9) REMARKS ON THE FIGURES OF PLATE XXII. 
of costal forms, and thereby simulates the thoracic quantity 
lda. Hence we say, that as the seventh unit of Fig. A is 
a proportional of the seventh unit of Fig. B, so- are they 
both to be imterpreted as the proportionals of such a 
quantity as the eighth unit marked 1 da, which is the first 
thoracic archetype. 
Fig. C represents the human lumbar region of’ the 
spinal series, and we have numbered its vertebre according 
as they are described by the special anatomist. The twelfth 
thoracic quantity 12 da, is succeeded in series by the 
first lumbar vertebra marked 1/, and- holding its autoge- 
Now there is no doubt that 12da, 
contains a proportional homologous to 1 /a, and therefore 
nous element a. 
we interpret 17a, to be a proportional of such a form as 
12 da. 
anomalies which occasionally happen to the minus quan- 
tity 1 la. 
Fig. D proves the truth of the foregoing remarks upon 
fig. C, for in fig. D we find that the first lumbar unit, 
1 Z, produces its autogenous elements a, in the character 
of costal forms, and thereby becomes homologous to the 
thoracic quantity 12 da. Hence we assert that as the first 
lumbar unit of fig. C is a proportional of the first lumbar 
(now the thirteenth thoracic form) of fig. D, so may both 
be interpreted as the proportionals of the full thoracic 
costo-vertebral sternal archetype, the only difference be- 
By this reading we are forewarned of all the plus 
tween these serial forms being that which is consequent 
upon lost quantity. 
As consequent, therefore, upon the foregoing observa- 
tions the question must arise as to the fitness of that 
nomenclature which we make use of in our descriptions 
of the several regions of the mammalian serial axis, and 
also as to the nature of that form which we name 
“vertebra.” For we see that it is a figure very changeful 
as to the volume or dimensions of its development, and 
that moreover the cervical and lumbar regions of series 
obey and are wholly influenced by that condition in which 
When we shall ask the 
question as to whether the mammal cervix is constantly 
produced of the number of seven vertebra, we will find 
that much doubt attaches to the answer, and that this 
doubt altogether hangs upon the character of the seventh 
cervical unit, which may be of cervical cast or else of 
actual thoracic proportions, and that this duplicity or 
we find the vertebral quantities. 
protean assimilation to the cervix above, or to the thorax | 
below, gives the like inconstancy of meaning to any name 
which shall be affixed to the form itself. The presence or 
absence of the costs appears to be the main reason why 
interpretation may be right or wrong according as the 
fitful fancy shall choose to render it. The assertion that 
the mammalian cervix develops seven vertebre constantly 
is falsified by the assertion that this condition of formation 
is by no means invariable; and thus it is that our readings 
of the law of Nature has nothing more of definitive mean- 
ing in themselves than the sounds from a tabor head, and 
the notes which issue from it are but as responses enun- 
ciative of the things which strike it, and if these happen 
to be the main du singe, or the pied fendu, then in such 
case the music of truth and concord will never be heard, 
however long and wearisomely these play upon the instru- 
ment. And this bears intimately upon the case in hand, 
for it is not true that the cervical or lumbar region of 
series are constant figures even in the human skeleton 
axis, much less in mammalian formation generally ;- nor 
will the assertion that what is not, is, be made to bear 
persuasion with it, even though it be found in the pages 
of that anatomist whose name shall shine upon his title- 
leaf, luminous as a blazing star, with an alphabetical coma 
drawn after it. The case is not so, therefore it will re- 
main in its own natural state, despite all announcements 
which shall be made to the contrary, and hence springs 
the right for every one to think for themselves, a charter 
or immunity which will not be refused to anatomical 
inquiry at least. 
But it will be said that if seven vertebre for a cervical 
region be not a constant condition of form with mam- 
malian skeletons, still there exist but very few exceptions 
to the rule; and, therefore, that this rule is true, being 
general, for the exception does but prove the rule. To this 
it may be added, in the form of interrogation as to the 
rationality of such inference, that if we could, contrary to 
the law of gravitation, cast projectiles to the moon_or to 
Saturn, would we in such case understand the law of gra- 
vitation to be proved the better by the exception? A 
general law abhors exceptions, just as “ Nature abhors 
a vacuum” and without a doubt, when we conform to name 
all abstract rules, as being perfect, from the very facts of 
their requiring stability by the crutch and prop of an 
avowed exception, which is infirmity, we are then only 
consenting to give that form of argument the hollow facing 
of perfection, at the same time that we know it to be 
minus something at its vital centre. 
If it be said that figs. A or C are such casts of develop- 
ment as we generally find in the mammalian skeleton of 
human type, then we advance figs. Band D as the 
obstructive exceptions to that generalisation, and without 
passing farther into the multitude of animal classes, genera, 
and species, where a first error laid here, at hand, will grow 
to giant and rank proportions there, remotely situated and 
beyond control; we therefore say, that as there is some- 
thing yet to be gathered from the comparison of fig. A 
with fig. B, or fig. C with D, in reference to the law of 
form and the creation of species, so should we, first of all, 
strive to determine what this something means. 
And when we inquire into the nature of those facts of 
development which are rendered salient by the comparison 
of two figures of one and the same species, such as figs. A 
and B, do we not find them to be still dependent upon 
plus and minus quantities? Is it not fully apparent that 
the serial quantity marked 7a, fig. A, is a proportional 
of the quantity marked 7 a in fig. B, and herewith is it not 
also evident that the quantity 7 a, of fig. B, is a proportional 
of the next succeeding figure, 1 da, of the thorax? If, 
therefore, binding all facts together, we arrive at the con- 
clusion that the cervical series 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, im each of 
which we find a minus costal quantity, have thus been 
