[277-1] Throughout this paper when the words "figure" and "character" are used in reference to what appears in the codex, they are to be understood as follows: "figure" refers to the picture, as of a person, animal, or other object in the spaces; "character" refers to the hieroglyphics or written symbols. [278-1] Study of the Manuscript Troano, by Cyrus Thomas, Chapters II and VII. [278-2] Erläuterungen zur Mayahandschrift, p. 2. [280-1] Erläuterungen zur Mayahandschrift, p. 16. [280-2] Bureau of Eth., Third Ann. Rep., pp. 16 et seq. [282-1] Study of the Manuscript Troano, by Cyrus Thomas, pp. 15, 16. [282-2] Déchiffrement des écritures calculiformes ou Mayas, par M. le C^te H. de Charency, Alençon, 1849; also, Mélanges, pp. 185-195. [283-1] For an explanation of the principle upon which these day columns were formed, see "Notes on certain Maya and Mexican manuscripts," by Cyrus Thomas, published in the Third Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology. [290-1] The symbol for this day in Kingsborough resembles Lamat, but the photographic copy makes it Ix, as it should be. [290-2] Förstemann, Erläuterungen zur Mayahandschrift, p. 42. [291-1] Erläuterungen zur Mayahandschrift, p. 36. [292-1] Erläuterungen zur Mayahandschrift, p. 60. [293-1] Erläuterungen zur Mayahandschrift, p. 56. [296-1] The bottom lines are selected because they are less injured in the codex than the top lines, which are in most cases entirely obliterated. [300-1] 3 days in ms., should be 4. [317-1] The third symbol in the last day column of Plate 51_b_ is Been in the codex; but this is an evident mistake, as shown by the order of the days, since Ahau, which has been substituted above, always follows Cauac. This may be seen by reference to the middle column of 57_b_. [319-1] This is one of the exceptional cases. [321-1] Second exception. [321-2] Third exception. [323-1] One line has been omitted in the numeral symbol. [323-2] Here we have again the added day. [324-1] The 8 at this point in the codex is an evident error. [324-2] Here is also an error in the original, this being 10. [324-3] The symbols require an additional day here. [324-4] The 8 in the year line in the original is a manifest error, as 6 precedes and 7 follows. [324-5] The 18 in the day line at this point is also an error, as the interval between 2 Muluc and 10 Cimi is 8 months and 17 days. Moreover, the next day number being 16 requires this to be 19. [325-1] The counters in the original at this point are certainly wrong, for here should be 7 months and 8 days, whereas the symbols are those for 8 months and 17 days. [325-2] Here we have again the additional day. [325-3] Added to show connection with the lower series. [333-1] Codex has 19, which is equivalent to 1 year and 1 month. [337-1] While reading the final proof I fortunately discovered what may prove to be the correct explanation of the numbers in the loops.