It was certainly to be hoped that the designations which Dr. Seler gave to these Maya periods of time in his “Die Monumente von Copan, etc.,”[1] would have been accepted by Americanists, especially since very good reasons were given by Seler for their adoption. But this view does not meet the approval of Dr. Förstemann or Dr. Thomas. The latter in his “Maya Calendar, Part II.,” published in the “Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology,” still calls the period of 20 days a chuen and that of 360 days an ahau, while the former in his article on “Die Lage der Ahaus bei den Mayas,” published in Part I. of the 1904 issue of the “Zeitschrift für Ethnologie,” makes the following statement: “The katun has also been supposed to be 24 × 365 = 8760 days long (and I held this view for a long time), indeed the long period of 52 × 365 = 18,980 days is also occasionally designated with the word, while the sixth multiple of this member or 113,800 is called an ahaukatun.” He uses the terms “day,” “uinal,” and “ahau” for the periods of 1, 20, and 7200 days respectively. [1] See Seler, “Gesammelte Abhandlungen zur Amerikanischen Sprach- und Alterthumskunde,” Vol. I. p. 722. Such statements from such learned scholars must attract attention, especially as it is not the first time that they have made similar statements. If they give a correct statement of facts, it shows that the system of the Maya numeration or calendar was in a woful condition, as far as its nomenclature was concerned. It will be well, therefore, to take up this question of nomenclature anew. In all matters of this kind it is wise, while giving due value to the views of later writers, to place the most dependence for the solution of such questions upon contemporary or nearly contemporary evidence.