symbols. These two glyphs are, in fact, combined to form the symbol for the month Kayab.

These statements will perhaps suffice to make clear my views on this question, which do not appear to have been clearly understood, possibly because of my frequent use of the words “phonetic” and “phoneticism,” and perhaps rather loose reference to “letter elements.”

It is proper, however, to add that I am inclined to the opinion that modification in the form and details of a glyph which belongs to the class which, for want of a better term, we may designate “phonetic,” in many cases indicates a modification or change in the signification or word value. I say in “many cases,” because these modifications are due often to the greater or lesser accuracy with which the glyph is drawn, the caprice of the scribe, and other causes which have no reference to sound or signification. For example, the change of a rounded or circular symbol to a face figure, as is often done, does not appear, at least in the day signs, to have any significance. On the other hand, a slight variation, if permanent, may be indicative of a difference in signification or phonetic value. This appears to be true, to some extent, whether we consider the characters ideographic or as, in some sense, phonetic.

The lists of the days in the Maya, Tzental, Quiche-Cakchiquel, Zapotec, and Nahuatl, in the order usually given, are as follows:

Names of the days in the different calendars

THE FIRST DAY

Maya, imix (or ymix); Tzental, imox or mox; Quiche-Cakchiquel, imox or moxin; Zapotec, chilla or chiylla; Nahuatl, cipactli.

The symbol of this day, which is quite uniform in the day series of the codices, is shown in plate LXIV, 1.207-1 In this the essential features appear to be the black spot at the top, the semicircle of dots around it, and the short perpendicular lines in the lower half. The form on the right slab of the “Palenque tablet,” and also in the Lorillard City inscription, copied by Charney, is given in plate LXIV, 2. The only particular in which this differs from the other is that the little circle at the top is crosshatched. The form shown in LXIV, 3, is found in the Tikal inscription; it shows also the crosshatching in the little circle at the top. This character, however, when combined with other glyphs, and when used otherwise than as a day symbol, sometimes varies from the types given. For example, in the symbol of the month Mac it is as shown in plate LXIV, 4. In this a minute, divided oblong, takes the place of the dark spot at the top, and a double curved line accompanies the circle of dots. Another form is shown in plate LXIV, 5. The only variation in this from the usual type is the introduction of two or three minute circles in the curved line of dots and the divided oblong. Dr Seler is inclined to believe that these are essential variants from the true imix symbol; nevertheless, as m is the chief consonant element both in imix, or mox and mac, there appears to be a relation between the form of the glyphs and their phonetic value.

Drs Seler and Schellhas believe im to be the radical of imix and imox, which are dialectal variations of the same word. Dr Brinton, however, basing his opinion on the fact that mox and moxin are used sometimes as equivalents, decides that the radical syllable is m-x. In this he is probably correct, and if so, this furnishes additional evidence of the close relation between form and sound, as in one