REMARKS ON THE FIGURES OF PLATE LIV. 5 
lutely various, for Nature will still remain unmoved and the 
same. What is the difference between fig. G and fig. 1? 
ithe answer to this question may be had in the knowledge of 
that difference which exists between the several regional 
quantities of fig. I itself; and hereupon we ask the question, 
what else is the variety which characterises fig. I from fig. 
G, if it be not the same as that which exists between fig. 
H and fig. G, viz., a variety as to quantity ? 
Thirdly.—A thoracic costo-vertebral series characterises 
fig. G, and stamps it as a plus uniform quantity, whereas 
in fig I we find a condition of formation which, when we 
compare it with fig. G, cannot be read as uniform with fig. 
G, even if we equated the specific difference which reigns 
between them with all the anatomical reasoning of Ger- 
many, France, and Britain, marshalled by the names of 
Gothe, Geoffroy, and ——. In this strait, let us there- 
fore apply ourselves to Nature rather than blind ourselves 
with words or names, and let us, with the Janus or double 
aspect of a comparative method, take up our stand between 
the quantity fig. G on one side and the quantity fig. I on 
the other. What is that quantity which, by being present 
to fig. G, and absent from fig. I, gives them their present 
differential character? Is it not a costal quantity? Will 
the interpretation pale or flush the cheek of reason if we 
here assert that Nature presents to us her whole arche- 
type framework or prime model in fig. G, and that from’ 
this quantity. she fashions the special minus variety of fig. 
I, just in the same way that we ourselves have shaped 
fig. H as a minus special figure from the same whole 
original of fig. G, and have thereby simulated the present 
form of fig. 1? The metamorphosis of seven coste suc- 
ceeding the occiput will render fig. G cervical; like what 
fig. I presents; the persistence of twelve thoracic quan- 
tities succeeding a cervical series of vertebral proportionals 
will also simulate the thoracic series of fig. I; the meta- 
morphosis of eight costz from unit 20 to unit 27 in fig. G 
will represent the lumbar series of fig. 1; and the meta- 
morphosis or subtraction of costal quantities from unit 28 
to unit 61 of fig. G will again yield a series equal to the 
sacro-caudal line of fig. I. This simple progress of a law 
subtracting from archetype quantity such as fig. G, may 
be seen in the present condition of fig. H, and in this 
latter form we have the analogue of fig. I, both as to 
cervical, thoracic, lumbar, sacral, and caudal proportioning. 
Fourthly.—In. the plus fabric of fig. G we may find as 
well the “abnormal” as the normal quantities of special 
and minus formation, such as figs. H or I. If the anthro- 
pomorphous cast of form which fig. I now presents shall at 
times produce the cervical and the lumbar ribs, the inter- 
pretation of these may be had in the plus serial form of fig. 
G, which is thoracic throughout its whole extent. All the 
superadditions of costal quantity’ which may be found 
produced at the now minus regions of fig. I, are already 
apparent in the plus fabric of fig. G; and while we set 
ourselves to measure the oscillations of the law of formation, 
we may discover that all the plus increase of osseous 
quantity which is ever found to yary the minus character 
of fig. I as it now stands, may as easily be interpreted 
according to the plus design of fig. G, as all the minus 
decrease to which we have subjected fig. G, in order to 
produce fig. H, which is the counterpart of fig. I. 
Fifthly.—While we find fig. G. in one place and fig. H 
in another, since we cannot now read them as one and the 
same entity, they must exist as duality; and therefore, as 
the special minus quantity fig. H bears comparison with 
the archetype plus quantity fig. G, and relates itself so 
closely to fig. G that we can readily understand how fig. 
G, subjected to a metamorphosis of parts, could yield the 
special homologue of fig. H, although we cannot say that 
the entity of fig. H is the entity of fig. G, in this case we 
contend that it becomes impossible to view the existing 
quantity of fig. H without being reminded of the arche- 
type quantity from which it has been metamorphosed, and 
this archetype must be such as fig. G. Since fig. I is in 
all points equal and homologous to fig. H, so will it for the 
same reason be impossible to contemplate the existing 
design of fig. I without bearing in mind the plus archetype 
of fig. I, which can be no other than such as fig. G in the 
condition of plus uniformity. 
Sixthly.—It is because all the minus regions of fig. I, 
named cervical, lumbar, sacral, and caudal, have been 
metamorphosed from such a plus serial thoracic arche- 
type as fig. G, that we now find those units standing 
at the several minus regions of fig. I to present no other 
condition of variety to the plus thoracic region of fig. T 
save that which can result by the simple subtraction of 
serial quantity. It will be concluded, therefore, that the 
archetype of fig. I is such a form as fig. G, and conse- 
quently, that a cervical, a lumbar, a sacral, and a caudal 
quantity of fig. I are the various proportionals of their 
archetype costo-vertebral structures. 
Seventhly.—The force or law which yields the creations 
figs. G, H, and I, as a unity in variety, appears to us to be 
the same as that process of metamorphosis which, sub- 
tracting from plus quantity, leaves this in the condition 
of minus variety. The plus quantity fig. G is representing 
uniformity, whereas the minus quantities, figs. H and I, 
&c., are representing variety by the loss of those parts 
which are proper to plus uniformity. Variety or species, 
therefore, is resulting by the loss of quantity, and the 
presence of the phantom species is simply owing to the 
absence of some parts of the plus ens. The shank and 
hoof of a horse is a modification of the human hand, and 
fig. I is a modification of fig. G, by. the process of that 
selfsame law of metamorphosis. Who will deny it? Where 
are the objections to this theory? Who will dissent from 
the opinion of a plus unity of organisation, subjected to a 
variety by the metamorphosing process? Who? except 
it be him who is ignorant of the ways of creation. If we 
lay before us the following sentence spoken by Herschel, 
viz., “that the character of true philosophy is to hope all 
things not impossible, and to believe all things not un- 
reasonable,” we then may know that as it is not impossible 
for Nature to degrade the plus quantity fig. G to the 
minus variety fig. 1, so it cannot be unreasonable to believe 
in that process of a law of formation. 
Highthly—Fig. G. represents serial continuous uni- 
formity; and while we compare the several costo-vertebral 
