3. The highest three glyphs have numerical coefficients, just like the five lower ones; this tends to show that all eight are terms of the same numerical series. 4. In the two texts which alone can furnish comparative data for this sixth term, the sixth-period glyph in each is identical with A4, figure 60, thus showing the existence of a sixth period in the inscriptions and a generally[85] accepted sign for it. 5. In the only other text which can furnish comparative data for the seventh term, the period glyph in its seventh place is identical {123} with A3, figure 60; thus showing the existence of a seventh period in the inscriptions and a generally accepted sign for it. 6. The one term higher than the cycle in the Copan text, the two terms higher in the Palenque text, and the three terms higher in this text, are all built on the same basic element, the cycle, thus showing that in each case the higher term or terms is a continuation of the same number, not a Period-ending date, as suggested by Mr. Goodman for the Copan text. 7. The other two texts, showing series composed of more than five terms, have all their period glyphs in an unbroken sequence in each, like the text under discussion, thus showing that in each of these other two texts all the terms present probably belong to one and the same number. 8. Finally, the two occurrences of the cycle sign with a coefficient above 13, and the three occurrences of the great-cycle sign with a coefficient above 13, indicate that 20, not 13, was the unit of progression in the higher numbers in the inscriptions just as it was in the codices. Before closing the discussion of this unique inscription, there is one other important point in connection with it which must be considered, because of its possible bearing on the meaning of the Initial-series introducing glyph.