tant one. The tusks belong
to HUITZILOPOCHTLI and to his trinity, and specially to TLALOC, his
companion.

Both Plate 20 and LX have the serpent wand or yoke clearly expressed. In
LX the serpent is decorated with crotalus heads; in 20 by images of the
sun (?), as in the FERJAVARY MS. (KINGSBOROUGH). The front apron or
ornament of Plate 20 is of snake skin, ornamented with sun-symbols.
Comparing Plate 20 with Fig. 52 (_ante_), we find quite other
resemblances. The head-dress of 20 is the same as the projecting arm of
the head-dress of Fig. 52; and the tusks are found in the helmet or mask
of Fig. 52.

These and other resemblances show the Kabah inscription to be a TLALOC.
It is interesting specially on account of its hieroglyphs, which I hope
to examine subsequently. The style of this writing appears to be late,
and may serve as a connecting link between the stones and the
manuscripts, and it is noteworthy that even the style of the drawing
itself seems to be in the manner of the Mexican MS. of LAUD, rather than
in that of the Palenque stone tablets.

From the card catalogue I select the following _chiffres_ as
appertaining to the family of the _Tlalocs_. As I have said, these must
for the present remain in a group, unseparated. Future studies will be
necessary to discriminate between the special signs which relate to
special members of the family. The _chiffres_ are Nos. 3200; 1864; 1403;
811; 1107?; 1943?; 4114??; _b_?; 1893 (bearded faces, or faces with
teeth very prominent); 166?; 4??; 807?; 62?; 155?; 26; 154?; 165?; 164?;
805; 4109; 1915?; 675??; 635?? (distinguished by the characteristic eye
of the TLALOCS).

Here, again, the writing is ideographic, and not phonetic.

X.

CUKULCAN OR QUETZALCOATL.

The character 2021 occurs many times in Plate LVI (Fig. 48), and
occasionally elsewhere. The personage represented is distinguished by
having a protruding tongue, and was therefore at once suspected to be
QUETZALCOATL. (See BANCROFT'S _Native Races_, vol. iii, p. 280.) The
protruding tongue is probably a reference to his introduction of the
sacrificial acts performed by wounding that member.

The rest of the sign I suppose to be the rebus of his name,
"Snake-plumage"; the part cross-hatched being "snake," the feather-like
ornament at the upper left-hand corner being "plumage." It is necessary,
however, to prove this before accepting the theory. To do this I had
recourse to Plates I and IV (Figs. 49, 5