640 



SKELETON. 



fig. 459., I find that the difference between 

 them is resulting by a subtraction of different 

 parts from each. But when guided by the 

 light of comparison, I supply to each those 

 parts which it has lost, then I render them all 

 equal as whole quantities. Now, if the ques- 

 tion be here asked upon what authority I act 

 in thus equating the minus ens with the plus, 

 by adding to the former that quantity by 

 which it is less than the latter ? I may answer 

 that nature herself teaches me the rule in 

 offering to my consideration the following 

 facts : In Jig. 459. A B c D represents the 

 same numerical spinal segment of different 

 animals, and it manifests only a proportional 

 variety. Again, I find that, numerically dif- 

 ferent vertebrae of the same spine E F G H, 

 exhibit the same proportional variety. Ajrain, 

 I choose numerically different vertebrae from 

 the spinal axes of different classes of animals 

 (A B 0,^.461.), and they present in the same 



Fig. 461. 



ABC, vertebras taken from, the human neck (A), the 

 bird's thorax (B), and the crocodile's loins (o) ; 

 r> E F, vertebra from any region of the ophidian 

 spinal axis. 



proportional variety ; and, lastly, I take D E F 

 numerically different vertebrae from the same 

 spine, and they represent uniformity amongst 

 themselves ; but this uniformity is occurring 

 only by reason of the fact that these units are 

 of equal quantity. Now, upon comparing all 

 those spinal segments of fi^s. 460. and 461., it 

 becomes manifest that the thoracic or ventral 

 circle o, b, c, which I have supplied in dotted 

 outline for some, indicating the quantity lost 



or substracted, is actually created for others ; 

 and hence it appears that the only difference 

 between them, one and all, is in that degree in 

 which the rib (a b} falls short of the sternal 

 median line c. The law of species therefore 

 appears to be the law of proportioning lesser 

 quantities from whole and complete quan- 

 tities. 



It is the metamorphosis of ribs at the neck, 

 loins, sacrum, and caudex, which renders 

 these regions different to the thorax. Be- 

 tween those spinal segments to which the 

 plus ribs are present in one animal (B, /zg.461.), 

 and those spinal segments from which the ribs 

 are metamorphosed in another animal (&,fig. 

 461.), I hold comparison, and I find the ra- 

 tional conclusion, that the parts or ribs (a, b 

 of A) which are absent from one class of ver- 

 tebras are identical with the parts or ribs 

 (, b of B) which are present to another class 

 of vertebrae. And that specific difference, as 

 it exists between two or more animals, is ac- 

 cruing by the loss of known parts, viz. ribs. 

 For which reason I am led to name that 

 skeletal form (N o )t /zg. 459.) which holds all its 

 ribs (a, />, c,) to be archetype of all other 

 skeletal bodies of the four classes from each 

 of which variable numbers of original ribs are 

 subtracted. And for the like reason, I sav, 

 that the thoracic region of the one skeletal 

 axis which holds its ribs is archetype of all 

 other regions of the same spinal axis from 

 which the ribs have been metamorphosed. 

 The law of formation therefore is the meta- 

 morphosis of ribs. The original or archetype 

 skeletal axis is therefore one of costo-ver- 

 tebral character from occiput to the extreme 

 caudal tip. The metamorphosis of the ribs of 

 this original, or archetype, or continuous 

 series of costo-vertebral quantities, yields all 

 species of skeletal axes. If all skeletal axes 

 were similar in osseous quantity to the 

 thoracic ophidian (N o,Jig. 459.), there would 

 be no specific variety, for all skeletal axes 

 would then be similar to one another. But 

 they are not all quantitatively similar, and 

 this is the reason that they are specifically 

 various, having severally lost various parts, 

 which parts are to be read in the original, 

 the uniformity, the archetype, the uninter- 

 rupted serial line of costo-vertebral spinal 

 segments. 



PROP. XXXII. The Hyoid Apparatus occurs 

 opposite to the cervical spinal region, where we 

 know costal quantity to be lost. The hyoid ap- 

 paratus refers to the cervical vertebra, and con- 

 sists of their ribs metamorphosed. Wherever 

 plus or archetypal or thoracic osseous quan- 

 tity persists complete in all its parts, there, in 

 that place, we never find a new apparatus 

 posited. It is as impossible for a new or 

 specifically various apparatus to appear where 

 archetypal osseous quantity exists, either 

 among the four classes of skeletal forms, or 

 the four spinal regions of the one skeletal 

 figure, as it is for two things to occupy one 

 and the same place. I call the thoracic sterno 

 costo-vertebral apparatus the archetypal or 

 plus quantity of the spinal axis, and I find 



