2 REMARKS ON THE FIGURES OF PLATE XLI. 
point of series. This vanishing point is marked 33 in fig. B 
and 44in fig. C. The serial spinal axis, therefore, varies as 
to the number of its units, for we find that fig. B compared 
with fig. A is 33 compared with 59; and fig. B compared to 
fig. C, is 83 compared with 44. Therefore, fig. B, so far 
as regards the existing number of serial proportional 
quantities is minus to fig. A, and taking fig. B as 33 and 
fig. A as 59, we say 33+4+26=59, that is to say, fig. B is 
minus 26 proportional units compared to fig. A, and 11 
proportional units compared to fig. C. 
The comparison of figs. A, B, and C, afford demonstrable 
exceptions to the rule of complete and absolute uniformity. 
These exceptions must, therefore, be explained before we 
can furnish ourselves with the uninterrupted idea of uni- 
form creation. Upon the explanation of these exceptions 
depends as well our knowledge of the law of uniformity 
rendered various, as of our ideas of uniformity and the 
actual meaning of the forms which we designate variety. 
It will be in vain for us or any one to speak of figs. A, B, 
and C, as absolutely uniform creations, when their presen- 
tial and actual character denies the truth of such reading. 
And it will be equally in vain that we assert of them that 
each is absolutely difform and special to both the others, 
since it is the undeniable fact that this variety or species is 
solely dependent upon the law of proportioning, and, for 
this reason, we shall state plainly the exceptions to uni- 
formity as follow :— 
In the first place then, we find that figs. A, B, and C, 
are not presenting to us in uniform condition as to the 
number of those proportional quantities which comprise 
their graduated serieses, for fig. A reckons 59 serial forms, 
fig. B only 33 serial quantities, and fig. C numbers as far 
as 44. Secondly, the cervical regions of figs. A, B, and 
C, are developed in unequal numbers of proportional units, 
for though figs. A and B produce 7 cervical vertebre, 
we find that fig. C numbers as much as 9. Thirdly, the 
thoracic regions of series in figs. A, B, and C; are also 
unequal as to the number of units, insomuch as fig. A de- 
velops 18, fig. B 13 also, but fig. C produces 16. Fourthly 
the lumbar regions of series in figs. A, B, and C, are like- 
wise unequal as to the number of their units, for fig. A 
produces 6, and fig. B develops 5, while in fig. C we find 
only 4. Fifthly, the sacral region of series passing into 
the caudal serial prolongation, manifests in figs. A, B, and 
C, a remarkable variety as to the number of serial quanti- 
ties, for those of fig. A number as much as 382, those of 
fig. B number only as much as 9, while those of fig. C 
and thus it is evident that all their serial 
regions vary from each other. Sixthly, it is also true 
that when we number all the serial proportional units of 
figs. A, B, and C, from ‘occiput to the last caudal bone, (a 
mode of comparison which may be reasonably adopted, 
amount to 15; 
forasmuch as the serial quantities are only proportionally 
various to each other,) we find that the several regions of 
those several axes commence and terminate at various 
numerical units. Seventhly, we have found in our dissec- 
tions, that throughout the species of fig. A, or B, or C, the 
number of serial units is not fixed and constant for any one 
region, whether cervical, thoracic, lumbar, sacral, or caudal. 
These being the exceptions to theasserted rule of uniformity _ 
respecting figs. A, B, and C, we hold that rule to be pre- 
maturely advanced, imasmuch as we haye as yet nowhere 
found their explanation given according to anatomical law. 
The exceptions to a general rule may bear of explanation 
according to a universal law, and as this law appears to be 
the subtraction or metamorphosis of variable degrees of 
quantity proper to plus, serial, and archetype uniformity, 
so shall we advance in search of this whole condition of 
form, believing that we can never understand the law of 
proportioning all special variety, till we know of the whole 
quantity, and acknowledge that in it there is located the 
infinite sum of variation as to quantity. A universal law 
contains all general rules just in the same mode as any 
general rule includes all special particulars. And as in 
the. word animality is comprehended every condition of 
living form which every class or species contains, so should 
all real knowledge of the law of development include all 
possible conditions of various formation. In an animal 
kingdom, hiatus or interruption appears nowhere to sunder 
the unity of type, except by the law of degradation, and 
it is even so with regard to the proportional variety of 
those serial osseous quantities produced in one’skeleton 
axis and all skeleton axes **. Variety occurs according to 
the numerical situation of those plus serial units which 
are subjected to the metamorphosing act +, and hence we 
proceed to inquire what is the plus sum or archetype form 
which suffers metamorphosis. 
* “Tl y a un plan général qui rappelle tous les animaux 4 une idée d’unite, 4 un point de conformité ae lequel tout animal, quel qu’il soit, 
est distingué des végétaux.’’—Réaumur, Lettres 4 un Americain, &c., tome i iv, p. 188. 
+ “Nature, however, passes so gradually from — to —, that, through the continuity, the confine and medium of these are latent. ”— Aristotle, 
History of Animals, book viii., p. 288, (Taylor’s tonal 
