2, REMARKS ON THE FIGURES OF PLATE XLV. 
~ which interpretation must clear for itself a passage, if any 
progress is to be attempted, for-the comparative reasoning. 
Evidently, there appears to be something more required 
for the understanding of a law of formation than the mere 
trite account of the homologous development of already- 
created forms of skeletons. When we say that figs. A, B, 
and C, are homologues, at the same time that we discover 
howrfig. B develops thirteen ribs, and figs. C and A only 
twelve, thus denying the fact that they are homologues ; 
nay, when we further discover that fig. A of the human 
type manifests a plus and minus variation as to costal 
quantity, being in one instance limited to the number of 
eleven cost, and in another example producing thirteen 
coste—then we have reason to conclude that as yet we do 
not understand the law of formation, since we are unable 
to account for these “anomalies” to the rule of unity. 
Hence we say, that it is not by a comparison held 
between the created forms of fitness, and confined to this 
reading only, that we can ever hope to appreciate the 
passages of that law which rendered them thus created. 
But it must be by advancing onwards in quest of that 
plus quantity of the archetype from which all minus 
variety has been planned by simple subtraction, that we 
are to give form and interpretation to the fabric of unity. 
The archetype or plus quantity can only be regarded as 
uniform, and when we compare with this all the minus 
varieties, then we come to some lucid understanding of 
a law. 
Fig. A, the skeleton axis of an Australian, compared 
with fig. B, the skeleton of a chimpanzee, and with fig. C, 
the skeleton axis of an orang-utan, appears, as to general 
conformation, identically cast. Their facial angles manifest 
a plus and minus variety, owing to the increase of certain 
pieces of the facial apparatus; but still the elementary 
structures are one and the same, both as to number and 
relative situation. This is not the case as to the thoracic 
quantities, for fig. C is minus a rib, compared with fig. B, 
which is plus a rib. -And furthermore, we well know that 
either fig. A, B, or C, may be minus or plus a rib, com- 
pared to that condition of development in which they 
present opposite. 
It is unit 20 of fig. B, that develops the plus*costa. It 
is the same unit which is minus this costa in figs. A and 
C. And this is the fact which requires to be interpreted 
before we can understand the law of unity im variety, 
which law can be no other than plus quantity subtracted 
from. 
It is the subtraction of quantity from the archetype or 
prime model, which is plus, that yields figs. A, or B, or C, 
or any other denomination of skeleton variety in such 
fashion as Nature presents them, and hence it is that figs. 
A, B, and C, which are minus quantities compared with 
archetype plus, cannot, therefore, be accounted as expres- 
sive of the complete form of unity. 
We have all along held the opinion, that all skeleton 
figures which manifest a special variety to each other as to 
serial quantity cannot, so long as they continue to be con- 
trasted with one another as entities of fixed and invariable 
cast, establish for us the condition of uniformity. The 
mere comparison of an ens of lesser quantity with an ens 
of greater quantity can never move these two things from 
out of their presential character; for a—b taken as such, 
and contrasted with a@+6 considered as such, will never 
make them otherwise than such as they appear. Even if 
we view both these quantities of plus and minus variation 
through the lenses of the “Novum Organum” or the 
“ Principia,” still they will never move out of their present 
character. The power of Ross’s telescope cannot render 
them otherwise than what they are; and as they really 
are in plus and minus variety, we therefore say that it will 
be as vain to seek for an actual uniform structural plan 
in both, as it would be to establish an identity of purpose 
and argument between Locke’s “Essay ” and the “ Pin- 
daric Odes.” The variety of quantity exists between two 
or more skeleton axes of several classes, between two or 
more of several species, nay, even between two or. more 
skeleton forms of human type; and where, then, is uni- 
formity? We proceed to answer this question by proving 
that it is an abstract idea of formation, and is the product 
of a comparison held between the serial proportional 
quantities of even the one skeleton axis, and may be as 
fairly established upon this isolated particular as if we 
passed in array the whole embodiment of form throughout 
animal nature. 
Analogical mquiry has always proved this fact to those 
who have pursued the task, viz., that the progressive notice 
from particulars to generalities turns the mind back again 
from generalities to particulars ;* and whether it be for 
good or otherwise that the excursion and return has been 
effected in the development of the subject, this much, at 
least, is certain, that the travelled reason has cultivated a 
roving spirit, and, from having observed the universality 
of Nature’s oneness of operation, contents itself with the 
observation of things as they appear in masses, and ever 
afterwards renounces the wearisome, slow, and fruitless 
labour of searching purblindly for differential peculiarities 
between things which broadly manifest the open character 
of identity in the main and on the whole. When we first 
contemplate the plan of fig. A as a particular cast of form, 
we might for ever rest satisfied with our knowledge of the 
law of development which produced it thus, were it not 
that its costal plus “ anomalies” awake us to inquire 
the how and the wherefore of their creation; and this 
leads the inquiry forth from the particularity to range 
through the general condition of Nature, in order to know 
whether the normal agreements and abnormal disagree- 
ments apparent in the type, fig. A, bear any analogy to, 
and admit of explanation by, those which are occurring for 
the general or transcendental type of the animal through 
classes, orders, genera, species, and individuals. 
* “ Muctor systematis a particularibus ad uniyersalia ascendat, Doctor vero contra a generalibus ad specialia descendat.”—Linnzus, Imperium 
Nature, Systema Nature. 
