As the Quiche-Cakchiquel, Zapotec, and Nahuatl names all signify "deer," the difficulty in bringing all into harmony lies in the Maya and Tzental names. Dr Seler's explanation is substantially as follows: That the word _manik_ is from the root _man_ or _mal_, which signifies "to pass quickly;" _manik_ may therefore mean "that which passes by," "that which is fleeting." Dr Brinton gives the same explanation, and concludes that the deer is referred to metaphorically. In regard to the Tzental name _moxic_, Dr Seler suggests that it may be founded on the root _max_, from which is derived _maxan_, "swift." Dr Brinton objects to this derivation, as _maxan_ with the signification "swift" is from _ma_, "not," and _xan_, "slow, tardy," and suggests that the name is probably a corruption of the Nahuatl _mazatl_. However, it may be stated in favor of Seler's explanation, that Henderson gives _moxan_, "quickly, shortly, without hindrance," which is apparently another form of _maxan_. Dr Seler, however, concludes, from a study of the relations in which the character is found in the codices, that it is the symbol of offering, of sacrifice, the deer being esteemed the animal most appropriate for this purpose. Henderson says _manik_ signifies "calm," evidently considering it to be formed of _ma_, negative, and _ik_, "wind." It is evident, therefore, that the authorities are at sea in regard to the signification of the Maya and Tzental names. If the symbol is used, as Seler claims, to indicate offerings or sacrifices, this may be readily explained on the supposition that it is used ikonomatically because of the phonetic value I have assigned it; but otherwise it is difficult, if not impossible, to see any relation between the symbol and the name given it. So far I have found it used in no place, in combination, where the value _manik_ will give a satisfactory interpretation. The following additional renderings are added here as tending to confirm the phonetic value assigned the _manik_ character. The character shown in plate LXVIII, 37, is from Tro. 20*c, where it is repeated four times. The figures below the text show women in the act of sprinkling or pouring water on children. Whether this be considered a religious ceremony or not, it is probably intended to denote purifying or cleansing, and not baptism in the modern acceptation of the term. As _choah_, according to Perez, signifies "to cleanse, purify, scour," and _choich_ "to clean, scour, or wash the face," we have therein a quite appropriate interpretation of the symbol. The presence of the cardinal-point symbols renders it probable that the scene refers to a religious ceremony of some kind. The strict regard paid to the position relative to the cardinal points by savage and semicivilized people is too well known to require any proof here.