Not only do we find birds introduced on the pages of the Troano and Dresden codices above referred to, apparently for the purpose of indicating augury, but on Dres. 69b we see the long-nose god (probably Itzamna) sitting on the glyph LXVIII, 42, holding a bird in his arms. Also on Dres. 73b, where the groups are composed of short columns, each apparently relating to storms, winds, etc, we see in the right-hand group the bird and _men_-like glyph associated. Whether these are in fact _men_ glyphs is a question not yet determined. I am as yet unable to interpret satisfactorily any of the compound characters of which these supposed _men_ glyphs form a part. If the form shown in LXVI, 28, the lower portion of which is substantially the same as Landa's first _l_, is to be accepted as equivalent to LXVI, 55, then it is probable that the symbol of the day does not indicate the phonetic value of the name. This would lead to the supposition that the name _men_ is not the original one applied to the day, or that the symbol has been changed. I am inclined to believe one or the other of these suppositions to be correct. If the symbol could be identified in the inscriptions, I would adopt the first supposition until substantial evidence of its erroneousness could be produced. I am unable to offer any suggestions as to the origin of the symbol. I do not think the suggestion that it is intended to represent an aged face of woman or man of any force or worthy of serious consideration. The symbol would be just as complete so far as its signification is concerned without the eye as with it. THE SIXTEENTH DAY Maya, _cib_; Tzental, _chabin_; Quiche-Cakchiquel, _ahmak_; Zapotec, _guilloo_ or _loo_; Nahuatl, _cozcaquauhtli_. In addition to these the following are also given: Pipil, _tecolotl_; Meztitlan, _teotl itonal_ or _temetlatl_. The forms of this symbol shown in plates LXVI, 56 to 59, and LXVII, 1 to 3, are those usually found in the codices, the slight differences being due to the greater or less degree of perfection with which they have been made. Landa's figure is similar to LXVII, 1. The variants in LXVII, 4 and 5, are from Dres. 46 and 49; but the symbols found in the day columns of Dres. 46 to 50 must not be taken as evidence of peculiar types, as they are to a large extent dashed off without care, one or two of a column being sufficiently exact for determination and the rest mere blotches. I have referred to them here and under other days simply because Dr Seler has noticed them; hence had I failed to allude to them it might be thought an oversight. However, I do not think any of the variations in the day columns of these five plates should be taken into consideration as types.