2, REMARKS ON THE FIGURES OF PLATE IV. 
blish im idea the serial vertebral uniformity. Uniformity 
being rendered difform just as plus may be rendered 
minus, any vertebra of the spinal series may be meta- 
morphosed to the caudal quantity ; and so may this cau- 
dal quantity be equated to the plus amount of the vertebral 
archetype. In this mode we track the design of nature. 
Now when we here name figs. A” B” C” D” as uniform 
and equal quantities, we are not to be understood to mean 
that these forms are so absolutely identical with one 
another that even a transposition from their natural situa- 
tion in the serial spinal axis would not interfere with 
natural fitness. Although it be most true that fig. A” 
contains elemental quantity as similar to fig. B” as the 
integer 6 compared to the integer 6, still it is equally 
true that fig. B” would not suit the serial situation of 
fig. A”, nor this latter the situation of the former.. When 
we assert that fig. A” is homologue of fig. B we simply 
mean that in the one form may be read the same formative 
pieces which are to be found in the other. We know well 
enough that the general design of a dorsal vertebral 
quantity such as fig. B” is one various to the design of a 
cervical vertebral quantity, such as fig. A”, but still we see 
that both contain similar parts and that those parts are 
also repeated in figs. C” and D”. 
- The knowledge of a whole quantity in a series lends 
interpretation to all other quantities of the same series, 
provided these latter do not exceed the sum of the former. 
But it invariably happens that through the want of 
knowing the whole quantity we then fix attention upon 
a minus figure; we give this a name, and consequently 
interpret all the other serial figures which manifest plus 
variations to this minus figure, as though they were 
anomalous, that is to say unaccountable. Thus have 
anatomists* selected (B” minus the costa 6), from the 
serial axis and called it the dorsal vertebra, and upon 
comparing this with fig. A” discovered that there existed 
a primitive or radical variety between both quantities, the 
variety being attached to fig. A” whose transverse process 
contained the plus element marked 6+. Again on com- 
paring fig. C” the lumbar form with (fig. B” minus 0) they 
have found that the former was originally various to the 
latter by the existence of the autogenous part 6’{. Or 
even when they named 6 of fig. C” to be identical with 
the piece 2 of fig. B’ then the Tubercle 2 § of fig. C” not 
having a counterpart in the dorsal vertebra was the unac- 
countable anomaly to vertebral uniformity. 
In like manner the sacral vertebra fig. D” was seen to 
be developed of nucleary parts which were not to be found 
in (fig. B” minus the piece 0), for comparison proved that 
fig. D” was developed plus its element 0 ||, and that such 
was the peculiarity of sacral form. Whenever we choose 
from series a minus quantity and affix a name to it, as 
though it were a perfect figure not liable to any plus or 
minus variation, we then, on holding it in comparison with 
plus and minus quantities of the same series, will always 
discover variety to appear. An example of this may be 
read in that minus quantity which special anatomists have 
named the dorsal vertebra, although they have never met 
with this form unaccompanied with its natural appendages 
the cost. Plus quantity is always various to minus 
quantity and so are figs. A” C” and D” the cervical lumbar 
and sacral forms always plus and various to fig. B” unat- 
tended with 0 its coste. 
Whenever, on the contrary, we rise to the appreciation 
of a whole quantity which is a perfect form, and as such 
contains parts equal to any other figure happening in the 
same series with itself, we then gain some insight into 
original uniformity, and at the same time acknowledge the 
condition of minus proportioning, or that law which sub- 
tracts from plus uniform originals and leaves behind certain 
quantities of graduated proportions. Thus (B” plus 3), 
equals (A” or C” or D” plus 4), and contains the caudal 
quantity E”, that is to say contains a proportional quantity — 
equal to the minus fig. EH”, from which we can reasonably 
infer that fig. HE” has been metamorphosed from a whole 
quantity, such as fig. B’ or A” C” or D’”. The comparative 
rule tells us that the non-existent parts of a minus quantity 
are those which still appear in plus quantity, and this we 
have indicated in the outline drawn around fig. E” the 
caudal centrum. We shall continue hereafter through 
these pages to consider fig. B’ as inseparable from its 
costal appendages marked 64, and because in nature we 
never see (fig. B” minus 6), produced as a quantity of 
serial order. 
* Cruveilhier and Meckel, T. F., both of whose works “Anatomie Descriptive” by the former, and “Handbuch der Menschlichen Anatomie,” 
Halle—Berlin, by the latter author may be said to have carried the special subject of human anatomy to the farthest limits of which it is capable 
of being cultivated apart from comparative science. 
+ For what have been named as the “ peculiarities” of the seventh cervical vertebra respecting the anterior root of its transverse process, 
in connection with the creation of cervical ribs, consult the works of Cruveilhier and Meckel above cited, also Hunauld, Mem de l’Ac. des 
Se. 1740—Sue, Mem Pres. a U‘Ae. de Paris, vol. ii—and Nesbitt Osteogenic. 
{ A peculiarity which is said by Cruveilhier to attach to this process, is that it sometimes remains separate, and appears as a “ super- 
numerary rib.” 
§ The tubercle is also reckoned amongst the peculiarities of the lumbar vertebra. 
i “ Characteristic osseous pieces” of the sacral structures, as they are termed by human anatomists. These pieces, from which are produced 
the anterior portion of the sacral lateral masses, are mentioned as additional centres of ossification for sacral vertebree compared with the dorsal 
vertebra, viewed independently of the costz. See Works of Meckel and Cruvetthier. 
