aya
Tlaloc, is seen amidst the storm, clothed in black and bearing on his
arm a shield on which are two _ik_ symbols (plate LXIV, 33), doubtless
indicative of the fierceness of the tempest. In front of him is the Corn
god, bending beneath the pouring rain. On plate 25, same codex, lower
division, the storm is again symbolized, and the _ik_ symbol is present
here also.

It seems from these facts to be quite certain that the value of the
symbol in the codices, so far as it can be satisfactorily determined,
corresponds in signification with the Maya name.

Referring again to Dr Seler's theory that the plant-like figures on Tro.
15*, 16* indicate the freshly extracted heart and the vapor arising
therefrom, the following additional items are noted: He says that in the
text the scene below, or at least these sprouting-plant figures, are
expressed by hieroglyphs 27-29, plate LXVIII. His comparison with the
so-called heart figures from the Mexican codices can scarcely be
regarded as convincing, for there is hardly any resemblance. Moreover,
he omits to furnish an explanation, on his theory, of the fact that some
of these rising "vapors" are crowned with blossoms or fruit (plate LXIV,
31).

I think it quite probable that Dr Seler, although not accepting the
theory of phoneticism, has been influenced to some extent by the form of
the right-hand character of the glyph shown in plate LXVIII, 27. This is
much like Landa's _o_, and _ol_ in Maya denotes "heart, etc."

According to Brasseur, _oloh_ signifies "a germ" and "to germinate;"
_hokol_ also has about the same meaning. This furnishes a consistent and
appropriate explanation of the figures, and gives at the same time the
phonetic value of the glyph. I have not determined the prefix
satisfactorily, but presume it is some word having _ch'_ or _tz'_ as its
chief phonetic element, which signifies "little," "plant," or something
similar.

I have not determined the other symbols to which Seler alludes in this
connection, but some of them, as may be seen by comparison with other
passages, do not have special reference to the plant-like figures.

Whether the little sharp-corner square seen in the upper right-hand
character of the compound symbols shown in plate LXVI, 28 and 55, and
others of similar form, are to be taken as _ik_ glyphs is yet an
undecided question. Dr Seler appears to have excluded them from this
category in his paper, so frequently referred to, though he subsequ