XETOV, formed from axEXX(o, to dry, is, in anatomy, ordinarily applied to denote that assemblage and arrangement of all the osseous pieces of an animal framework in such con nection and relationary order as the hand of nature has disposed them for fitting operation in the living body.
The less the name skeleton impresses the mind xvith the configuration of any particular forrn of the osseous machines, the better is it fitted as an abstract general title, under which to give a comparative survey of all figures of the osseous systern, whatever be their special characteristics; and this abstract survey being my present purpose, I find that the name skeleton, devoid as it is of any direct and inconvertible meaning, conveniently ex tends itself over all varieties of the osseous fabrics of the four higher classes of animals ; from the mutual comparison of which I shall strive to elicit the law which creates them in the character of a unity in variety *, a condi tion of form by which the many' species gather themselves together naturally into a circle and point to some unknown oneness of character which enchains them the one to the other.
This law of unity in variety is still uninter preted ; and though it formed the moving theme of the great Grecian naturalist t three thousand years back, and afterwards lay in cold obstruction till resumed in later times by Leibnitz, Newton, Buffon, Cuvier, Geoffroy St. Ililaire, Oken, Gliethe, Carus, Owen t, Grant, and others, still does it remain as an open arena of inquiry, courting the votary of truth to enter there and allure her from her se cret covert. All that has been written has not fixed the Protean interpretation of this law which governs the developement of vertebrated skeletons. Since, therefore, this theme (upon which so many great inquirers have assayed interpretations which conflict with each other, and in the struggle lose the clue of truth), even to this hour fails of the culminating idea, and is by so much imperfect, of what avail would it be to the reader or myself were I to discuss the merits of the various opinions such as they stand ? Rather than dispute about opinions, I shall turn to the facts themselves, upon which those opinions have been grounded, and engage at once in the comparison of facts as facts independent of all opinion respecting them, and unmindful of the names * by which they are liable to be mistaken for what they are not.
Under the abstract term skeleton, I shall take a general survey of the whole subject of comparative osteology ; and if the reader chooses to call this survey " transcendental," I shall endeavour to show that it shall not be visionary. My argument shall set out from a first proposition, through a successional en chainment of propositions ; and in the matter of all the propositions taken collectively, I shall body forth an interpretation hitherto un known in anatomical science. The facts and their proper interpretation may be fairly termed the body and soul of truth, and such a truth is a compound of the actual and the in tellectual. The facts themselves give evidence to all observers of the truth of " unity in variety," but it is by inductive reasoning that the intellect is to interpret the law, the poten tial agency, by which the same facts are at the same time uniform and yet various.
The object which I shall keep in view while constructing my comparisons, is to demonstrate the figure of unity, and give interpretation to the figures of variety which are sprung of it. To this end I shall prove,— 1st. That all the osseous skeletal forms are quantitatively unequal things.
2d. That they are the unequal quantities of a greater or archetypal form *, a unity which has undergone such an infinitely graduated metamorphosis of its parts as to yield these unequal skeletal forms.
3d. That the law of formation is one of degradation of an archetypal uniform original.
4th. That these unequal skeletal forms con stitute the species or varieties of the unity of the archetype.