The strongest proof that this passage will not bear the construction placed on it by Mr. Goodman is afforded by the very glyph upon which his reading depends for its verification, namely, the glyph which he interprets Katun 17. This glyph (A5) bears no resemblance to the katun sign standing immediately above it, but on the contrary has for its lower jaw the clasping hand (), which, as we have seen, is the determining characteristic of the cycle head. Indeed, this element is so clearly portrayed in the glyph in question that its identification as a head variant for the cycle follows almost of necessity. A comparison of this glyph with the head variant of the cycle given in figure 25, _d-f_, shows that the two forms are practically identical. This correction deprives Mr. Goodman's reading of its chief support, and at the same time increases the probability that all the 6 terms here recorded belong to one and the same number. That is, since the first five are the kin, uinal, tun, katun, and cycle, respectively, it is probable that the sixth and last, which follows immediately the fifth, without a break or interruption of any kind, belongs to the same series also, in which event this glyph would be most likely to represent the units of the sixth order, or the so-called great cycles. The passages in the Palenque and Tikal texts (figs. 59 and 60, respectively) have never been satisfactorily explained. In default of calendric checks, as the known distance between two dates, for example, which may be applied to these three numbers to test their accuracy, the writer knows of no better check than to study the characteristics of this possible great-cycle glyph in all three, and of the possible great-great-cycle glyph in the last two.