On the lower part of the same page (165) is another column with the following days, Ahau, Oc, Eb, Ik, Kan, Ix, Cib, Cimi, Lamat, taken alternately from the right and left sides of the plate as given in our scheme. But there are only nine names in the column, when the order in which they are taken would seem to require ten. By examining the plate (IV) in the Manuscript the reader will see that there are indications that one at the top has been obliterated. By examining the right and left columns of our scheme we see that the omitted one is Ezanab. By counting the intervals between the days, as explained in my work, we find them to be alternately two and ten, and that by this rule the missing day is Ezanab. The reader will notice in these examples that Eb and Caban belong to the positions I have given them in my scheme ([Fig. 2]).

Turning to page 166 we find the first column (from “second division,” Plate IV) to be Kan, Cib, Lamat, Ahau, Eb, the same days as in the right column of our scheme. The second column, Cauac, Chuen, Akbal, Men, Manik, the same as the lower line of the scheme. The first column on page 167 has the same days as the right column of the plate, as corrected in my scheme and our [Plate II]. The second column of this page presents a new combination. We have so far found the names of a day column all in a single group or line of our plate, or taken alternately from opposite sides; here we find them taken alternately from each of the four sides of the quadrilateral moving around to the left in the order I have heretofore explained. The days in this column are Caban, Ik, Manik, Eb, Caban. One is taken from the upper line (as corrected), then one from the left side, next from the bottom line, then from the right side (as corrected), and then the same from the top line.

It is unnecessary for me to give more examples, as the reader can make the comparison for himself; and he will, as I believe, find my theory sustained.

The only real objection I can see to my explanation of the arrangement of the days in this circle is the fact that it necessitates the transposition of two characters, but it is not unreasonable to suppose that the artist may have made this one mistake.

Fortunately we find on Plates 18 and 19 of the Codex Peresianus[1] what appears to be a complete confirmation of the theory here advanced.

This is a kind of tabular arrangement of certain days, with accompanying numbers, as shown in our [Fig. 3], which is an exact copy of those portions of Plates 18 and 19 of the Codex Peresianus, to which I refer.

I also give in [Table V] the names of the days and the numbers corresponding with the symbols and characters of [Fig. 3]. In this table the erased days and obliterated numerals are restored, these being in italics to distinguish them from those on the plate.

Table V.

10.Kan.8.Cib.6.Lamat.4.Ahau.2.Eb.
10.Lamat.8.Ahau.6.Eb.4.Kan.2.Cib.
10.Eb.8.Kan.6.Cib.4.Lamat.2.Ahau.
10.Cib.8.Lamat.6.Ahau.4.Eb.2.Kan.
10.Ahau.8.Eb.6.Kan.4.Cib.2.Lamat.
13.Kan.11.Cib.9.Lamat.7.Ahau.5.Eb.
13.Lamat.11.Ahau.9.Eb.7.Kan.5.Cib.
13.Eb.11.Kan.9.Cib.7.Lamat.5.Ahau.
13.Cib.11.Lamat.9.Ahau.7.Eb.5.Kan.
13.Ahau.11.Eb.9.Kan.7.Cib.5.Lamat.
3.Kan.1.Cib.12.Lamat.
3.Lamat.1.Ahau.12.Eb.
3.Eb.1.Kan.12.Cib.
3.Cib.1.Lamat.12.Ahau.
3.Ahau.1.Eb.12.Kan.

An inspection of this table shows us that the five days repeated in each column are the same as those on the right of the quadrilateral of our scheme ([Fig. 2]), and are exactly in the order obtained by arranging the days of the month in four columns in the manner heretofore shown. (See column 4, [Table IV].)