being the original costo-sternal quantity proper 

 to those vertebras which immediately succeed the occiput. In both Jigs. 462. and 463. the 

 parts indicated in dotted outline are those quantities of the archetypal series of sterno-costo- 

 vertebral circles which, being subtracted, give to both fonns their class characters. If 

 such parts still existed for both fonns, these would approach the original character of 

 plus uniformity, and thereby would leave no distinction between the hyoid apparatus, 

 1, 2, 3, 4, and the thoracic apparatus, 5, 6, 7. In both figures it will be marked that the 

 variable number of hyoid circles depends upon the variable number of those costae which 

 have suffered metamorphosis. 



of Jig. 462.) must be the metamorphosis of a 

 costal apparatus at those spinal segments 

 which immediately succeed the occiput, and 

 the same appears true of every other special 

 apparatus produced upon the skeleton form. 

 The appearance of any or all kinds of special 

 apparatus implies the metamorphosis of all or 

 some of the costal and sternal quantities. 

 Consequently, therefore, it must follow that 

 as the original costo-sternal apparatus of the 

 cervical spinal segments may be regarded as 

 homologous with the thoracic costo-sternal 

 apparatus, so will the hyoid apparatus (I, 2, 

 3, 4, Jig. 463.), which is constructed of the 

 cervical costo-sternal quantity, bear some 

 analogy, more or less, to the thoracic appa- 

 ratus (5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10,/g-.463.). In all ske- 

 letons I see an analogy, more or less strongly 

 marked, between not only all hyoid apparatus 

 as special designs (Jig. 462, 463.), but between 

 these and the thoracic apparatus. The source 

 of this structural analogy, no doubt, is, that 

 the hyoid apparatus (1, 2 of Jig. 462., and 1, 2, 

 3, 4 of Jig. 463.) is specially modified from the 

 original structure at the cervix, which structure 

 is costo-sternal proper to the cervical spinal 

 region, and, as such, is the true structural 

 homologue of that apparatus which elsewhere 

 constitutes the thorax. The hyoid apparatus, 

 at one spinal region, is not the thoracic appa- 

 ratus at another spinal region ; for to assert 

 this would be as absurd as to say that the 

 thorax of one skeleton was the thorax of 

 another ; in other words, as to assert that 

 duality was unity. How can the hyoid appa- 

 ratus (1,2,3,4 of Jig. 463.) be rationally 

 named the thoracic apparatus, when both ap- 

 paratus may exist at the same time in the same 

 skeleton ? When I see the hyoid apparatus 

 (1, 2, 3, 4) of a fish (Jig. 463.) existing with 



the thoracic apparatus (5 \Q,fig. 463.), and 

 both the same apparatus existing in a mammal 

 skeleton (a, b, 8 19, Jig. 455.), why should I 

 therefore say that the hyoid apparatus of the 

 fish was the thoracic apparatus of the mammal 

 pushed upwards into the fish's throat ? If the 

 hyoid apparatus of the fish were the thoracic 

 apparatus of the mammal, then, strictly speak- 

 ing, the fish could have no hyoid apparatus at 

 all, and wherefore should we still continue to 

 call that hyoid wlvch in reality was thoracic ? 

 Evidently anatomists are only disputing about 

 the shadow of nomenclature in their ignorance 

 of*the real entity of form, and the law which 

 modifies to infinite variety. Evidently, while 

 they record how unity or uniformity is varied, 

 they cannot describe or figure the character 

 of unity, and they never will, so long as they 

 dispute about variety without first ascertain- 

 ing the source of this variety. What is the 

 truth concerning the source of this remarkable 

 analogy between all hyoid apparatus as such (in 

 Jigs. 462, 463.), and all thoracic apparatus as 

 such ? 1 believe the source of the analogy to 

 be this, namely, that the thoracic apparatus 

 happens at variable localities of the spinal axis, 

 according to the position whereat sterno- 

 costo-vertebral archetypal structure persists, as 

 from 8 to 19 of Jig Abb., and 5 to \0ofjig. 463. 

 This thoracic apparatus may, according to ne- 

 cessity, persist at any region of the spinal 

 length, or at all regions, because the original 

 archetypal skeletal axis is one of a continuous 

 series of thoracic segments. Where it does 

 persist, as in Jig. 463. from 5 to 10., there no 

 new apparatus can recur ; but where the tho- 

 racic apparatus has undergone metamorphosis, 

 as at cervix 1 to 7 of Jig. 455., and 1 to 4 of Jig. 

 462. or 463., there and there only a new special 

 apparatus, such as the hyoid, can happen. 



