There can be no question that plate LXVI, 21, is intended to represent a mat or something of that nature, nor that the character shown at 24 is the symbol used to represent this mat, straw, or plaited fabric; nor can it be doubted that the figures shown at 22 and 23 are conventional figures for houses of some kind. It must also be admitted that the characters shown at 25, 26, and 27 are symbols denoting these houses. According to Dr Seler's interpretation, figures 24 and 27 are, in some cases, used "to denote a seat on a mat [24]; sometimes the mat roof of the temple or the temple itself" (27). In his opinion these characters, especially 27, contain "the element of the mat and a symbol of carrying--the hand or elements which have been borrowed from the figure of the hand--and in these hieroglyphs the transition of the realistically delineated mat into the character _ben_ may be distinctly traced." That the upper part of plate LXVI, 25 and 26, and of other similar figures in the codices which might be shown, do make a close approach in form to the _ben_ symbol, must be admitted. But there is one break in the chain which needs to be closed before the evidence is entirely satisfactory. Does the upper part of these house symbols (25-26) indicate roof mats or thatching? An examination of the house figures shows these supposed mat figures to be something standing on the top of the roof--something rising, as it were, perpendicularly along and above the comb or crest. Now, precisely such battlements or elevated crests appear to have been common on the roofs of the temples or structures which have been preserved to modern times. We see them in the figures given by Charnay, Stevens, and other explorers; and what is worthy of special notice in this connection is, that they sometimes consist of openwork or trellis-like figures. Therefore, if we connect the upper part of the house symbols with the _ben_ glyph, it is still by no means certain that it is derived from, or bears any relation to, the mat character. We notice further that in the figures of houses this supposed mat figure is not used to indicate the thatching, but is clearly distinguished from it. Again, if the upper characters of LXVI, 25, 26, are intended to signify the thatching, roof matting, or roof, and are simple ideograms drawn from the thing represented, then the lower characters in these symbols might well be supposed to represent the wall or framework of the house. But the widely different relations in which we find this lower character forbid this conclusion. That the wall may be indicated is true, but if so it must be ikonomatically or by the phonetic value of the symbol. I have therefore found it very difficult to reach any entirely satisfactory conclusion in regard to these house symbols. That the lower character is phonetic in the true or rebus sense can, I think, be shown, but, notwithstanding the objections I have