oS) REMARKS ON THE FIGURES OF PLATE XLII. 
In figs. A and B we say that unit 20 a, is a proportional of 
such as unit 19a, and we find that in fig. C, the unit marked 
20 a, is actually equal to unit 19 a, in figs. A and B, more- 
over we venture to assert that the “anomalies” of unit 20 
a, in figs. A and B, would prove the truth of what we say, 
by this unit now and then equalling the quantity 19 a, in 
those same skeletons, and thereby it would also equal unit 
20 of fig. C. In the human form we discover that the 
unit which generally commences the lumbar spine is 
occasionally produced like the last thoracic costo-vertebral 
quantity. 
Where skeleton series terminates at the last caudal 
ossicle for figs. A, B, and C, our opinion is that the 
thoracic archetype has suffered metamorphosis or sub- 
traction, just in the same way as if from the integer 9, we 
had subtracted 8, when 1*would only remain. It is 
sufficient for us that we know of the quantity from which 
1 is left remaining. It is a proportional of the imteger 9. 
We believe that a caudal bone bears the same propor- 
tion to a sternal costo-vertebral archetype that 1 bears to 
the integer 9. And.we rest awhile in order to examine 
the sense or the nonsense of this assertion, for it deserves 
a close inspection, since the whole truth of comparative 
osteology, contemplated under the idea of uniformity, 
together with the actual revelation of the natural law of 
formation, absolutely depends upon it alone. We ask, 
therefore, whether it stands within the range of probability 
that the whole thoracic form, which we here name the 
archetype unity, can pass through a metamorphosis of 
substance so as to be reduced to the quantity of a terminal 
caudal ossicle? If we can prove that this operation is 
quite possible, then we hold it to be impossible to regard 
a caudal ossicle or any minus quantity standing in the 
same serial order with the thoracic archetype, unless with 
the attendant idea that the originals of all those minus 
forms are the equals or homologues of the thoracic quan- 
tity, and the idea of those originals in serial order will 
establish the fact of uniformity even though this plus quan- 
tity is not now actually existing for cither fig. A, B, or C. 
Serial plus uniformity is not visible in either fig. A, B, 
or C. Where, then, does serial uniformity exist, since we 
confess it to be mvisible. Our answer is, that it exists in 
the mind by the rule of comparison, the law of analogy, 
and the operation of the reason ; for, in the comparison of 
a+b and a—8, the simple mental act is the process of 
equating those two quantities and rendering both in the 
condition of plus equals. It being true that the addition 
of 4, to a—6 raises it to the quantity a+; itis no less true 
that the differential quantity apparent between the plus 
thoracic archetype and the minus caudal ossicle will, when 
added to this latter, render it plus and equal to the former. 
Figs. A, B, and C are comparable creations, presenting 
certain characters in common, but not all characters. 
Their common character is self-evident and wants no fur- 
ther proof, but their differential characters overshadow, as 
it were, the law of their formation. If we name figs, A, B, 
and C uniform figures, either as to existing quantity or 
design, we then deny Nature to her own face, for the 
things are not so. The differences or varieties between 
them are still manifest ; and, hence, the question must 
turn upon how those varieties have happened. How 
happens it that fig. A reckons 53 serial quantities, of which 
27 fashion the sacro-caudal series, whereas figs. B and C 
number only 31 or 32 of which 7 are sacro-caudal? We 
were about to ask how it occurs that every animal skeleton 
axis which is plus. in the caudex is minus in the cranial 
chamber? but as this condition of form is not strictly 
adhered to by Nature* (the sacro-caudal series of figs. B 
and C being the exact counterparts of this region in the 
human figure,)+ so we shall pass on to examine the 
common law to which all forms owe their own proper 
fashion, with regard to this terminal appendage, and 
whether it be in Monboddo, in Lamarck, in Maillet, or in 
neither, that its true interpretation is to be found. 
* “QOptime enim (referring to equivocal species) indicant compositionem ad fabricam rerum, et innuunt causas numeri et qualitatis 
specierum ordinariarum in universo, et deducunt intellectum ab eo quod est ad id quod esse potest. 
Harum exempla sunt: muscus inter 
putredinem et plantam ; cometc nonnulli inter stellas et meteora ignita; pisces volantes inter aves et pisces; vespertiliones inter ayes et 
quadrupedes; etiam 
Simia quam similis, turpissima bestia, nobis ; 
et partes animalium biformis, et commisti ex speciebus diversis ; et similia.”—Bacon, Movwm Organum, Aph. xxx. 
+ “L’orang-utang est si semblable 4 1’Homme, que l’anatomiste qui les compare, croit comparer deux individus de la méme espéce ou, au 
moins, du méme genre; et frappé des ressemblances si marquées et si nombreuses qu'il découyre entre ces deux étres, il n’hésite pas a placer 
Vorang-utang immédiatement aprés les grossier Hottentot.’—Bonnet, Guvres d’ Histoire Nat. et de Philosophie, tome 1v., part ii., chap. xlvii. 
Contemp. de la Nature. 
