Another fact bearing upon this point is the difference between the Dresden Codex and the Manuscript Troano in regard to marking with symbols the things represented in the pictures. We fail to find in the former (unless that on Plate 30 be a possible exception) the earth or soil represented by any symbol, though frequently occurring in the latter and also occasionally in the Cortesian Codex. The symbol for wood or that appearing so often on wooden articles in the latter, and occasionally in the Cortesian Codex, is wanting in the Dresden Codex, though wooden articles are several times represented. From this we infer that the Manuscript Troano is a more recent production than the Dresden Codex, notwithstanding the evidences of greater skill in drawing and higher mathematical attainments shown in the latter. Before discussing the question of phonography we ask attention to one or two facts regarding Landa's alphabet which do not appear to have been previously noticed, yet have an important hearing on the subject. The failure to reach any satisfactory results with this alphabet proves, beyond a reasonable doubt, that this author was mistaken as to the character of the Maya writing; yet the frequent occurrence in the manuscripts of most, if not all, of the elements he presents renders it certain that there is a basis of truth on which it rests. It is probable, therefore, if we can find the key to his method, we may, after all, obtain some satisfactory results by means of his alphabet. I have already stated as my belief that-- He has undertaken to pick out of their compound or syllabic characters the letter elements; hence it is that, while we find it impossible to decipher the manuscripts by using them, yet we find such frequent resemblances as to compel us to admit a fundamental relationship.[367-1] This opinion I still believe to be correct, but was, until very recently, unable to get any positive evidence as to his method of obtaining these elements.