2 REMARKS ON THE FIGURES OF PLATE I. 
figs. C” and A”, forasmuch as we find their elementary 
nuclei corresponding both as to position and mode of 
development. The parts 2 and @ of fig. D”, find their 
homologues in the parts 2 and 6 of figs. C” and A”, 
therefore figs. D’C” and A” are homologues, and are only 
different from fig. B” by being plus the nucleus 6 which is 
wanting in fig. B”. 
Figures E’E” EH” are human terminal sacral vertebree 
and are homologues of each other. They hold serial spinal 
order with figs. D”C”B” and A”, but are not equal to 
those latter forms. How are they rendered unequal to 
those forms D”C”’B” and A”? It is by the atrophy or 
subtraction of elementary parts. Still we find in fig. E, 
certain elements which have their homologues in figs. 
D’C’B” and A”, and therefore we conclude that fig. H 
plus those elements now lost to it, would render it equal 
to any other vertebra of the spine. 
Figures IVF’ EF” are caudal human vertebre holding 
series with all others of the same spinal chain. The fig. 
F is a fractional of such another unit as fig. D”, or C’; or 
A”. Itis a centrum, and holds serial order with the cen- 
trums of all other vertebre. Any vertebra minus all 
elements but the centrum, would equal a caudal bone, 
and this caudal bone plus those same elements, would 
equal any other vertebra. 
The general conclusion, therefore, which is to be drawn 
regarding the figures of Plate I., is that plus quantity has 
been rendered minus by process of metamorphosis or 
subtraction, and that this process resembles a—b=c, which 
leaves it to be inferred that ¢+=a, and thus proves that 
subtraction or addition of certain elemental nuclei is the 
sole cause of uniformity being rendered various through 
figs. A, B, C, D, EH, F. 
Now the reason why we have been thus careful to 
identify the homologous elements of figs. A, B, C, D, , F, is 
because we believe that those figures represent a brief 
abstract of all the subject of comparative osteology, and 
that truth or error in this stage of our argument will draw 
after them truthful or erroneous interpretation the farther 
we advance in our reading of the law of skeleton formation 
from either groundwork. It has been well observed that, 
“ Brrores radicales et in prima digestione mentis ab 
excellentia functionum et remediorum sequentium non 
curantur.”* Original error in the first digestion of the 
mind cannot afterwards be remedied, and so we say that 
if we do not now distinguish clearly between the exo- 
genous pieces marked 2 in figs. A” B”C’D” and the 
autogenous elements marked 6 in figs. A“C”D”, we shall 
not be able to rectify the error afterwards. 
The processes called “ transverse,” in figs. A” B’C” and 
D” are not all produced of identical or homologous ele- 
ments. It is plain that the piece marked 2 in fig. B” is 
not the counterpart of the piece 6 in fig. C”, or D”, or A”, 
but is actually homologous with the process marked 2 in 
figs. A” C” and D”. 
homologous to the piece 6 of figs. A” C” and D”, therefore 
those latter figures are plus the element 4. A radical 
error committed in the science of number would make 
Fig. B” has no elemental structure 
nonsense of the whole system of algebraic computation. 
An arithmetic based upon 2+3=6, or an assertion that 
the sides of an equi-angular triangle were wnequal to one 
another, would pervert the whole majesty of mathematical 
truth; and so would the assertion that the process 2 of fig. 
B” was identical with the process 6 of figs. C’ D” or A” 
distort the whole system of philosophical osteology and the 
unity in variety. 
A comparison, therefore, held between the figs. of Plate 
I. involves the question as to uniformity and difformity of 
developed character. The law of species or individuality 
is likewise attendant upon those several forms of vertebrz 
as developed in the human spinal axis, and it is most true 
that the interminable argument as to the existence of an 
absolute unity prevailing through all fashions of endo- 
skeleton formation in the four classes of animals may be 
also entered upon respecting figs. A” B”C” D” and E: and 
hence it is most necessary plainly to state our ideas of the 
unity and variety which characterises those forms. This 
we shall do by asking ourselves the following questions 
irrespective of any theory, hypothesis, or favoured doctrine 
which might cause us to warp the facts of Nature :— 
Are the figs. A” B”’C” D’ BH” and F uniform quantities; 
and when we name them vertebrz, do we mean that they 
are equals, both as to form, design, and quantity? They 
cannot be regarded as uniform any more than the several 
fractionals of an integer can be named uniform and equal 
to one another, and to the integer itself. For fig. A” is 
as different to fig. B’ as 6 isto 5. Fig. B” is as difform 
to fig. C’ as 5 is to 6. Fig. C” is as difform to fig. E” as 
6 is to 3, and fig. F is as difform to all the rest as the unit 
1 is to the integer 6, and to all the other quantities con- 
tained in 6. 
What then is the condition of that variety or difformity 
which renders it wholly impossible to consider figs. A” B” 
C’ D’ B” and F” as uniform bodies at the same time that 
It is the 
variety of plus quantity subtracted from, and just in the 
same way as we would equate 1 with 7 by process of 
addition, 1+6=7, so if we would read uniformity between 
figs. F” and A”, we must estimate the common difference 
they are only dissimilar as unequal quantities ? 
as to quantity between them, and calling this quantity by 
the name 0, then fig. F’ plus 4 equals A”, and fig. A” 
minus J equals F ; which amounts to the same thing as 
saying that fig. A” is a quantity which metamorphosis, or 
subtraction, might render equal to fig. F’, and therefore 
allows us at least strongly to suspect that fig. F is a special 
design metamorphosed from such an original quantity as 
fig. A. Be this as it may, however, all that we shall at 
present say is that the serial order of figs. A” B’C’” D” E” 
and F” manifests only such variety as we find between pro- 
portional quantities, that figs. A” C” and D” are ‘equal 
quantities, and produced of the like elemental structures, 
but that figs. B’ E” and F” are minus certai elements, 
and hereby are struck various. The variety which dis- 
members the continuity of serial uniformity is only a—é 
compared with a+4, and it is the rule of comparison 
teaches us that plus is various to minus by the presence of 
those very elements which when absent makes minus 
various to plus. 
* Novum Organon Scientiarum, Aph. 30. 
a ee lll 
. 
