2 REMARKS ON THE FIGURES OF PLATE XXVIII. 
spimal units of figs. A and B in their serial relation, from | 
the atlas above to the last caudal bone below, taking them 
to be in both figures, but as the varied proportionals of 
such a quantity as that marked 14 a, in mid thoracic 
region ; for it is most true that the cervical or lumbar 
spine is only various to the thoracic quantities as minus is 
to plus, the one region of series being so blended with 
that which precedes and succeeds itself, that it is impos- 
sible to make any other distinction between them than 
that of gradation. 
And, admitting that gradations or proportionals consti- 
tute the only known difference between the cervical or 
lumbar regions, when compared with the thoracic region of 
the same series, we then see no reason why the same law of 
proportioning, which can practise to infinity, may not 
have produced the terminal caudal nodule, marked 32, in 
series, from the full quantity, such as that marked 14 a, in 
the centre of the thorax. 
Henceforth we shall continue to number all the units 
of the serial axes in the same order as seen in the figures 
opposite, and for this reason, viz., we shall then see that 
the same numerical unit will present itself in different 
individuals, either as a plus costo-vertebral quantity or asa 
minus vertebral proportion, proving that the same law which 
renders plus quantity minus in the one spinal series, per- 
forms the same task in other skeleton species, and follows 
the law of species, or, what is the same thing in effect, 
precedes the law of species, both laws being inseparable. 
We say that the law of proportioning minus quantities 
from plus quantities, is as inseparable from the law of 
species as the ens is inseparable from itself, and for this 
reason, viz., that when from one of two plus analogues, 
such as costo-vertebral quantities, Nature subtracts the 
coste, variety or species is the consequence of that sub- 
traction, and hence we have the vertebral figure as the 
proportional or species of the costo-vertebral form. If 
such be the law of form the like must be the law of 
species also; for subtraction from plus being the law in 
operation, and species being consequent upon this sub- 
traction, ergo, the species is the result of subtraction, 
which is the law of form, ergo, species and subtracted 
quantity imply the same meaning, and, notwithstanding 
the paradox, we say that this species is an entity in seem- 
ing by being a nonentity in fact, for it owes its presence to 
the rule of comparison, and reigns between a—O and 
at+é. 
Now not to depart loosely from the facts before us, we 
shall observe that fig. A is to be accounted as a species in 
comparison with fig. B, for reasons as strong as those which 
give a license to us in establishing speciality between two 
or more skeleton forms of the lower animals. If plus 
and minus quantity are all the differences which mark any 
two species of skeletons, we likewise find the same dif- 
ference to prevail between two individual skeleton forms 
of one and the same species, such as A and B. If the 
difference be not sufficient to characterise absolute species 
in the latter case, neither can it be thought sufficient in 
the former case. If, on the other hand,. the difference be 
thought enough to establish distinctiveness between two 
of the inferior animals, then must it follow that the like 
difference, existing between two human figures, sunders 
them also as species. But this will scarcely be acknow- 
ledged by the anatomist. 
However, as it must be already fully manifest that the 
law of species is only another name for the law of form, 
and as both names are but the mere abstract terms which 
we apply to comparable entities produced as the creations of 
one and the same operating force in Nature, so will it be 
always safer to form opinion according to the presential 
condition of the Natura herself, than upon even the 
choicest nomenclature whereby we label her facts. And 
herewith we apply ourselves to question that act of Nature 
from which fig. A is produced in the presence of fig. B, 
while both forms are standing as creations to which we 
can neither affix the name of absolute difformity or of 
absolute uniformity. What is the law under which both 
have had their present characters ? 
This law is demonstrated through the actual condition 
of those plus and minus serial quantities which we find con- 
stituting either spinal axis. This law is indicated through 
the series of fig. A, or through that of fig. B, separately 
contemplated, and hence it is that we again discover it 
between figs. A and B comparatively viewed. For the 
law of proportioning minus from plus quantities, (the 
vertebra of cervix or loins from the costo-vertebral 
archetype,) and by which fig. A presents to us as it is, is 
the same as that law which also creates fig. B as it presents, 
for the one form is only differenced from the other by 
varying degrees of subtraction ; and if seven costo-vertebral 
archetypes have suffered metamorphosis for the production 
of the cervix of fig. A, we find that only five or six of such 
archetypes have undergone metamorphosis for the cervical 
region of fig. B, and this is the sum of their cervical dif- 
ference. Their lumbar difformity occurs by the operation 
of the self-same process of proportioning; for as there can 
scarcely be any reasonable doubt raised against the inter- 
pretation that the lumbar series of fig. A is a creation 
occurring by the metamorphosis of six costo-vertebral 
quantities down to the points of the pieces marked a, 
neither can it be denied that the lumbar region of fig. B - 
is a creation resulting by the metamorphosis of costo- 
vertebral archetypes in so graduated a condition that it is 
impossible to define the limits which separate the thoracic 
from the lumbar quantities. ] 
Now it will be remarked that the comparison of fig. A 
with fig. B, teems with the interpretation that the latter 
form is a nearer approach to plus uniformity or the serial 
order of archetype costo-vertebral quantities than that 
which fig. A gives instance of; and while we examine into 
the causes of this condition of development characterising 
fig. B, we find that it has occurred by the persistence of 
costal quantity upon those serial units marked 6 a, and 7 a, 
at the cervical region, and also by the like persistent pre- 
sence of the costs on the units marked 20 a, and 21 a, at 
the lumbar region. We therefore ask whether there can 
be any other reading sufficient to account for the minus 
