6 . INTRODUCTION. 
The cervical, dorsal, lumbar, sacral, and coccygeal bones are not produced as figures absolutely homologous - 
to each other even in the human spine, much less in all the skeleton axes. 
Although it be the natural capability of the mind ever to distinguish the merits of all reasonable 
proofs, although it shall seem plausible to the mind that all generalisations of facts can alone’ be well 
founded, by having been created upon a free and broad survey of all forms such as they present 
themselves, although it shall seem reasonable to assert that no. idea in generalisation can possibly be 
originated upon the limited view of the specialty (yet is this name “ ronenated * sprung of such), still 
is it no less true that where the mind has already accustomed itself to a certain reading of form or of 
phenomena, it can, but with difficulty, emancipate itself from such habitude of its thoughts, even when 
figures in bodily form and tangible proof invite the reason to an opposite course of interpretation. The 
comparative science cannot be rendered lucid, except when freely admitting those abstract ideas which 
are its own creations. If unity be an integer or whole quantity, and variety be the proportionals of 
this unity, then it must follow that the abstract idea of uniformity, which is an idea in generalisation,- 
and founded upon the analogy of form, must attach itself to that whole quantity, and not to any of 
its proportional parts. The vertebra is a proportional of its archetype, therefore it is not upon the form 
vertebra that we are ever to read uniformity. 
The human skeleton axis, basis of the human form, as it had at first been described by the special 
anatomist, still hears the same interpretation, notwithstanding that accumulation of facts in the records 
of the comparative anatomist, which invites the reason back again to render a clearer interpretation of this 
figure, in sentences. which should convey a fuller meaning than those applied to it in the infancy of 
anatomical science. It is the fashion still for the comparative anatomist to read all new figures of the 
endoskeletons in reference to this human figure as standard, and to borrow therefrom his nomenclature 
even when ample means are already furnished to him, wherefrom he could shed back upon it that light of 
interpretation which might enable him to pass unfettered into those domains of the animal designs within 
which he may commence a new course of distinguishing those designs in all their excelling plans. It ig . 
by the science of Morphology* that we open the volume of design, and read the paces of the law of 
unity in variety. 
The human skeleton figure is not typical of all skeleton figures, nor as yet has there been noticed 
among the animal classes that form which could be accounted typical of this and them. Yet it is 
rendered fully evident to the eye, how that all the animal skeletons, notwithstanding their variations of 
developed plans, are struck in a somewhat common Carat of character, which, whilst observed upon 
the general survey, has originated the idea of their unity of type. The diversity of form happening 
within the girding circlet of this unity of character is that problem which it has been the endeayour 
to solve ever since the days of Aristotle. | | . . 
Amongst all known figures of those skeleton structures named “ vertebrated,” as well those of the 
extinct or fossil species as those of the existing race, there happens no one exception’ to that general rule 
of a common identity of character, which anatomists have ever noticed concerning them, at the same time 
* Goethe adopts this title for the comparison of forms conducted in discovery of the law of their development.—See Muvres 
d’ Histoire Naturelle de Goethe, traduits par Martins. zur Morphologie, tom. i. Stuttgard, 1817—1825, 
