Here the author of the codex has made another mistake or varied from the plan of the series. As several similar variations or errors occur in this part of the series, it will be as well to discuss the point here as elsewhere. Dr. Förstemann, in discussing the series, takes it for granted that these variations are errors of the aboriginal scribe; he remarks that "It is seen here that the writer has corrected several of his mistakes by compensation. For instance, the two first differences should be 177 [8 months, 17 days] and 148 [7 months, 8 days], not 176 and 149," &c. This is a strained hypothesis which I hesitate to adopt so long as any other solution of the difficulty can be found. It is more likely that the writer would have corrected his mistakes, if observed, than that he would compensate them by corresponding errors. Going back to that part of the series in the lower divisions which has already been examined and commencing with Plate 51_b_ (see Table VI), we observe that the numbers in the lowest of the three lines of black numerals, immediately over the day columns, and the first day of these columns are as follows (omitting the week days attached): 14 11 8 5 2 10 Ik. Cauac. Cib. Been. Oc. Ezanab. Turning to the calendar (Table II) and using the Muluc column, we notice that the figures of this third line of black numerals denote respectively the month numbers of the days under them; that is to say, Ik is the fourteenth day of the month in Muluc years, Cauac the eleventh, Cib the eighth, Been the fifth, Oc the second, and Ezanab the tenth. This holds good through Plates 52_b_ to 58_b_ without a single exception, provided the diamond shaped symbol in the fourth column of Plate 55_b_ is counted as 20. This test, therefore, presents fewer exceptions than are found in counting the intervals as before explained; yet, after all, this would necessarily result from the fact that the day Muluc was selected as the commencement of the series, and hence may have no signification in reference to or bearing on the question of the year series, especially as the years counted are evidently of 360 days. Returning now to our Table VIII, representing Plate 53_a_, we observe that the number immediately over Kan in the first column is 17, whereas Kan is the sixteenth day of the month. Is it not possible that the intention was to designate as the ceremonial day Chicchan, standing immediately below, which is the seventeenth day of the month in Muluc years? Even though there is no reference to Muluc years, the intervals may be given upon the same idea, that of reaching, for some particular reason, the second or third day of the column instead of the first. This would account for the compensation of which Dr. Förstemann speaks, without implying any mistake on the part of the writer. These irregularities would then be intentional variations from the order of the series, yet so as not to break the general plan.