REMARKS ON THE FIGURES OF PLATE XVIII: 
ee DS 
' THE SEVENTH CERVICAL, FIRST THORACIC, TWELFTH THORACIC, AND FIRST LUMBAR QUANTITIES OF SERIES 
ARE COMPARED. 
ERIAL osseous quantities, in each of which we discover certain elemental parts which are to be found in 
all, must be accounted as of the same order of growth; but this assertion requires that it should be read 
in company with the following remark, viz., when we see that those serial quantities are developed in minus 
and plus condition ; it will, therefore, be in vain that we name them to be homologous as to quantity and the 
number of elemental constituents. If we view the proportional series 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, and call it a 
homologous series, as though the quantities were all equal to each other, then the term homologous, taken in 
this sense, must be void and absurd. If we name the serial osseous quantities of the mammalian spinal axis 
to be homologous in such sense, then the term, as applied to this form, must be also absurd. We do not, 
therefore, call the osseous quantities, known as cervical, dorsal, lumbar, sacral, and terminal, homologous, in 
the sense of equality. These quantities ave unequal ; therefore, they cannot be now named equal. But if it 
be said, that since they are not equal, homologous, or identical, they must therefore be named difform and 
specifically various, severed apart from uniformity, and in nowise allied to it, because they do not absolutely - 
figure the shape of equality, which is complete uniformity—then we say that this conclusion would be no less 
absurd, for we find that, although they cannot be named equals as to quantity, still, on the other hand, they can- 
not be called species absolute and per se in any other sense than that of being the proportionals of a common 
archetype form. What, then, are we here to understand of these serial quantities, which cannot be named 
uniform, and yet cannot be named absolutely difform? We must content ourselves to read Nature as she is, 
viz., a creation of original uniform plus series, under a metamorphosis whereby equality is rendered unequal. 
When equal degrees of metamorphosis take place upon | form B”’. The law of Nature is always simple enough; 
the forms of three or more archetype quantities in series, 
then equal proportionals are the result. Thus, fig. A”, 
the proportional of a thoracic archetype metamorphosed 
at the point 6, is rendered equal to fig. A’ the cervical 
_vertebra, and to fig. A” the lumbar vertebra. These three 
forms, such as they are represented, manifest homologous 
elements ; but whilst we know that it is we ourselves who 
have metamorphosed fig. A” from the thoracic full quantity, 
and have thereby equated it with figs. A’ and A”, so, for 
the like reasons, may fig. B’ or C” the cervical and lumbar 
vertebrz, be equated with fig. B” the full or plus quantity 
of series. This interpretation would not transgress the 
the law of Nature, for there is not, in fact, anything more 
mysterious in Nature herself fashioning the vertebre. of 
cervix or loins as a minus quantity of the plus archetype, 
than there is in any one severing the form A” from the 
but it is we ourselves who complicate her, and heap: over 
her person the incongruous ruin of misinterpretations. 
Fig. B’ is the seventh cervical vertebra, and is a form 
homologous to a certain proportional quantity of fig. B” 
Both these figures are placed 
in series adjoming each other. In fig. B’ we find the 
piece 1, and in fig. B’, we find the like exogenous piece 
marked 2. In fig. B’, again, we find the autogenous 
element marked a, and in fig. B” we find the rib marked 
6. What, then, is the conclusion to be drawn from both 
these facts? Is it not that Nature has metamorphosed 
fig. B’ from a form such as fig. B’? For do we not find, 
that the anomalies of B’ traverse the circle ending in the 
point d, just as we find figure B” making the circle with 
its coste meeting at the sternal pomt d? And can any 
the first thoracic archetype. 
one deny, that the costal anomalies of the cervical vertebra 
