») REMARKS ON THE FIGURES OF PLATE XXVII. 
terminal caudal bone, this latter will be the thirtieth, the 
thirty-first, the thirty-second, or even the thirty-fifth, in 
several axes ; thus proving that the number of serial units 
is not constant even in the human type. 
If, as indicated in fig. A, we metamorphose the thoracic 
quantities from the unit marked 1 d 4, to the thoracic unit 
marked 6 4, cutting off the costal forms at the point 3, 
then it is plain that we reduce the thoracic plus series to 
the minus condition of cervical units. All units now 
which hold serial order between the first or atlas 1 cd, 
and the mid-thoracic unit marked 6 d, at the dorsal region, 
would present as homologous quantities each unit holding 
In this 
way the cervical region may be extended down to any 
extent through the thoracic region. Or, in the same way, 
if we metamorphose the costal forms of the three last tho- 
racic quantities marked 10 0,11 4, and 12 4, at the point 4, 
then it will be seen that we extend the lumbar region of 
series upwards into the thoracic region, at the expense 
Now, the units marked 10, 11, 12, would 
be homologous with lumbar vertebre. 
the same number of identical elementary pieces. 
of the thorax. 
Or if, as indicated in fig. B, we continue the series of 
thoracic quantities through the cervix and the loins, 
producing the autogenous pieces 6, of the cervical or 
lumbar vertebre through the pieces marked a, then it 
will be seen that we extend the plus thorax through the 
minus regions of the spinal series, and so re-establish 
serial plus uniformity from first to last. 
It will be at once granted that, in fig. A, the units 
marked 1d, and 126, which commence and terminate 
thoracic series, will be, when rendered minus the distal 
piece a, equated with the seventh cervical unit marked 7 8, 
and the first lumbar unit marked 1/0. 
It will also be granted that, in fig. B, the lumbar unit 
marked 1/4, and the cervical unit 70, will, when rendered 
plus the costal quantity a, be equated with the last thoracic 
quantity marked 126 a, and with the first thoracic quantity 
marked 1dba; aud, if so, then we may easily infer all 
the rest respecting the law of unity rendered various 
through the mammalian serial axis. 
For it must be already fully apparent, that while we 
number the serial units of figs. A and B according to those 
quantities which the human anatomist describes as con- 
stituting the regions of cervix, thorax, loins, sacrum, and 
caudex, we do so, altogether heedless of the facts by which 
the law of form out-paces our nomenclature and proves it 
to be of scanty signification when applied to characterise 
the ens independently of the rule of its creation. It is 
not the ordinary or normal condition of form to which 
the anatomist is to limit his attention if he would rise to. 
question the law of Nature, but it is by fully acknowledg- 
ing to all the possibility of modification to which the ens 
is liable, that he may hope to interpret Nature as she is. 
The creation when viewed in presence of the law which 
creates, becomes the limit of anatomical enquiry; and 
when we would fully estimate the fitness of the present 
design of fig. A or B, as ordinarily produced of seven 
cervical quantities, twelve dorsal, five lumbar, five sacral, 
and three caudal proportionals, we can only do so by 
reading it in company with the fact of development, which 
proves that if fitness demanded the creation to be other- 
wise than what it now presents, the ends might be effected 
within the simple limits of that operating law, which 
subtracting from plus quantity, can render any plus unit 
of series in the condition of a cervical, lumbar, sacral, or 
caudal proportional, just as it is possible to degrade the 
plus existing thoracic archetype to the same dimensions. 
The mammal spinal axis, fig. A, presents to us as a 
series of quantities where minus stands in the presence of 
plus; and we find that the minus quantities are named 
cervical and lumbar figures, whereas the plus quantities 
are named the thoracic forms. Such is the design occur- 
ring naturally and fittingly. But when we say that this 
condition of development admits of serial enumeration, 
and that the law is fixed for the production of seven 
cervical, of twelve thoracic, and of five Jumbar quantities, 
for all mammalian figures, or for even any one species of 
mammalian type, we then are only asserting a rule of 
form, which Nature herself is not constant in observing, 
and under this evidence and these circumstances, it be- 
comes safer for the anatomist to progress with Nature 
and gather the full sum of her manifestations, all pointing 
to unity and to that ideal type in generalisation, which 
without passing from the domain of facts, shall indicate 
the way and progress of the law of design, than for the 
anatomist to rest contented with any method pointed out 
by any classifier in defiance of all natural exceptions, the 
most trivial of which is sufficient to shake the whole 
mountain pile and throne of system, even though it be 
ascended by the Titan in the effort to define the absolute 
difformity of species. 
For, though on the one hand it can never be the 
rational object with the analogist to pursue his study of 
the law of unity in the hope of manifesting the absolute 
identity between the forms of excess and defect, still, on 
the other hand, it can never be the rational expectation 
with the classifier to define the difformity of species other- 
wise than as the thing of excess compared with the thing 
of defect. It is not by everlastingly making search for 
the limit of special distinctiveness, that we can ever hope 
to encompass the law of form which produces that which 
we. call species. Nor is it by the vain effort of definmg 
the quantity of the thing of excess in the thing of defect, 
that is to say, of seeking the quantity of that which is 
species by excess, as though it were existing in that which 
is species by defect, that we can ever demonstrate the whole 
quantity of unity, or the law which degrades the whole 
and renders it minus or specially various. For if it be 
the living fact, that the human skeleton of excess be 
specifically various to the human skeleton of. defect, by 
that very condition of development which is found to vary 
one of the lower animals from another ; if, as we find to be 
the fact, that one human skeleton is plus in cervical and 
lumbar ribs, whereas another human skeleton is minus 
not only those abnormal quantities of cervix and lois, 
but minus even the normal costal quantity of thoracic 
