2 REMARKS ON THE FIGURES OF PLATE XLIII. 
thoracic by having the autogenous piece a, produced to 
costal form. 
In fig. E, another human lumbar spine, we find that 
unit 19 a, is developed in such a cast that it is doubtful, 
and perhaps of little consequence, whether it be more 
correctly named thoracic or lumbar ; for although its auto- 
genous processes do not exceed the size of those proper to 
the other lumbar units below it, still they are articularly 
connected with the centrum, like the costal forms of a 
thoracic series. 
A comparison therefore held between all the opposite 
figures must, if fully carried out, involve the following 
questions ; first, What is the nature of that law which 
renders the serial axis difform as to its several regions 
named cervical, thoracic, lumbar, sacral, and caudal? se- 
condly, How it happens that the transition units standing 
between any two regions of the one series partake of the 
characters proper to either region? thirdly, How it is 
that species differs from itself as to the number of units 
fashioning those several regions of the skeleton axes? 
fourthly, How different species are rendered difform to 
each other respecting the number of units proper to those 
regions of the skeleton axis, named cervical, thoracic, 
lumbar, sacral, and caudal? fifthly, How the length of the 
serial axis varies not only between two distinct species, 
but even between two individual forms of one and the 
same species’ What is the meaning of this law of unity 
in variety—is it one of proportioning archetype quantities ? 
If it be so, then a comparison held between the units of 
any one of the opposite figures will best explain in how 
much all those figures vary from one another. : 
If we find sufficient reason to interpret unit 20 a, of 
fig. A to be a proportional of such as unit 19 a, in this 
same axis, it is this fact which will fully explain all the rest. 
The law of formation by which we have figs. A, B, and 
C presented to us in their several existing characters can 
only be understood from a comparison, first, of all the 
serial proportional quantities seen in each axis; secondly, 
by a comparison of the entire serieses of figs. A, B, and C 
with each other; thirdly, by a comparison of all three 
with the original plus series from which they have been 
metamorphosed. 
This original plus series, which is the common archetype 
of figs. A, B, and C, is now non-existing with respect to the 
present state of-those forms. Their actual condition is one 
of graduation, or the proportional serial converging line. 
How, then, are we to re-establish in idea the plus original 
from which each has been metamorphosed, to its proper 
special and minus character? Does comparative rule 
possess a means of furnishing to us any rational estimate 
of the plus uniformity which is not, by a measurement of 
the graduated variety which is? We believe that it does 
possess those means, and the first step of putting them in 
process for yielding the idea to a plus uniform original 
quantity is, to acknowledge fully that every series of pro- 
portionals whatever, must refer to that lost quantity which 
causes their present proportional variety ; for, evidently, 
their difference is solely attributable to this loss of 
quantity by subtraction or metamorphosis. 
The actual state of development in which we find figs. 
A, B, or C constitutes a graduated series; this is a visible 
and acknowledged fact, but these figures are not uniform ; 
neither can we ever render them otherwise than what they 
are; neither, for this same reason, can we ever hope to 
establish their uniformity upon the obstructive fact of 
their present variety. And yet uniformity stands before 
the comparative anatomist as the goal of all his studies. 
To this end we say, that every quantity which is liable 
to plus increase must be interpreted as a proportional of 
every phasis of such increase ; and every increscent phasis 
must also be understood as a proportional of the whole 
plus quantity. The fact that a—4 is a proportional of a+6 
admits of no dispute. The fact that the crescent moon is 
an illuminated proportional of the full planetary orb is 
likewise unquestionable; for, if we should doubt that she 
is actually of any greater dimensions than what she reveals 
lunatedly visible when rising to our view in the nocturnal 
west, she herself dispels those mental mists of doubt when 
after a time she demonstrates her complete quantity in the 
nocturnal east. ‘Time, comparison, and phasial progress 
is that mode whereby we understand that all her minus 
stages are but transitory, incomplete, and only progressive 
to an equation with the whole plus disk of unity and 
intelligibility, and it is even thus with every minus serial 
quantity of the endo-skeleton axis. It is even so with unit 
20 a, of fig. C, for this unit is a proportional of a whole 
quantity. 
And while we here state that the idea of a plus uni- 
formity rests centred in the fact that unit 20 a, of fig. C, 
is a proportional of a whole plus figure, we forthwith set 
out to prove it by keeping steadily to its numerical position 
in series, and by the comparison of two or more quantities, 
If it be doubted that 
unit 20 a, of fig. C, isa proportional of such a quantity 
as unit 19 a, above it in the same series, then we refer 
for a proof of the existing law to unit 20 a of fig. B; 
and, advancing through this mode of comparing all the 
minus quantities with the plus quantity* in the same 
spinal axis, and also the same numerical quantities of each 
axis with one another, we may figure in idea the character 
of a plus serial original as completely, and understand the 
law of proportional variety as fully, as if we extended the 
view through all the series of the four classes of animals. 
The law of proportioning is as fully evinced by the com- 
parison of a+6 and a—d as if we were free to measure it 
through all the scale of a graduated infinity. 
holding this fixed numerical place. 
* “Ttaque conyertenda plane est opera ad inquirendas et notandas rerum similitudines et analoga, tam in integralibus quam partibus ; ille 
enim sunt, que naturam uniunt, et constituere scientias incipiunt.”—Bacon, Novum Organum Scientiarum, Aph. xxvii. 
2 
