eral tribes of
American Indians, and also by peoples of the Old World. As _nii_ or _ni_
signifies "nose, beak, point" in Maya and several cognate dialects, is
it not possible that in this is to be found an explanation of the second
Zapotec name? In this case, however, we must assume that the term is
borrowed, as in this language _xi_ or _xie_ is the term for "nose." I
notice, however, that the name for bird is given as _viguini_ and
_piguiini_. If _pi_ (_vi_) is a prefix, as seems probable from the word
for "hen," _guitii_, then we have some ground for believing that the
first Zapotec name has the same fundamental idea as the Mexican symbol.

It therefore would seem that it is not difficult to understand the
origin of the Mexican symbol. Examining plate 10, Borgian Codex, which
appears to represent the home of the winds, we see that, though mostly
furnished with human bodies, they have bird claws as well as bills. But
the origin of the Maya symbol is more difficult to account for. Dr Seler
remarks:

It is difficult to determine the original idea of this character.
Figure 210 [our plate LXIV, 24] and the forms on the reliefs--if we
have correctly interpreted these--lead us to think that the wind
cross, or the figure of the Tau resulting from it, was the origin
of the character. However, the forms of the Cod. Tro. are not
easily reconciled with this.

Dr Brinton[219-1] asserts, without heeding Dr Seler's caution, that it
is the sign of the four directions or four winds--the wind
cross--evidently alluding to the sharp-corner square seen in our plate
LXVI, 28. But he seems to have overlooked the fact that it is never thus
represented in the day symbol. Moreover, no satisfactory proof has been
presented showing that this form has this signification. Seler gives it
in some places, as above stated, the signification "fire," "flame;" and
if his interpretation of plate LXVI, 29 by _Kinich-kakmo_ be correct, as
Brinton seems to think it is, his interpretations are consistent.
However, Seler's assertion that "the forms of the Cod. Tro. are not
easily reconciled with this" must be admitted. In the codices this
glyph, as this author remarks, "rather brings to mind the idea of
hanging," often resembling a bunch of grapes.

I take for granted the symbol, when standing for the day, is not
pictorial or ideographic, but is adopted for its sound value. If this
supposition be correct, then it must be a con