(Chapter 14) Footnote 16:

Vesalius’ paraphrase of Galen continues, moving from a literal translation to a somewhat condensed paraphrase. May’s translation of 4.42.18-44.18: “Indeed, if [Nature] were looking only for resistance to injury and did not have another, prior, more valuable aim in constructing each of the instruments, she would not have fashioned a spine that was other than simple and quite uncompounded; for if one were making an animal of stone or wood, he would not fashion it any differently, since it would be better to have a single support extending along the whole spine than a great many that were small and separated into joints. ... For an animal that was meant to make use of its members, however, .. and bend and straighten its back, it was not better that there should be only one bone ..., and in this respect, certainly, an animal that makes many varied movements is better constructed than one that moves with greater difficulty. ... On the other hand, when you turn back again to regard safety alone, you will think that the spine ought to be made of a single bone instead of the twenty and more that actually compose it.” (May 1968, pp. 570-71).