ADDITIONS. 1. The Mexican Antiquities have lately been illustrated in many splendid works, by Aglio, Kingsborough, Dupaix, Baraden, St. Priest, Nebel, Icaza, Gondra, Waldeck &c. In a clever review of these works (in the foreign review) it is distinctly asserted that the _Tul-tecas_ (people of Tul,) or American Atlantes, were quite a different people from the Later Mexican tribes, that their monuments are equal in interest to those of Egypt and Syria, with colossal and even Cyclopian structures--which agrees with my former statements, and I have traced them in America from Missouri to Chili, but their central seats and empires were from Mexico to Quito. Their great temple at Otolum near Palenque was equal to Solomon's temple. Their mythology was quite peculiar and Asiatic, their maindeity[TN-20] was _Hun-aku_ (first cause) comparable to _Anuki_ the Syrian Cybele, their Astronomy was antediluvian, the year of 360 days or 18 months of 20 days. 2. The first monuments of the United States may be ascribed to the _Talegas_, a northern branch of these Atlantes. The oldest monuments of Peru long before the Incas with those of Brazil and Oronoco are related thereto, and were erected by their Southern tribes, the _Atules_ and _Talahets_. 3. In a late work of Harcourt (1838) all these ancient monuments of America, Africa, Europe and Asia, are ascribed to the _Arkites_ saved at the flood of Noah; which was also the previous opinion of M'culloh in his American researches. But some Antiquaries are yet seeking in America traces of the _Adamites_. 4. The _Tulawas_ and _Telingas_ nations and languages of Decan of Southern India, are probably of Atlantic or Tulanic (Syn. of Turan or Tartary) descent; and these nations sent colonies furher[TN-21] east in early times to Polynesia and perhaps as far as America! yet the bulk of Oceanic population from Madagascar to Japan and Australia is of Hamite descent, by the regular structure of all the languages; while this seldom happens in America as in China and Tartary. 5. The late attempts of tracing analogies of origin and descent between the Chinese and Polynesian Nations, are quite vain. The Chinese Nations are evidently Asiatic and primitive akin to the Tartars and Turks (the modern Turans,) their language have the same inverse position, and monosylabic[TN-22] structure. The idea of Harcourt to deem the Chinese the real Semetic stock of Languages, is worthy of enquiry. He has proved that the _Obri_ (Hebrew) was in reality a Hamite language, the posterity of Abraham having adopted a dialect of the _Acuri_ (Assyrian) and _Xnoni_ (Canaanit;)[TN-23] but the Arabic languages and nations, so akin thereto must then also be Hamites! and the old Arabians alone were Semites.