Referring once more to the ancient map of Yucatan and to the peculiarity that the head of the figurative bird, the capital, Ho, is supposed to occupy the centre of the state, I point out nos. 1 and 5 (fig. 28) from the Bodleian and Selden MSS. as somewhat analogous representations of a central capital or chief, and nos. 3 and 6 as possibly being images of a territorial subdivision of the state, resembling a spider’s web. In an unpublished Mexican MS., which has been recently brought to light, the middle of the concentric circles is painted blue and suggests the idea of a system of distribution or irrigation, proceeding from a central supply of water and radiating in all directions. An accentuation of centrality is brought into relief in fig. 28, no. 6, where the spider’s web is placed in the middle, between the two peaks of a mountain. In no. 2 a small quadruple sign, which frequently occurs in the Vienna Codex, always painted in the colors of the four quarters and united by a cross-band across the centre (no. 4). also figures between two peaks, above two feet, the significance of which I do not venture to determine. A remarkable circular disc resembling the Maya map, and also divided into four parts by cross lines, but exhibiting footsteps denoting rotation, is represented in the entrance of a temple, in the Vienna Codex (fig. 28, no. 7). These figures will be referred to again further on. Let us now bestow attention upon the names of the Mexican capital and first note that the edifice of the Great Temple, in which the Cihuacoatl performed an annual ceremony already mentioned, was called tlal-xic-co, literally “in the navel of the earth or land” (from tlalli=earth, land or country, xictli=navel and co=in) (Sahagun, book II, appendix). Besides this edifice there was, in the middle of the lagoon of Chalco, an island, which, to this day, bears the name of Xico=in the navel or centre. This indicates the curious circumstance that the edifice and island had apparently been regarded as forming “ideal centres,” and shows that the name of Mexico itself may have been associated with the same conception being, as it was, the central seat of government. Gomara states that “the city was divided into two halves or parts, one named Tlal-telolco=small island (literally, ‘in the earth-mound’) and the other named Mexico, which means ‘something which flows,’ ” (Histoire Généralle des Indes, Paris, 1634, chap. 38). The Nahuatl word alluded to can be no other than the verb memeya which, according to Molina, signifies “water, or something liquid which issues or flows in many directions.” I have already pointed out that the Maya words to express water which rises and overflows, high tide and, by extension, abundance and plenty, are tul, tulnah and, finally, tulaan, past participle of tul. If the particle “me” conveyed the above idea, its combination with xico would cause the name Mexico to be replete with