If that which is actually set down in the Manuscript be compared with this, it will be seen that in 11 of the 24 places the Manuscript corresponds to my hypothesis:--1, 7 and 19 are the familiar signs for the three cardinal points, 8 and 20 are the sign Xul = end, which I have already frequently mentioned, 9 and 21 are the sign for B, 11 is Muluc, 23 is Cauac, where the scribe has added to the correct Kin-Cauac the sign for the year, as if the Cauac _years_ were treated of here as on pages 26 and 27. Finally the two agree in 12 and 18, where the Manuscript has the compound Kan-Imix to denote beginning, _i.e._, the two days beginning the series of twenty days, one of them according to this Manuscript, and the other according to the method resembling that used by the Aztecs. The other cases have the correct signs, but set down in the wrong place, thus B is changed from 3 to 2, from 15 to 16, the north from 13 to 14, the Xul from 2 to 3, 14 to 15, the E (Kan) from 5 to 4 and 6 and Cauac from 4 to 5, _i.e._, pushed along every time to the next place. This is all in favor of my theory. As one series began at the top, the scribe incorrectly placed the sign for beginning in the thirteenth place. Strange to say in the tenth place we have the very general sign _a_ in place of Kan. In the 4th, 17th and 22nd, and probably also in the half destroyed 6th sign, the scribe thoughtlessly put down a sign for E, which is proper only with Kan and should come after 5 or 10. Finally in the 24th place he put a sign for A, as if it were the intention that this passage should end exactly like its parallel on page 28. For, as a matter of fact, the two principal sections of the first part of the Dresdensis do end in a very similar way. * * * * * PART II. Pages 46--74. The first glance at the form and contents of the second part of the Manuscript shows that it is very different from the first. The pages are no longer divided into the usual three parts and there are fewer pictures. The Tonalamatls, which form the principal contents of the first part, disappear wholly, and with them both the vertical columns of day-signs and the horizontal lines of numerals alternating between red and black. On the other hand, the large number series as well as the high numbers significantly increase and we note the appearance of the large vertical columns of hieroglyphs, which were impossible in the triple division of the earlier pages. We also find a large number of hieroglyphs which did not occur in the first part. The contents are essentially astronomical. And yet the two parts are so closely connected with one another that the idea of two independent Manuscripts must be dismissed. Especially the front side of the second part as far as page 60 is nothing more than an amplification of page 24. The contents of pages 61-74 are of a more independent nature, but special attention should be called to the relation of 31a-32a to 62-63. Pages 46--50.