n derived from the aged wrinkled female face, yet he closes his
observations on this day in his first article as follows:

I think the reference to the eagle is very distinctly indicated
[referring to a number of glyphs accompanying or indicating an
eagle-like bird]. We can understand that these hieroglyphs were
annexed as attributes of the deities. But how is it that figures
687-689 [same as our plate LXVIII, 42] serve as a seat for the
Chac? Now Chac [he refers to the long-nose god] is not really a god
of water, but of rain; the rain-producing storm cloud is his
vehicle; the storm bird is his beast of burden on which he rides.

It follows from this, notwithstanding his supposition in regard to the
origin of the symbol, that he looks upon it as signifying the eagle, or
bird. However, the explanations given by Drs Brinton and Seler of the
Maya name fail to make a satisfactory connection between the names in
the different calendars.

Not only do we find birds introduced on the pages of the Troano and
Dresden codices above referred to, apparently for the purpose of
indicating augury, but on Dres. 69b we see the long-nose god (probably
Itzamna) sitting on the glyph LXVIII, 42, holding a bird in his arms.

Also on Dres. 73b, where the groups are composed of short columns, each
apparently relating to storms, winds, etc, we see in the right-hand
group the bird and _men_-like glyph associated. Whether these are in
fact _men_ glyphs is a question not yet determined. I am as yet unable
to interpret satisfactorily any of the compound characters of which
these supposed _men_ glyphs form a part. If the form shown in LXVI, 28,
the lower portion of which is substantially the same as Landa's first
_l_, is to be accepted as equivalent to LXVI, 55, then it is probable
that the symbol of the day does not indicate the phonetic value of the
name. This would lead to the supposition that the name _men_ is not the
original one applied to the day, or that the symbol has been changed. I
am inclined to believe one or the other of these suppositions to be
correct. If the symbol could be identified in the inscriptions, I would
adopt the first supposition until substantial evidence of its
erroneousness could be produced.

I am unable to offer any suggestions as to the origin of the symbol. I
do not think the suggestion that it is intended to represent an aged
face of woman or man of any force or worthy of