According to Brasseur, _oloh_ signifies "a germ" and "to germinate;" _hokol_ also has about the same meaning. This furnishes a consistent and appropriate explanation of the figures, and gives at the same time the phonetic value of the glyph. I have not determined the prefix satisfactorily, but presume it is some word having _ch'_ or _tz'_ as its chief phonetic element, which signifies "little," "plant," or something similar. I have not determined the other symbols to which Seler alludes in this connection, but some of them, as may be seen by comparison with other passages, do not have special reference to the plant-like figures. Whether the little sharp-corner square seen in the upper right-hand character of the compound symbols shown in plate LXVI, 28 and 55, and others of similar form, are to be taken as _ik_ glyphs is yet an undecided question. Dr Seler appears to have excluded them from this category in his paper, so frequently referred to, though he subsequently brings them into this relation. But in these places he gives the glyph the signification "fire" or "flame." It is possible that in some of the cases to which he refers he is correct, as, for example, in regard to the figure shown in plate LXVIII, 30, from Dres. 25, where it is in the midst of the blaze. If so, the word equivalent must be _kak_, as it is seemingly a variant of _ik_, and hence may be supposed to have the _k_ sound. This will agree with his interpretation of plate LXVI, 29, by _kinichkakmo_; but in this case we must give _ich_ as the value of the so-called _ben_ symbol. This, however, is not so very objectionable, as there are other places where the chief phonetic element of the _ben_ glyph appears to be _i_. It is also to be remembered that it is much like Landa's _i_. It is likewise true, as will hereafter be shown, that the value _ben_ does not appear to hold good where it occurs in combination with other symbols. However, until a satisfactory rendering of this little four-corner _ik_ (?) symbol in some other place than the fire is found, I am hardly prepared to give full acceptance to Dr Seler's supposition. The Zapotec names are somewhat difficult to bring into harmony with the others. Dr Brinton's solution is as follows: In that tongue we have _uii_, air, wind; _chiic_, breath; which we may bring into relation with _gui_; and we find _guiiebee_, wind-and-water cloud (nube con vient y agua). Dr Seler prefers to derive _gui_ from _quii_, fire, flame, the notion of which is often associated with wind. It was probably this notion and the fact that the little four-corner _ik_ (?) symbol is sometimes seen in the flame, which caused this authority to believe the symbol denotes "fire," "flame." In the manuscript Zapotec vocabulary by E. A. Fuller, "wind" is _bii_. Dr Brinton thinks that _ni_ is the radical of _nici_, to grow, increase, gain life. He says: