9) REMARKS ON THE FIGURES OF PLATE XY. 
marked | and a, homologues of the pieces so marked in 
figs. C’ B’ and A’. 
to sacral form does not admit of the piece marked a to 
perform the plus mutations to the points d of figs. D” and 
D.” But still the piece a of fig. D’ is the autogenous 
homologue of the pieces marked a in figs. C’ B’ and A’, 
consequently, &c. | 
The cast of development necessary 
A vertebra is therefore to be regarded as a proportional 
of some fuller archetype structure. We already well 
know that fig. B’ is a proportional of the costo-vertebral 
What then are figs. A’, C’, and D’, to be accounted 
whilst we consent to read them as the homologues of 
fig. B’? 
Every form in the one series, every form, for example, 
which we name a vertebra, may be said to hang suspended 
figure. 
between two possible conditions of variety, viz., that of a 
plus increase, and that of a minus decrease. It appears 
to be not more possible to vary the vertebral quantity by 
rule of subtraction, than it is to vary it by rule of addi- 
tion. These being the actual facts of the case, it will 
also appear that if we continue to pursue minus variation 
between vertebral quantities in the hope of arriving at the 
limit of analogy, where this is supposed to inosculate with 
the genesis of diversity, we then shall be led to the state of 
vertebral nonentity or 9—9=0, and so comparative rule 
But the result is different when we follow the law 
of skeleton formation from minus quantity through all its 
ends. 
increasing series. The degradation of form terminates 
in 0, whereas the plus genesis of form increases to certain 
limits, and beyond these creation never passes. 
The genesis of formation may be said to follow through 
that serial line of increase or addition which has minus 
quantity at.one of its extremes and plus quantity at the 
other. The quantity which stands minus in this series, is 
liable to plus increase, just as the created plus quantity 
is itself liable to-all minus degradation. All the anomalies 
of the minus quantity are the simulations of plus quantity, 
and all the anomalies of the latter are representations of 
minus quantity. Form balances between the plus and 
minus conditions; and not only do we find this to be the 
general law through an animal kingdom; but even the 
quantities of the individual serial skeleton axis give 
example of the same law. For it is quite true that fig. A’, 
the seventh cervical vertebra, and fig. C’, the first lumbar 
form, do now and then produce their pieces marked a to 
the anomalous condition of coste, and thereby giving us 
to understand that the present condition of their elemental 
part @ is a costal quantity minus to plus. 
Now when we consent to read the law of formation, it 
is evident that we must contemplate the ens independently 
of its name. The thing is a creation of Nature, whereas 
the nomenclature is a creation of our own. 
Form, as 
developed under the guidance of a natural law, is not 
form such as we too often consent to read it, namely, as 
though Nature were to be girt by any name, and bound 
down within the scanty limits of its meaning. If we 
agree to name the pieces a of figs. A’ B’ C’ and D, as 
” “wibs,” and “lateral masses,” as 
“transverse processes, 
though these parts never varied from themselves through 
plus increases, all simulating the costal character : then it 
is plain that we suspend between ourselves and the actual 
truth the draw-blind of a nomenclature which absorbs 
‘all other mterest by its own barbarism of obstructiveness. 
We say that the name is not the form, and when to this 
we add that the form is not itself of fixed character, * we 
are only then speaking as to the actual facts of the case, 
for it is evident that the element a of fig. A’ the seventh 
cervical vertebra is to be known as no other thing than 
part or proportional of the costa ¢ of fig. A”, when we 
shall afterwards discover ¢ to be produced to the point d, 
and the whole still known as the seventh cervical vertebra. 
We apply the same remark to figs. C’ and ©”, with their 
costal pieces marked a and c. 
When we ourselves metamorphose fig. B’ from its whole 
structural quantity, and in this minus character find that 
its elements represent those which are to be found in figs. 
A’ C’or D’, we do not in such case call the piece a of fig. 
B’ a “ transverse process,” or any other name than that 
of a costal proportional; for we know that Nature has 
produced it as such. And when again we find that Nature, 
agreeably for design, presents to us in series, such quan- 
ties as figs. A’ C’ and D’, with their homologous elements 
a, in the same condition as a of fig. B’, why then should 
we understand the parts a to be anything else than as 
metamorphosed coste? Is not this sentence spoken 
through the facts that all the plus varieties of the pieces 
a of figs. A’ C’ and D’ are representations more or less 
complete of the full costal quantities which we know to 
fail for fig. B’? 
The plus anomaly of an ordinarily minus quantity is 
interpreted by the normal plus quantity elsewhere pro- 
duced. The minus anomaly of an ordinarily plus quantity 
is equal to a normal minus quantity in the same series ; 
and as it is so, hence may it be concluded that fig. A’ or 
C’, together with their anomalous coste, are to find inter- 
pretation in the archetype of fig. B’, which we already 
know to be the full costo-vertebral thoracic structure. We 
say, therefore, that figs. A’ and C’, and consequently fig. 
D’, are now fitting designs, by having been metamorphosed 
from a plus uniform costo-vertebral series, which (com- 
paring Nature with herself) we shall proceed to recognise in 
the plus archetype of fig. B’, which is the dorsal structure. 
* An osseous quantity holds an invariably fixed position in the skeleton forms, and hence it is that we are always enabled to recognise it as 
the same ens through all its phases of metamorphosis. But though it manifests a sameness of character as to place, still ats bulk ds not always of 
fixed character as to proportion or extent, function or destination, degradation or subtraction of parts ; the rendering a thing minus from plus, is 
that law which (according to the present views) fashions a minus “ transverse” process at the neck or loins from out of a plus costa. 
“ T’ostéogénie est constante, en ce qu’un méme os est toujours 4 la méme place.’—Goethe, Quy. d’Hist. Nat., p. 41. Traduits par Martins. 
