2, : REMARKS ON THE FIGURES OF PLATE XXIV. 
for this reason that we say the seven cervical vertebree | 
are proportionals of their own archetypes, since they are 
the proportionals of the first thoracic archetype, marked 
1 da; and, therefore, if it be asked of what archetype 
quantities do we suppose that the cervical vertebre are 
the proportionals, we answer of such as fig. 1 d a, which 
holds serial order with all the other spinal forms. 
In fig. A we interpret that the cervical vertebre num- 
bered 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, are the proportionals of archetype 
quantities, such as that quantity which next succeeds 
them in serial order; we mean the quantity marked 1 d a, 
the first thoracic unit. The plus anomalies of these 
cervical vertebre are cervical ribs, and these anomalies 
serve as proof of the truth of this interpretation, for they 
are seen to be only as the proportionals of the plus quan- 
tity first in the thorax. Therefore, Nature may be said 
to have subtracted or metamorphosed from each of the 
first seven archetypes of series, such as 1 d a, of the tho- 
rax, all that quantity which is distal to the point a, of the 
first thoracic form. Under the operation of this law the 
mammal cervix may be said to be created. 
In fig. B we see how the metamorphosis of the coste 
of the first thoracic quantity 1 d a, at the pomt a, would 
render this equal to any other proportional of the cervical 
series. The unit marked 7 a, and the unit marked 1 d a, 
would then be equal quantities; whereas, the human cervix 
would now present as consisting of eight vertebree, and the 
first of the thoracic quantities would commence at the 
ninth unit of series marked 2 da. If then we see that 
the metamorphosis of the archetype 1 da, of fig. A, would 
render it in such condition as we see it in 1 d a, of fig. B, 
and also that it would now equal the unit marked 7 a, so 
may we interpret, that the unit 7 a, has been metamor- 
phosed from its own archetype, after the same manner 
as 1 da, of fig.B. The anomalies of cervical ribs would 
then appear to be a creation proportionally intermediate 
to the first thoracic quantity and the ordinary cervical 
vertebra. 
Fig. C represents the lumbar region of human spinal 
series, and shows that condition of development usually 
met with in a skeleton of the human type. The unit 
marked 12 da, is the last thoracic quantity, and is evi- 
dently a proportional of the unit 11 d a, which precedes 
it in series. Now, it may also be taken for granted that 
the unit marked | d a, the first of the lumbar series, is a 
proportional of 12 d a, of the thoracic region, and for the 
following reason :— 
Fig. D shews that the unit, marked 12 d a, has here 
assumed a lumbar vertebral cast, and if we enquire into 
the law by which it has assumed this character, it will 
be at once apparent that it has happened by proportioning 
a, of the unit marked 12 d, fig. D, from the rib a, of the 
unit 12 d, fig. C, and also by giving anchylosed fixity to 
this element a, of 12 dfig. D. We hence are only led to 
name that to be a “ transverse process” of the lumbar spine 
which was elsewhere a costa articularly separate. 
The comparison of fig. C with fig. D will, at once, under 
the foregoing observations, explain how one lumbar spine 
is produced as having five vertebree, whilst another develops 
six in series. 
The law of metamorphosis is the law of proportioning 
minus quantities from plus archetypes, and the serial order 
of spinal units teaches us that a cervix or loins is minus 
compared with the thoracic plus formation: 
The science of comparison has for its object not special 
distinctiveness, but a principle of comparison which shall 
be demonstrative of a law of specific creation. Its object 
is not, or should not be the vain endeavonr to measure 
species or infinity, but to discover the figure of finite unity, 
which, like an integer, holds within its own dimensions all 
quantities equal to all species. For who shall enumerate 
the long account of special variety? or, supposing that 
this were possible, who will essay that task, and proceed 
undismayed by the damping inquiry cui bono? which ques- 
tion will still present itself even if the comparative anato- 
mist, were licensed to take the whole concave blue ether 
for his chart, and, with the plume of an unwearied patience, 
had written upon that broad expanse the entire catalogue 
and sum of possible variety. Like number the variety 
has no limit. Do we not see that the variety of fig. A 
compared with fig. B, and of fig. C compared with fig. D, 
is (in the one species) an infinite subject? If we continue 
to search out the limit of special variation between forms 
such as those which we account one species, and fail to 
find this limit, why should we then hope to find it in the 
countless states of an animal kingdom, where the myriad, 
like the unit, still rises from and sinks into the illimitable 
sum of variation ? 
The law of form creates species by the anihilation of 
quantity. This is evidently the substance of the argument 
of comparative osteology, for fig. C has lost a quantity in 
comparison with fig. D, and hence the one form is a species 
per se, compared to the other. Hence it must follow that 
fig. C of human species is a speciality compared to fig. D, 
still called a human species; and thus we see, that even 
one species may be disintegrated and struck various to 
itself. Whereupon we ask, what are the assignable limits 
of species ? 
But it will be said that if fig. C is special and various to 
fig. D, still both are special to other mammalian figures, 
and, consequently, figs. C and D are distinct compared to 
other mammal forms, and as such, must be accounted 
special to the same. To this we may answer that figs. C 
and D are special to one another, and this must be equal 
to the assertion, that species cannot be isolated as a fixed 
thing or quantity of set dimensions, for figs. C and D are 
named as being of one species, and yet we know that they 
are different forms, having some quantity and character in 
common ; but yet having a plus and minus variation of 
quantity ; as fig. C is plus a costal pair and minus a lum- 
bar vertebra, while fig. D is minus that costal quantity, 
which circumstance renders it plus a lumbar vertebra. 
What is the law of form, we therefore ask, while there 
appears every reason to abandon, as a hopeless task, the 
differential method, as pursued for the isolation of the 
phantom called species? What is this law of form which 
