Four hieroglyphs still remain in the fourth column, respecting which compare my treatise "Zur Maya-Chronologie" in the Berliner Zeitschrift für Ethnologie XXIII, pp. 141-155. In the top sign I recognize an Imix with a prefix and probably also a superfix. I think this denotes the period of 18,980 days. I am forced to pass over the second entirely, inasmuch as a red 6 inserted in it remains a mystery (6 × 18,980 = 113,880?). As I stated in the above-named work, I think the third is three times the sacred period of 2920, _i.e._, 8760 days. Finally, the fourth sign certainly denotes the period of 7200 days. Whether or not there was a fifth sign above the one now at the top is as uncertain as the meaning of the whole. The most remarkable thing about it is that in three other passages of this Manuscript these three signs appear in close proximity to another. On page 61 we find the third in the 11th place in the second column, the first in the 12th place in the same column, and the fourth in the 14th place in the first column. Page 70 has the first sign in the middle of the 4th column; the second somewhat lower down in the 3d column and the 4th two places below. Finally all three signs appear in succession on the top of page 73 in the same order as on page 31. The fifth column on page 31 may have contained another numeral belonging to the series, the loss of which is not so serious a matter, but there may have been one or two hieroglyphs above it, the obliteration of which is greatly to be deplored. Pages 32a--39a. This is a large section extending over eight pages, which is difficult of interpretation owing to the prevailing disorder and because a large part of the hieroglyphs are effaced. Here, too, the principal subject is the god B, who is represented in manifold activity. A series of numbers extends through the entire representation. I read them as follows:-- I 11 XII 28 I 12 XIII 26 XIII 12 XII 19 V 5 X 1 XI 20 V 12 IV 6 X 8 V 5 X 7 IV 12 III 5 VIII 8 III 11 I. There are thus 18 divisions, the different lengths of which reveal no rule. They embrace 208 days, _i.e._, 2 × 104, which may well be considered as a continuation of the computation in the preceding section, of which the 104 was so important a number. The red numbers are entirely lacking in the beginning, then they are very slightly indicated, and finally they are distinctly written out on pages 36-39. I assume that the scribe has set down the 4th, 3d and 2nd numbers from the end, one too little. The last number has been entirely omitted. I have supplied these omissions though in a manner somewhat different from that adopted by Cyrus Thomas, "Aids," p. 28. I would note in addition that a period such as this, consisting of 208 days = 16 weeks, might be explained in an entirely different way, if there were a column of five days at the left having a difference of 8 days; then the whole would signify four Tonalamatls. But there is no such series of days.