4 REMARKS ON THE FIGURES OF PLATE LIV. 
through these pages; and also to see if fig. G, taken as a 
whole quantity, can, under a process of metamorphosis, 
yield the equals or analogues of each and all of those 
forms which are in minus condition compared to its 
presential self. The comparison of proportional or minus 
quantities has advanced so far in the present argument, as 
to demonstrate the natural existence of fig. G, in the 
character of a whole or integral quantity, and we have 
now only to inquire whether the subtraction of parts 
from fig. G can render this figure equal and homologous 
to any other design of skeleton axis which is minus to fig. G. 
Fig. G is not here represented as a creation of our own 
vain imagining. We have had no part. in idealising the 
structure of it im order to give support to the fabric of our 
own commentary, and, to speak in truth, we may fairly 
add, that our acquaintance with the existence of fig. G 
under that character of formation by which it now reveals 
itself, viz., the character of an integer or archetype, only 
dates from the present chapter. It is most true that in 
the conduct of our comparative method, which was one of 
slow process, we could not prevent the spontaneous evolu- 
tion of the idea that some such form as fig. G was in 
process of development, and that to this figure our com- 
parisons must inevitably lead us; but nevertheless it will 
be freely granted that we have in no one instance hitherto 
suddenly leaped to a conclusion over those various obstruc- 
tive facts, such as “ anomalies,” 
their characters, in order to know in how far they could 
without first unravelling 
agree or disagree with the course in which Nature seemed 
to us tobe leading. It cannot be said that we have cut the 
Gordian knot of this law of “unity in variety,” when it was 
our duty to untie it; nor can it be objected, while we here 
regard fig. Gas uniformity and fig. I as the variety to such 
uniformity by reason of the metamorphosis of quantity 
from the original or archetype of fig. I, that either of those 
figures are the creations of our pencil, or that the interpre- 
tation of the law of their creation is springing only from 
our pen. Both forms are natural productions, and their 
comparison is naturally productive of the interpretation, that 
the lesser quantity is fashioned from such as the greater. 
By what natural process is it possible to design the form 
fig. I from the form fig G? This question may be much 
more easily answered than if it were asked by what natural 
rule it were possible to fashion from fig. G either the 
physiological character of El-Borak—the celestial ass of the 
prophet Mahomet, or the winged Pegasus of the poets, or 
the Theban sphynx, or the Cretan minotaur.* Our present 
inquiry is bound within the limits of natural operation 
and creative probability; we are not here prepared to 
account for the mundane existence of a Mythological 
animal kingdom, nor to reconcile with a natural law of 
formation the monstrous chimeras of an unbridled imagi- 
nation, such as the mystic images of arabesque adornment, 
the Griffin, the Centaur, the Triton, the Pan, the Faun, 
the Dryad, the Mermaid, the Naiad; these we will leave for 
“teleological” speculative ingenuity, and as they who can 
find a place for them in past natura will not make much 
ado in warping the natural law to fashion a wreathy garni- 
ture around the bower of fancy, so may they in that retire- 
ment peruse also the account relating of the Beast of the 
Apocalypse and the Lions of Daniel with as little cause for 
questioning the probability as they discover in the story 
about the ‘ Carnivorous Bull,” the “ Herbivorous Tiger,” 
or the vocal bleeding tree of Virgil’s transformed Polydore. 
That law of metamorphosis to which we shall here subject 
the archetype fabric fig. G, and from out of which whole 
quantity we shall track the possible creation of the minus 
and special varieties figs. H and I, needs not, for the 
understanding thereof, so high an endowment of the 
imaginative faculty. Our remarks upon this process of 
formation are as follow. 
Firsily.—We have represented in fig. G the skeleton 
axis of an animal species which is living in present nature 
as a member or link of that general organic Chain which 
constitutes an animal kingdom. This form of skeleton 
quantity is one whose character, neither the mystery of a 
past or of a future state of nature envelops; and we shall, 
while holding it in comparison with all those forms which 
manifest an analogy, whether more closely or remotely to 
it, thereby guard ourselves from shedding over it that far 
denser cloud of mystery by which we ourselves too often 
pervert the presential fact,—we mean that of a nomencla- 
ture not grounded upon a law of formation. In fig. G, 
Nature presents us with a uniform plus series of osseous 
quantities holding an uninterrupted order from first to 
last: these quantities may be named costo-vertebral, and 
their linear order may be named costo-vertebral uniformity, 
forasmuch as it is evident that all those quantities are 
identical, both as to form, structure, and functional cha- 
racter. In every respect save that of numerical situation, 
these serial forms agree with one another, but it is true 
nevertheless that the transposition of those several homo- 
logous units might be made without occasioning any change 
of character in the general line of their series. If we 
cause unit 35 a, to change place with unit 52 a, of fig. G, 
this would not interrupt serial order; and the reason is, 
that all the serial units are identical. In the whole arche- 
type quantity of fig. G there is no regional division into 
Cervix, Thorax, Loins, Sacrum, or Caudex, because all the 
serial quantities persist in thoracic plus character. 
Secondly.—In fig. I, Nature presents us with a form 
whose serial design cannot be designated serial uniformity, 
because its serial quantities are not all equal to one an- 
other ; and we find, consequent upon this inequality as to 
quantity, that those serial units which fashion it, cannot 
now be read as identical, either in form, structure, or func- 
tional character ; on which account it is that we give those 
several regions of the units constituting the serial axis of 
fig. I the names cervical, thoracic, lumbar, sacral, and 
caudal. We now find that the transposition of those 
regional various quantities could not be made without 
interfering with the general design of fig. I; and because 
the skeleton axis of fig. I does not naturally yield to us the 
character of plus uniformity, it will hence be in vain that we 
pile up the Pelion on the Ossa of verbose argument, in 
determining what we may name uniform or what is abso- 
* Semibovemque virum, semivirumque bovem—Ovzd, Ars. Am., 2, v. 24. 
