SKELETON. 



625 



the human cervix, thorax, or loins, or sacrum, 

 or caudex, the vertebrae of each region mani- 

 fest those quantitative differences. For we 

 find in the human neck that B, or in the 

 loins F, occasionally develops a surplus rib 

 (fig. 444. B and F, 4) ; which circumstance gives 

 rise to a serious objection to the rule, that 

 " the mammal cervix is constant to the num- 

 ber of seven vertebras," or that the thorax of 

 even the human skeleton develops twelve 

 vertebrae constantly, or that the human lum- 

 bar region is confined to the number of five 

 vertebrae constantly. It is evident, therefore, 

 that the bodies named vertebra? are quantita- 

 tively different bodies, as seen not only in all 

 spinal axes comparatively estimated, but even 

 in the one animal spine of human type. 



PROP. II. Even the one vertebra is not of 

 equal quantity in all individuals of the same 

 species. Comparative research proves that all 

 vertebrae are quantitatively unequal entities ; 

 but this is not all, for even when I fix attention 

 upon the single isolated vertebral segment of 

 the spine, I find that it manifests a fluctuating 

 character as to proportions and elementary 

 quantity. The seventh cervical vertebra (A, 

 Jig. 444.) of the mammal spinal axis occasion- 

 ally produces a costal appendage (4 of B). 

 The first lumbar vertebra (*,fig. 444.) of the 

 human spine likewise develops now and then 

 the costal appendages (4 of F, fig. 444.) ; and 

 hence it is that anatomists are still unde- 

 cided whether to name them thoracic vertebrae 

 or not. I do not here intend to discuss those 

 several interpretations which anatomists have 

 advanced concerning the cervical and lumbar 

 ribs, for we should find ourselves in the end 

 as little enlightened about the true nature of 

 the anatomical fact as when we first set out, 

 suffice it here that we fully own to the fact ; 

 that the body which we name vertebra is not 

 always equal to itself at all times even in the 

 one fixed locality of the spinal series. 



PROP. III. All vertebrcB contain a greater or 

 lesser amount of certain known elemental pieces. 

 If we will consider why it is that we de- 

 signate vertebral bodies under one generalising 

 appellation, we will find that it is on account 

 of vertebras (whatever be their special variety) 

 containing few or more of those elemental 

 nuclei from which vertebras are fashioned. 

 Thus as we find vertebrae to be constituted from 

 a whole sum of elementary pieces proper alone 

 to vertebral form, we therefore consent to give 

 the name vertebra to every spinal figure which 

 shall produce any one element proper to the 

 ideal vertebral type. But then we must not 

 understand by this name vertebrated y a con- 

 quantitative uniformity* 



dition of absolute 



* The uniformity of a serial line of bodies im- 

 plies that all units of the line of serial order 

 are quantitatively equal and homologous. A series 

 of circles would constitute such an uniformity, 

 because all such circles would be similar. Uni- 

 formity, taken in this sense of equality among the 

 units of the series, does not characterise the verte- 

 bral spinal series ; but while we see that vertebra, 

 though not uniform as quantities, are still various 

 only as proportionals of a greater ens or archetype, 

 then the question arises as to how these propor- 



VOL. IV. 



throughout the bodies so named ; for to do so 

 would be as directly opposed to natural evi- 

 dence as to understand by the name endo- 

 skeleton, that all figures so named were abso- 

 lutely uniform with each other in quantity. 

 The truth is that vertebrae are as much varied 

 to each other as skeletons ; but the truth also 

 is that vertebrae are only quantitatively differ- 

 ent, just as skeletons are. A coccygeal vertebra 

 (i,j%.444.) is only different from a lumbar 

 (F,E) or cervical vertebra (A, B) by quantity ; 

 and a skeleton of a frog is different to that of a 

 whale by the condition of variable quantity 

 also. But a coccygeal vertebra (i,j%. 444 ) is 

 in reality a vertebral centrum (5) unattended 

 with the presence of those other elementary 

 pieces, such as laminae marked 2, 2, spinous 

 (1), and transverse processes (3), which else- 

 where constitute the completer vertebral form ; 

 and hence it is to be inferred that a coccygeal 

 vertebra is a minus quantity, and as such dif- 

 fers in this respect only from a lumbar or 

 cervical vertebra ; these latter being plus in 

 those very same elements which the coccygeal 

 vertebra wants. It is sufficient for us at pre- 

 sent to know clearly that all vertebrae have 

 some elements in common, and that the only 

 difference which appears between them is 

 occurring by a simple omission of elementary 

 parts from some vertebrae, which parts are 

 present and persistent in other vertebrae. 

 The coccygeal bone (i, fig. 444.), being as a 

 vertebral centrum (5) identical with the centra 

 marked 5 in all other vertebra, is different 

 from all other vertebrae simply by the loss ot 

 parts ; and those parts which it has lost are 

 evidently such parts as I find in a vertebra 

 elsewhere posited, viz. the parts marked 

 1, 2, 3, 4. 



PROP. IV. The dorsal vertebra of human 

 anatomy is an artificial figure. The human 

 anatomist separates the dorsal vertebra (c, 

 fig. 444.) from its costal appendages marked 

 4 in D, fig. 444., and by so doing he discon- 

 nects forms which nature has created inse- 

 parable from each other. In nature there 

 is no such ens as the dorsal vertebra (c, 

 fig. 444.) developed without the ribs (4 of D.) ; 

 nor can we conceive the idea of a dorsal ver- 



tionals have had creation ? It is evident that the 

 solution of this question is attainable only by a rule 

 of equation, which, while it acknowledges 



dition of the proportional, or the a b, must fill up or 

 supply mentally (without deference to the doctrine 

 of functional fitness) the differential quantity which 

 is to equate it with a+b; and this is the mode 

 which I adopt, in order to re-establish the original 

 typical uniformity of skeleton bodies, for I shall 

 prove that the known quantitative difference be- 

 tween two unequal forms renders them equal in 

 idea. The typical skeleton of Carus and Owen is an 

 ideal creation, sprung from a rule of comparison 

 which rejects (as I mean to do) the teleological doc- 

 trine of Cuvier, and undertakes to compare form as 

 form, regardless of the difference as to function. 

 The paramount necessity of this wilt at once occur 

 to the reader, and he will recognise in the truly 

 philosophical researches of the Hunterian professor 

 an advance towards the truthful interpretation of 

 the law of formation, equal in degree to the measure 

 of this mode of comparison adopted by him. 



