two glyphs shown in plate LXVIII, 13, 14,
which occur together in Dres. 38b. In this case the two characters,
which are combined in plate LXIV, 8, are separated, yet must have the
same signification. Here the bird figure (a man with a bird's head or
bird mask) is seen below. In both instances rain is represented, showing
that the bird is supposed to bear some relation thereto. But it is more
likely that it has direct reference to the wind which accompanies the
rain storm rather than to "fruitfulness," as Seler supposes. Be this,
however, as it may, our rendering of the _imix_ symbol in this
connection appears to be justified, and indicates that the symbol is
used here for its phonetic value rather than with any reference to its
primary signification.

[Illustration: PL. LXIV. COPIES OF GLYPHS FROM THE CODICES]

Dr Seler also refers in this connection to the lower line of symbols on
Dres. 29-30b (three of which are shown in plate LXVIII, 15, 16, 17); to
those shown in plate LXVIII, 18, 19, from Tro. 14c; and those shown in
plate LXVIII, 20, 21, from Tro. 11a. He remarks that "in a number of
hieroglyphs the character _imix_ stands as an equivalent of a peculiar
animal head which bears as a distinctive mark the element _akbal_ over
the eye. Thus in the hieroglyphs enumerating those above mentioned
which, standing after the hieroglyphs of the cardinal points, seem to
express the deities presiding over them, indeed there appears here on
the same animal head, on one hand the character _imix_, on the other the
element figure 165" (our plate LXIV, 5).

Although I am unable to interpret satisfactorily the _imix_ symbols in
the places above referred to, I think it can be made apparent that Dr
Seler's explanation is without foundation. For instance, by referring to
the plates of the Dresden and Troano codices mentioned, it will be seen
that there is nothing whatever that refers to an "animal head which
bears the element _akbal_ over the eye," unless we suppose it to be in
plate LXVIII, 16 (from Dres. 29b) and LXVIII, 21 (from Tro. 11a). There
is no figure below or connected with either series to justify this
conclusion. It is also certain that plate LXVIII, 21 (Tro. 11a) is not
an animal head. Possibly plate LXVIII, 16 (Dres. 29b) may be intended
for an animal head, but this is not certain and, moreover, it is not
repeated in the series.

Referring to Cort. 27a it will be seen that the compound glyph shown in
plate LXVIII, 22