9 REMARKS ON THE FIGURES OF PLATE XXX. 
we do not now see fig. A to give example of such an 
archetype series; but it is also most true that fig. A, 
such as it stands, presents no other variety to this arche- 
type series than such as the law of proportioning could 
fashion out of this series. Now, whether this interpreta- 
tion be true or false, still it cannot be denied that the unit 
20, of fig. A commences the lumbar spine here, and that 
the same numerical unit of figs. B,C, and D, is seen to 
terminate the thoracic series in them. The only difference, 
then, between the units 20, as they happen in each series, 
is, that im one place the unit bears costz, whereas in another 
it only bears the autogenous elements; this difference 
being only plus and minus. But let us not forget that 
this unit marked 20, in fig. A, is subject to the same plus 
or costal anomalies which we find it to present in the 
human skeleton. The unit 20, of fig. A, is not always of 
lumbar cast, even in that very same species, for it now and 
then developes its autogenous elements to the plus form 
of lumbar ribs. 
In fig. A we also find that the unit marked 26, terminates 
the lumbar spine here, and also presents the like character 
in fig. B.; but in figs. C and D, the unit 26 is moulded 
to sacral form. In fig. B we have the longest serial axis, 
and the greatest number of serial units, In this figure B 
we discover that the unit named 33, marks the terminal 
point of the caudex of fig. D. In this fig. B, again, the 
unit marked 31, shows the point of serial termination for 
fig. C, and this leaves it to be inferred that the smallest 
minus proportional of the archetype quantity is that 
condition of development which finishes series in all 
skeleton axes, and just as 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1. But 
we should remember that 1+8=9, as well as 9—S8=1 
which is the same as saying that 1 is a proportional of the 
integer 9. 
Now, as it becomes the first imperative duty for any one 
who proposes an innovation in science to determine well 
the boundary line between right and wrong, between the 
possible and the impossible, between the simply natural 
and the miraculous, so does his second duty seem not the 
less imperative with regard to fixing the precise meaning 
of the terms which he makes use of for the development 
of the subject in hand. 
altogether in the respect for truth, and this is a proposition 
which strikes deeper root when it shall happen to be 
demonstrated ad impossibile. For, knowing that the majesty 
of Truth is the person of Nature, which is a self-evident 
axiom, then if we assume that the majesty of Truth is not 
Nature, but some figurative phrase which is nihil, and conse- 
quently inappreciable by sense, and that we designate this 
nihil or species as omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence, 
those names being strictly applicable to presential natura 
—in such case, if any one were to stand up amongst us and 
say that we are simply investing nonentity or the invisible 
with the lawfully inherited attributes of visible entity, or the 
natura naturans and naturata, and that, therefore, the 
attempt to demonstrate the thing which is not does but 
render more evident the thing which is actually, perhaps 
there is not a physiologist, possessing a healthful sympathy 
The majesty of science resides. 
and bearing, who will gainsay and immolate the speaker of 
that sentiment, but, if such be his infirmity, will rather 
staunch his wounds than goad them to festering. We are 
simply alluding to the comparative designs of the opposite 
figures, and considermg these designs through the views of 
Geoffroy and unity, as martyred to the interests of Cuvier 
and species. And hereupon we ask for the precise definition 
of the word unity, as characterising the absolute sameness 
of those figures, as well as the precise meaning of the word 
species, which would imply their absolute distinctiveness. 
Tn, answer to this demand for a precise definition of 
the condition of species as opposite to the condition of 
unity (both of which conditions, at the same time, seem to 
characterise figs. A, B,C, and D,) we remark here that it 
is totally impossible to yield that definition so long as figs. 
A, B,C, and D contimue to be regarded in any other 
sense than as the proportionals of a whole. In making 
this assertion, we do not issue it as if it were the bull of a 
Palatine, against which every rational appeal is to fall like 
a barbless arrow from a seven-fold shield, but we submit 
it to the judgment of all who are disposed to try the 
question, and we offer the reasons of our opinion as follow. 
Creations are given quantities and may be proportional, 
as well as of whole conditions. When we compare whole 
quantities of the same cast, their absolutely uniform 
character admits of no dispute, a+ 6 and a+0 are absolute 
samenesses, and the repetition of a+ may be produced 
of a continuous length sufficient to belt the whole 
rotundity of the globe in a circle, or even sufficiently 
extended in a right line so as to transfix Herschel, but 
still the series of whole quantities would retain uniformity. 
This is indisputable. But finity or lengths of varying pro- 
portionals are the designs of Nature, and consequently she 
presents us with the given finite quantities of a+ 4 succeeded 
by a—6, and hence we infer that the way of her design is the 
subtraction of quantity. Now, the comparison of a—d 
with a+6 is that which involves the opposite questions of 
unity and of species. On the one hand we have the 
analogists, neglectful of defining their meaning as to the 
term uniformity, and vainly attempting to demonstrate 
the equality of a whole and a proportional of that whole, 
such as a+ 6 and a—4, whereas on the other hand we find 
the specialists as vainly endeavouring to define the abso- 
lute difformity between the whole and the proportional of 
that whole, such as a+ and a—é, and hereupon we say 
that the question of unity and of species will never close 
so long as the argumentators themselves occupy the hiatus 
or breach of continuity; for while they themselves, like 
wedges, cause the gap, it therefore becomes of little use to 
them to preach the union of sides. 
The minus quantity not being equal to the plus quan- 
tity, is therefore not uniform with the plus qnantity, and 
therefore, when the analogist asserts “ab uno disce omnes,” 
pointing to a proportional as equal to a whole, he belies 
the entity of Nature, and at the same time frustrates his 
own argument, and this is the instrument with which the 
specialist arms himself. But this instrument, which the 
specialist uses against the analogist, though it may be 
