SKELETON. 



657 



point to which I direct the reader's attention, 

 for it is upon this assertion that I found the 

 present reading. If, for example, from fore- 

 going remarks I have proved that the spinal 

 vertebra is not a whole quantity, as it exists 

 either in the cervical lumbar sacral or caudal 

 regions, but that it is in reality a proportional 

 metamorphosed from the sterno-costo-verte- 

 bral archetype, then it must follow that the 

 figure which has been named cranial vertebra 

 is also a proportional metamorphosed from 

 the like archetype; for that which is true of 

 the form we name spinal vertebra, must un- 

 questionably be true of the cranial form, which 

 we liken to a vertebra. 



Now, in each of those spinal forms which 

 hold serial order from cranium to the other 

 extreme, there exists, as I have already shown, 

 some proportional of the rib. In the thoracic 

 spinal segment, the rib is plus, and meets its 

 fellow of the opposite side at the sternal 

 piece. This thoracic costo-vertebral form 1 

 have named archetype, and compared with it 

 I have shown that all other spinal vertebrae 

 vary from it, not because of the introduction 

 of any new elemental part found in any of 

 them, and not found in the archetype, but 

 simply because they are, compared with this 

 archetypal or plus quantity, the minus propor- 

 tionals of such plus archetypes. However, it 

 is still most true that the quantity which we 

 recognise as the cervical lumbar or sacral 

 vertebra, does contain within itself the rudi- 

 ment of the rib, and therefore I repeat that 

 this rib makes an integral part of all vertebrae 

 of all those, at least, which possess a certain 

 quantitative character. 



It must have already appeared evident to 

 the reader that it was premature to have 

 sought to establish an identity between cranial 

 and spinal segments, without having first 

 ascertained the quantitative nature of the 

 thing which was named vertebra. For as it 

 was evident that something was yet to be 

 proved by the comparison of spinal vertebrae, 

 so therefore it was not possible to prove all 

 that might be known of cranial vertebrae, 

 while prematurely referring one unknown 

 quantity to another equally unknown I 

 mean the spinal vertebra to the cranial verte- 

 bra. Since it was by no means as yet demon- 

 strated that the form which anatomists recog- 

 nised as the spinal vertebra was a quantity of 

 fixed and invariable character, how then could 

 it be proved that the form to which it was 

 likened in the cranium was of fixed and un- 

 varying dimensions ? 



When anatomical science, lighted by the 

 torch of Oken's genius, first pierced the mist 

 and obscuring cloud of nomenclature, which 

 described the cranial structures as distinct 

 from the spinal forms, and when it expounded 

 the facts and doctrine of that radical homo- 

 logy of caste which related both classes of 

 structure together under the common name 

 vertebrae, it did not in truth progress much 

 nearer to the explanation of the law of form 

 than when it first explained, despite of no- 

 menclature, the analogy which existed between 



VOL. IV. 



sacral bones and lumbar vertebrae. In the 

 one case it only related hitherto unknown 

 forms to vertebrae, without knowing the typi- 

 cal form of vertebrae themselves ; in the other 

 case it related the sacrum (sacer) to the lum- 

 bar vertebrae, and called both vertebras, with- 

 out having any idea of the vertebral archetype 

 or whole quantity. 



The facial apparatus is to the cranial forms 

 just what the thoracic costae are to the dorsal 

 vertebrae, namely, the integral parts of whole 

 sacral quantities.* As in thoracic series, it is 

 required that we should take the dorsal ver- 

 tebra, holding its natural connection with the 

 thoracic rib, and describe both as the parts of 

 whole thoracic quantities; so in cephalic series, 

 we are reminded, from the natural connection 

 which facial structures hold with cranial 

 forms, to describe both orders of parts as 

 constituting the whole cephalic quantities. It 

 is upon this connection apparent between 

 facial and cranial structures at one region of 

 series, and between vertebral and costal struc- 

 tures at another region of the same serial 

 order, that I am induced to draw a likeness 

 or resemblance, as well between costal forms 

 and maxillary forms, as other anatomists have 

 recognised between cranial forms and spinal 

 vertebrae. The identity which is already 

 proved to exist between the latter must prove 

 the identity of the former likewise. The 

 homology of caste which a priori reasoning 

 establishes between cranial and spinal forms, 

 will lead us to interpret by a posteriori reason- 

 ing that an homology of caste must charac- 

 terise the costal and the maxillary forms ; for 

 if we are already forced to acknowledge iden- 

 tity between cranial and spinal vertebrae, so 

 must we, I contend, be induced to name the 

 maxillae of cranial vertebrae to be the homo- 

 logues of the costae of spinal vertebrae (even 

 if special modification had rendered homology 

 still more obaeure than it is at present), and 

 for this reason, viz. that costae are the natural 

 attendants upon vertebrae, wherever we find 

 vertebrae, whether in the head or in the spinal 

 serial axis. 



As all spinal segments whatever contain 

 some proportional of a rib, it must follow that 

 the rib is to indicate the presence of the ver- 

 tebral piece as much as the vertebral piece 

 implies the presence of the rib ; and if the 

 cranial forms are proved to manifest a struc- 

 tural identity with spinal vertebrae, while we 

 see that the latter are always attended with 



* If the facial be to the cranial structures just 

 what the thoracic costae are to the dorsal vertebrae, 

 then it will appear evident to the reader that, when 

 Oken, or Spix, or Goethe, or Geoflroy likened the 

 facial structures to vertebrae, they committed an 

 error as evident as if they saw an analogy of form 

 between the thoracic ribs and the vertebral pieces. 

 Schultz (De Primordiis Systematis Ossium et de 

 Evolutione Spinee Dorsi in Animalibus) was the first 

 to pronounce the gross error into which the trans- 

 cendental anatomists had fallen in respect to liken- 

 ing the facial apparatus to the vertebral pieces. 

 Bojanus, in like manner, prudently freed himself 

 from this error. Professor Owen considers the facia.1 

 apparatus to consist of the "inverted arches" of the 

 cranial vertebra;. 



u u 



