which still persist on both sides. Now, if it be asked what 
is the difference between the forms of units 6, 7, and 8, the 
answer can be no other than that they are proportionals 
of such as the full costo-vertebral quantity of unit 8. And 
this is all the admission required in support of the present 
argument, which is to prove that the cervix and loins of 
series are minus quantities of such archetypes as the tho- 
racic costo-vertebral forms, and that if it were required to 
re-establish the lost quantities at cervix or loins, it may be 
correctly done by producing their autogenous elements, 
a, a, a, to full costal forms, such as those marked a, 4, in 
the thorax. 
between minus and plus quantities. 
Fig. C represents the symmetry of the serial axis. 
The cervical ribs are the natural equations 
We 
see that even if the left half of series were separately pre- 
sented to us, a simple repetition of it on the right side 
would create the complete form of symmetry. And so we 
may infer, that a simple serial repetition of thoracic form 
through the cervical, lumbar, sacral, and caudal minus 
regions, would create a thoracic series, complete from occi- 
put to the other extreme. As the figure at present stands, 
we find that the costal pieces marked a, a, a, &c., all 
through the series, indicate homologous elements varied 
only as proportionals. The pieces at cervix, lois, sacrum 
and caudex, which are marked a, a, a, a, &c. are simply 
minus proportionals of the thoracic rib marked a 4, a 6, 
a b, &c.; hence we say, that a cervical, lumbar, or sacral 
vertebra, plus the quantity 4, would equal the thoracic 
costo-vertebral archetype; and under this interpretation 
we are only advancing an opinion according to facts; for 
do not the cervical and lumbar ribs fully coincide with 
this opinion, as affording natural proof that the minus 
quantities of cervix and loins are prone to plus increase ? 
The object of our comparisons, therefore, being the 
whole series of plus uniform creations, we lead onwards to 
this end under the guidance of the three combined laws 
of symmetry, series, and proportioning. And we find that 
fig. B or C is the natural produce or effect of those three 
antecedent laws or causes. Judging of the effect by the 
cause, we learn to estimate the actual condition of the 
creation, and while we see every reason to interpret that 
the minus quantities of cervix, loins, or sacrum, are several 
designs by the loss of quantity, we also infer that the 
a 
REMARKS ON THE FIGURES OF PLATE XXXII. 8 
thoracic series is a design by the persistence of plus 
quantity. Whereupon we also infer that the law of form 
is the subtraction of quantity from. some region or regions 
of a plus series, and that as this law may be taken for the 
cause, so may fig. B or C, as a series of plus and minus 
quantities, be regarded as the effect of this law.* 
As bilateral symmetry is the effect of the repetition of 
a side, so may this repetition of sides be accounted the 
cause of the symmetrical effect. Again, as the line of 
serial homologues is the effect of a serial repetition of 
quantity, so may this repetition in like manner be named 
as the cause of serial effect. Lastly, as figs. B and C, 
although instancing bilateral symmetry, are not creations 
of plus serial uniform quantities, such as stand in the 
thorax; and as this proportional inequality + happens by 
a rule of degradation or metamorphosis ; so may we infer 
that this degradation or subtraction from plus uniform 
figures is the cause why a cervix or loins happens in series 
with a thorax. This law of serial proportional degradation 
takes place symmetrically; and hence it is that every 
serial quantity, whether of cervix, loins, sacrum or caudex, 
as seen in fig. C, stands as a symmetrical proportional. 
Where this law of proportioning has not acted sym- 
metrically, we find that one side is plus and the opposite 
side is minus, tf as seen in fig. B. And where this law of 
proportioning minus from plus quantity does not act in 
reference to the same units of the human serial axis, we 
find, as consequence, that the cervix and loins retain their 
costal quantity, which is the cause why the thoracic plus 
series has extended itself. Or otherwise, that where the 
law of proportioning has degraded certain units of the 
normal number of the thoracic series, this, in its turn, is 
followed by the effect of extending the minus cervical or 
lumbar regions with respect to “ supernumerary vertebre.” 
Thus cause and effect are plainly manifested through the 
combined evidence of all conditions of serial creations, 
and it is by their mutual comparison that we attain to a 
knowledge of the law which yields them as they stand. 
Plus uniform series is the quantity operated upon, and 
until we ascertain its exact dimensions we can never follow 
the track of that law which varies it through the infinitude 
of minus characters. 
* “Tout est systématique dans l’universe ; tout y est combinaison, rapport, liaison, enchainement. [1 n’est rien qui ne soit l’effet immédiat 
de quelque chose qui a précédé, et qui ne détermine l’existence de quelque chose qui suivra.”—Bonwat, Contemp. de la Nat., part 1, chap. vii. 
+ “Inter preerogativas instantiarum ponemus loco octavo instantias deviantes! ervores scilicet nature, et vaga, ac monstra; ubi natura 
declinat et deflectit a cursu ordinario, Differunt enim errores nature ab instantizs monodicis in hoc, quod monodice sint miracula specierum, at 
errores sint miracula individuorum. 
Similes autem fere sunt usus; quia rectijicant intellectum adversus consueta, et revelant formas communes, 
neque enim in his etiam desistendum ab inquisitione, donec inveniatur causa hujusmodi declinationis. Veruntamen causa illa non exsurgit ad 
formam aliquam proprie, sed tantum ad latentem processum ad formam. 
Qui enim vias nature noverit, is deviationes etiam facilius observabit ; 
at rursus, gut deviationes noverit, is accuratius vias describet.”’—Bacon, Novum Organum Scientiarum, lib. i., aph. xxvii. 
{ “ The right and left parts, therefore, are nearly similar, and the same, but the inferior are dissimilar to the superior parts ; except that the 
inferior correspond in a certain proportion to the superior.”—Aristotle, History of Animals, Book i., page 24. 
