2, REMARKS ON THE FIGURES OF PLATE XXXII, 
ventral from the dorsal face; for, as we see, the ribs 
6, b, 6,6, would happen in front, whereas all the neural 
arches, &c., would fall behind. It is a remarkable fact, 
however, that those neural arches hold a continued serial 
order from occiput to caudex behind this median line, 
whilst in front of the same line we find that the serial 
ribs are created in only one region of the spinal axis, 
the first rib 6, projecting from unit marked 8, and the 
last rib 4, jutting from the unit marked 19. However, even 
if we drew plus costal quantity in those regions of spinal 
series where they are now lost by design and for fitness, 
still the cleaving line a, would separate back from front, 
as unequal forms. 
In fig. E we have the repetition of D, and as is usual 
with all double forms placed in juxtaposition, we see 
the creation of perfect symmetry. We now find that 
not only is the one side of fig. E perfectly homologous to 
the other, but every elemental piece developed in one side, 
has its counterpart in the opposite side. The two first 
thoracic units marked 8 4, and 9 4, have their homologues 
opposite to them, and when we would restore lost costal 
quantity in the cervical region on one side of the form, 
the law of symmetry itself invites to a restoration of the 
like quantity at the cervical region opposite. The two last 
thoracic units, marked 18 4, and 19 6, in like manner have 
their symmetrical opposites ; and for the same reason the 
restoration of lost costal quantity at the lumbar, &c., 
regions would require the restoration of the like forms 
opposite. 
All which we shall at present say regarding fig. D, is 
that transverse cleavage by the line a, sunders the form 
into unequals ; whereas the repetition of this figure at 
H, renders the combined structure cleavable into sym- 
metrical sides by the median line a, passing through the 
region of median fusion. 
Perhaps, therefore, it may hereafter appear that fig. D 
is a special design, fashioned as minus quantity from an 
archetype structure which shall appear capable of being 
severed symmetrically by both transverse and antero- 
posterior median cleavage, metamorphosis being the process 
under whose influence fig. D now stands created in dorso- 
vertebral asymmetry. 
And while it becomes evident on all sides of us, that 
metamorphosis or the subtraction of quantity is that 
moving agent and cause of all effect or variety in Nature; 
and moreover, while through comparative rule we have 
manifested to us that this operation, infinite in possible 
causation, overwhelms all human account with its infini- 
tude of result or consequence; what then ought to become 
the definite purpose of our comparison? Should it not be 
so conducted as to enable us to rein in plurality or specific 
variation with the abstract or general rule by which we 
may encompass not only those varieties which have had 
creation already, but even those which could have been pro- 
duced, whether fittingly or otherwise, under the operation 
of the same law of metamorphosis? While it is most 
true that even two human skeleton figures vary as to exist- 
ing quantity in consequence of the law of increation or 
metamorphosis of some plus fabric; while it is moreover 
true that even the one skeleton axis is a creation rendered 
fitting by the very fact of quantity having been subtracted 
from those regions of series which we now name cervical, 
lumbar, sacral and caudal; and in addition to this evidence 
while we may understand how a still greater amount of 
quantity may also pass into increation by the like process, 
whether by design or by accident, (for special variation 
alike applies to both conditions) ; then we may assert that 
it is not for the crowded chronicle of special and various 
facts, that comparison is to undergo the tedious labour to 
no end, but its duty and its aim should rather be to ques- 
tion Nature for the revelation of her law, and to retrace 
all her evidences or effects back to their source, which is 
unquestionably to be accounted as some plus or archetype - 
created sum of limited dimensions, and simple, uniform, 
and symmetric character, which is liable to be varied 
infinitely according to the infinite degrees through which 
metamorphosis can pass. 
The plus series of quantities represented in fig. B, is 
in the condition of absolute uniformity, and the line a, 
which cleaves it into symmetrical and equal sides, conducts 
But while 
we know that the serial uniformity of fig. B mainly 
the eye through series without interruption. 
depends upon its plus condition of repeated circles, we 
may also readily fancy how a metamorphosis could change 
such uniformity into difformity by the process of sub- 
tracting from various regions of the series, various quan- 
tities such as segments of unequal bases. The comparison 
of fig. B with itself, that is to say, with itself through all 
the infinity of variation to which it may be subjected by 
the subtraction of quantity, who shall undertake to record? 
Is it not sufficient to know the possibility of this mode 
of variation without undergoing the fruitless labour of 
taking account of it by the differential method? When 
we already read in the plus sum of fig. B as uniformity, 
the immeasurable sum of fig. B, passing through a meta- 
morphosis, may we not account fig. B as the archetype or 
original quantity, which, like a generalisation, contains all 
special or minus particulars? If we can vary the series 
of fig. B by subtracting quantity from one or more regions 
of itself, and yet continue to acknowledge this new and 
minus figure thus produced, to be but as a proportional of 
the plus archetype originally standing, then it must appear 
that the plus condition of fig. B is the only absolute uni- 
formity from origin to termination, for evidently the 
smallest segment which shall be cut from any one of those 
serial circles which now present to us, will vary their serial 
uniformity. 
Serial uniformity does not characterise fig. D from 
origin to termination of that line which it describes, for 
the thorax is developed in plus quantity, whereas the 
cervix, loins, sacrum, and caudex, instance the minus 
variation. Therefore, while we acknowledge that propor- 
tional variety attends those minus regions of fig. D, we 
may hence conclude that the figure, such as it is, has been ~ 
metamorphosed from a plus serial form which is without 
any minus region, hiatus, or break in its continuity. 
