Returning now to section _a_, we find on each page three figures, nearly all of persons or animals, seated on a large base [Hieroglyph] practically identical with the tun-glyph. Fourteen of the backgrounds to these figures are red. Above each figure there seems to have been at least six glyphs, of which but very few are left. Above these is a space entirely erased. In the center of the section on each page is a column containing at least two Ahaus with red numerals. The numerals of the upper row exceed those of the lower by 6; each row decreases from page to page by 4. The erased margins of the MS. do not afford space for another picture besides the three, on either side, but they do just give room for another Ahau-column on the left of each page. If this second Ahau-column existed, we have again the katun-series repeated in each row across. If it did not exist, the series (reading from the supposed page 1) of 13, 9, 5, etc., and 7, 3, 12, etc., decreasing by 4’s, give the numbers of successive tuns. Once again the question of whether a simple number-round of thirteen terms, or a full round of twenty terms, whether tuns or katuns, was originally displayed on the Codex, must be left undetermined. It is further to be noted that faint but exact traces of a third Ahau, on a higher line, appear on page 5, as well as some doubtful traces on page 8. No definite relationship between the pictures of this section _a_ and those of section _e_ is apparent. Section _b_ is made up of 45 or more glyphs in three columns. The first column is almost totally erased on every page, and I have disregarded it both in assigning reference numbers and in the type cards. The other two columns I have numbered in double column sequence downwards; but this can be regarded as solely for convenience’ sake. The glyph [Hieroglyph] which is three times repeated at the beginning of page 2, and recurs in parallel position repeated two to five times on each page, is the most common glyph in the whole Codex. It is identifiable probably 38 times, including twice at the top of the erased _first_ column on page 4. It heads the second column several times on every page, except 7, which is too erased for any determination, and page 3, where a slight variation in what is left of the postfix at b-3 forbade its insertion under the rules I have given limiting restorations. I suspect that this glyph should be repeated at 3-b-9 and 11-b-9, for the following reason. In positions b-6, b-8 or b-10 of each page occurs a certain face-glyph [Hieroglyph] that is found nowhere else in either the Perez, Dresden or Tro.-Cort. codices. If the initial glyph is repeated at 3-b-9 and 11-b-9 as suggested, then (with a slight variation on page 4) this series of repetitions of the initial glyph will in each case be closed by the face-glyph in question.