The _fifth_ sign on pages 26 and 28 and the _fourth_ on page 27 show correspondence most clearly. This sign is always a head, undoubtedly that of the god pictured in the bottom third. But on page 25 it is the hieroglyph of E, who is pictured on the top of page 27, instead of that of B. In the same way the 6th sign on page 25, the 4th on page 26, the 5th on page 27 and the 4th on page 28 have something in common. One element of the hieroglyph is always the sign for the year of 360 days, combined on page 25 with cross-bones and the Cauac sign, on 26 with Yax and Kan, and on 27 and 28 simply with Yax. The most puzzling and divergent of these hieroglyphs are the remaining ones. The 4th on page 25 has an oblique cross (or bones?) and the abbreviated glyph for the west, the 6th on page 26 is the head of E, the 6th on page 27 is the 360-day sign combined with Kin and Cauac, and the 6th on page 28 is the usual Kan-Imix sign. Here, too, there seems to have been a displacement. Before I leave the four pages 25-28, I will glance at the numerals, which are scattered over them and which apparently have no connection with one another. I have discussed these numerals in my article "Die Mayahieroglyphen" in Volume LXXI, No. 5, of the Globus, and the following is borrowed therefrom. First of all, I believe that I proved there, that the sign composed of two dots with a cross between them is an abbreviation for the usual clumsy representation of the numeral 18 and designates it like a duodeviginti by 20 - 2. Next, that in this passage as on pages 18a, 18c, 19c, 46b and 50c, the sign is combined with the hieroglyphs Yax-Kin. Third, that it is closely related to the god D, inasmuch as it stands on page 27b close beside the picture of that god. Assuming this as a known fact, we find scattered over these four pages the following numbers:-- 25: 9, 7, 8, 9, 19, 26: 7, 16, 13, 7, 9, 27: 11, 5, 2, 18, 16, 28: 6, 6, 13, 6, 15. It is very remarkable that the sum of the numbers on each of the first three pages is equal to 52, and as an accidental freak it would be most surprising; somewhere on the fourth page six units may have been omitted; but perhaps the 6, which stands above the _two_ Chuen signs in the centre, is to be counted twice. The 52, however, designates the very 52 years, which are treated of on these four pages. As yet I know no reason to account for the fact that the 52 is here separated into these apparently very irregular numbers. The discovery of this reason would be an important step in advance. Or does it means 52 _days_, perhaps those which follow a Tonalamatl coming in the middle of the year? Page 28 is followed in the Manuscript by three empty pages. The scribe's object in reserving them is beyond our ken; possibly they were intended to represent the period of 8 years.