Ss 
REMARKS ON THE FIGURES OF PLATE XIV. 3 
proportional variety is the secondary operation. If, again, 
bilateral symmetry be the result of a repetition of the 
side, and where it happens as an exception that one side 
is plus and.the other minus (this variety of sides being 
nothing more than plus and minus), then in like manner 
there can be nothing further said of this condition of 
form than that plus uniformity on one side has become 
minus variation on the other. Again, when we shall here- 
after find that a plus ventral series is a face diverse to a 
minus dorsal series or face, we may hence reasonably infer 
that the anterior aspect is not the counterpart of or sym- 
metrical with the posterior aspect, because of quantity 
being lost at dorsum. 
As we find that bilateral symmetry is the simple repe- 
tition of sides, so may we take a precedent of nature and 
create an antero-posterior symmetry by the simple repeti- 
tion of a back or front. The duplication of fig. B, in fig. 
A,* is productive of antero-posterior symmetry. Where- 
upon, if it be inferred that fig. B, not possessing antero- 
posterior symmetry either as we now see it, or as we shall 
hereafter see it with its thoracic apparatus attached to it, 
is, by the very fact of wanting this condition of formation, © | 
existing as a fitness compared to fig. A, which does possess 
antero-posterior symmetry, and is hence unfitting; still 
there appears to be no reason why we should not inter- 
pret fig. B as it stands, to have resulted various as to its 
back and front by the simple law of subtracting from its 
plus quantity. It is evident that fig. B is minus com- 
pared to fig. A, and also minus to fig. B when producing 
the thoracic apparatus. 
When we pass from fig. B to (fig. B plus the costal thorax), 
we shall have advanced only from minus to plus quantity, 
from a proportional to an archetype, which latter we shall 
still find to be subjected to the relationary laws of series, 
symmetry and proportioning.. 
It is to the recognition of a skeleton archetype or plus 
series of osseous quantities, that our observations have 
hitherto inclined, and shall incline henceforward ; and for 
this reason, because we believe that there is in nature 
some prime model of full and completed structure to 
which all lesser quantities of skeleton forms refer, and of 
which they may be read as the proportionals. This arche- 
type we believe to be one of serial and symmetrical equal 
quantities from origin to termination of the line, and may 
hence be regarded in itself as absolute linear uniformity 
and as containing proportional homologues of the whole 
infinitude of proportional variety. While there appears 
every good reason to infer that one form is various to 
another of the same series, only by the fact of subtracted 
quantity leaving proportional degradation as the result, so 
must the acknowledgment of this condition cast before it the 
attendant idea (as substance casts its shadow and cause 
its consequence) that minus quantity is minus by the loss 
of that which, when present, makes plus quantity a whole. 
* This figure has been designed merely to illustrate the fact that the duplicity of form is productive of symmetry as to all sides or. faces. 
But still we cannot be unmindful that the figure as it presents simulates very closely the duplex anomaly described by so many anatomists. It 
cannot be doubted that all those extraordinary anatomical facts, the “‘ anomalies of organization,’ do (notwithstanding the careless apathy with 
which the votaries of “the practical’ regard them) express @s creations a reference to some as yet unrevealed law of Nature, the knowledge of 
which might throw the light of just interpretation upon their actual and obstructive reality. They form part of that cireumambient subject 
named “ Transcendental Anatomy,” and have had some fixed place allotted to them in the generalizations of those who, knowing that comets 
are not vagrant beyond the law of orbits, believe that monstrosities of animal form are also encompassed by some general rule of development. 
In the works of Geof. St. Hilaire—Philosoph. Anatomique des Monstr. Of Serres (C. R. A.)—Recherches d’ Anatomie Transcend. Blumenbach 
(J. F.)\—De Anomalis et Vitiosts, 5c—Carus, and many others, enquiries into the cause and origin of monstrosities may be read. 
