D'Alviella's plate 2, page 80, while divided into sections _a_ and _b_, is filled only with illustrations of Swastika associated with circles, dots, etc., introduced for the purpose of showing the association of the Swastika therewith, and that the permutation and replacing of these signs by the Swastika is evidence that the Swastika represented the sun. Most of the same illustrations are presented in this paper, and it is respectfully submitted that the evidence does not bear out his conclusion. If it be established that these other symbols are representatives of the sun, how does that prove that the Swastika was itself a representative of the sun or the sun god? D'Alviella himself argues[79] against the proposition of equivalence of meaning because of association when applied to the _Crux ansata_, the circle, the crescent, the triskelion, the lightning sign, and other symbolic figures. He denies that because the Swastika is found on objects associated with these signs therefore they became interchangeable in meaning, or that the Swastika stood for any of them. The Count[79] says that more likely the engraver added the Swastika to these in the character of a talisman or phylactery. On page 56 he argues in the same line, that because it is found on an object of sacred character does not necessarily give it the signification of a sacred or holy symbol. He regards the Swastika as a symbol of good fortune, and sees no reason why it may not be employed as an invocation to a god of any name or kind on the principle, "Good Lord, good devil," quoting the Neapolitan proverb, that it will do no harm, and possibly may do good.