9, REMARKS ON THE FIGURES OF PLATE XIV. 
being symmetrically cleft by a line which passes from the 
vertex to the caudal ossicles through the spimous processes 
behind, and the bodies of the vertebre in front; but 
transverse cleavage, through all the spinal axis, will not 
leave the front and back of that axis as homologues. 
In fig. B, the lateral view of the skeleton axis, we see 
that the line 2, which passes through it from vertex to 
caudex, would divide series into a back and front of un- 
equal formation. The pieces marked a, 4, and c¢, in the 
dorsal region, would stand on one side of such a cleaving 
line, and would not have counterparts on the opposite 
side of this line. In the lumbar region, the pieces marked 
d, e, and f, would happen likewise on the one side, and 
have no homologues opposite. . 
In fig. A we have repeated figure B, and even though it 
be a transgression beyond the laws of nature, in establish- 
ing the human design, such as it is at B, still we see how 
that the repetition of form, such as B, produces a figure 
capable of being cleft, both perpendicularly and trans- 
versely from vertex to the caudal series. A median line 
which passes through the double figure A, from 2 to 2, 
would sever the entire form into homologous halves, and 
even if this figure were cleft through the opposite series of 
spinous processes, still the resultant sides of the form 
would be symmetrical. 
In such a figure as A, the median cleavage, whether 
carried transversely or perpendicularly, would strike halves 
homologous, both as to general form, and as to the ele- 
mental pieces contained in each. The line marked 2, 2, 
would sunder equal forms, both having the pieces at the 
’ dorsal region marked a, 6, and c, and at the lumbar region 
the pieces marked d, e, f. 
Now, the horizontal line marked 1, will, when carried 
through both the figures A and B, produce these remarks, 
namely, that above and below this line 1, the other line 2 
will be producing dissimilar results on the forms A and B; 
for we see that the line 2 would sever the figure B into 
unequals as to back and front, although the line 1 would 
have serial vertebral homologues above and below it; 
whereas, the line 2 would sever the figure A into equals 
as to back and front, although the lne 1 would still have 
serial homologous forms above and below it. 
The only observation, therefore, which we shall enforce 
respecting fig. B, at present, is, that it cannot be cleft 
symmetrically by the line 2, and that this is owing to its 
being the metamorphosed proportional of some archetype 
structure which is capable of beg symmetrically sundered 
by the line 2. 
archetype is such a one as fig. A, in general design; but 
only, that like fig. A, it admits of symmetrical cleavage 
However, we by no means say, that this 
both ways, and is composed of a series of figures all homo- 
logously developed from cranium to caudex. 
It may be regarded as an incontestable truth, that as 
by the comparison of plus and minus quantities we are 
taught how much is lost to minus by what we find in 
plus, so by the comparison of opposite faces whose main 
difference depends upon the persistance of plus structure 
for one, and the subtraction of the like structure for 
another, we should read the design accordingly. In series 
we discover the difference between the existing quantities 
to be that which always occurs between plus and minus. 
In symmetry we also recognise the difference (when it 
happens that there is any), between opposite faces, to 
result by the very same rule. When subtraction is gra- 
duated for serial forms, as from the first sacral vertebra to 
the last caudal bone, this latter is different to the former 
only as a minus quantity is different to a plus quantity. 
When, again, we still discover that bilateral symmetry 
prevails for the sacro-caudal series, we then understand . 
that equilateral metamorphosis, graduated and propor- 
tional, has not disturbed the law of bilateral symmetry, 
but has only rendered the superior structure plus and 
symmetrical, whereas the inferior structure is minus and 
symmetrical. Series and symmetry are two conditions of 
development which we find attaching to the one form, and 
the difference which happens to either of those laws arises © 
by the operation of a third law—viz., that of metamor- 
phosis or the subtraction from plus quantity. 
All forms which are created by natural operation are as 
the symbols expressive of the laws of their development. 
If we view the form without regard to the law by which 
it is a creation, it then stands for nothing more intelligible 
either to the eye of body or of understanding than any 
hieroglyphic pregnant of its own occult meaning. But 
when we consider the form in presence of the attendant 
laws which have presided over its creation, it is then that 
we furnish both to it and ourselves the history of its pre- 
sent condition. The form as it is, and the form as it 
might have been, contains the whole account of those 
operations of nature which have rendered it what it is, viz., 
a fabric of symmetrical and serial homologues having been 
subjected to proportioning. 
When we say that the skeleton axis as it is is not such 
as it might have been, we only mean that those serial 
forms which we now discover to be minus might still have 
persisted as plus quantities characterised as serial and 
symmetrical equals. The laws of series, symmetry and 
proportioning point to the original whole quantities from 
which the existing minus figures have been by their 
agency created and designed. These laws of formation 
stand manifested between the minus and plus quantities, 
and, Janus-like, they indicate by one aspect that quantity 
to be present in plus, which, by the opposite aspect, they 
describe to be lost to minus. The sentence which they 
speak has this relationary meaning, viz., that if a—b=c 
so c+b=a, and the one condition is expressive of the 
other or else of nothing. 
Considering the mammalian spinal series as a design 
resulting from the combined operation of the three rela- 
tionary laws, that of symmetry, of series and of propor- 
tioning, sothe subject or form itself must bear interpretation 
accordingly. And hereupon we remark, that if serial 
forms, such as vertebra, be the simple repetitions of each 
other, and when varied from each other, be only varied as 
to proportioning, then all we can say of this condition of 
development is, that plus uniformity is the original, and 
