{"collection":"myth-cosmogony","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_19042/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_19042","id":"gutenberg_19042","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/19042","summary":null,"tags":["Anthropology","Category: Archaeology & Anthropology","Category: History - Ancient","Category: Mythology, Legends & Folklore","Category: Nature/Gardening/Animals","Mayan languages -- Writing","Mayas -- Antiquities"],"text":"Produced by Julia Miller and the Online Distributed\nProofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net\n\n\n\n\n\n\nTranscriber's Note\n\nA number of typographical errors and inconsistencies have been\nmaintained in this version of this book. They have been marked with a\n[TN-#], which refers to a description in the complete list found at the\nend of the text.\n\nThe following codes are used for characters that are not able to be\nrepresented in the text format used for this version of the book.\n\n[)a]    a with breve\n[c]     open o\n[[c].]  open o with dot under\n[=h]    h with stroke\n[p.]    p with dot under\n[^q]    q with circumflex\n[vs]    s with caron\n[vs.]   s with caron and dot under\n[t.]    t with dot under\n[ts.]   ts with dot under\n[+]     Dagger\n[++]    Double dagger\n\n\n\n\n\n                   PAPERS\n                   OF THE\n  PEABODY MUSEUM OF AMERICAN ARCHAEOLOGY AND\n        ETHNOLOGY, HARVARD UNIVERSITY\n\n              VOL. IV.--No. 3.\n\n\n               ANIMAL FIGURES\n                   IN THE\n                MAYA CODICES\n\n                     BY\n\n           ALFRED M. TOZZER, PH.D.\n                     AND\n           GLOVER M. ALLEN, PH.D.\n\n\n              CAMBRIDGE, MASS.\n           PUBLISHED BY THE MUSEUM\n               FEBRUARY, 1910\n\n\n\n\nSalem Press:\nTHE SALEM PRESS CO., SALEM MASS.\n1910.\n\n\n\n\nNOTE\n\n\nIt has been thought desirable, for the advancement of the study of Maya\nhieroglyphs, that the interpretation of the conventionalized animal\nfigures, which so frequently occur in the Maya codices, should be\nundertaken. The Peabody Museum Committee on Central American Research\ntherefore requested Dr. A. M. Tozzer to prepare a paper on the subject,\nand to secure the valuable cooperation of Dr. Glover M. Allen, a\nzoologist familiar with the animals of Mexico and Central America, to\naid in the identification of the various species of animals which under\nvarying forms are used in connection with the glyphs.\n\nWhile it is possible that some of the determinations given in this paper\nmay require further confirmation, it is evident that the combined\nstudies of Dr. Tozzer and Dr. Allen cannot fail to be useful to students\nof the Maya hieroglyphic writing.\n\nF. W. PUTNAM.\nHARVARD UNIVERSITY,\nAugust, 1909.\n\n\n\n\nKEY TO THE PRONUNCIATION OF MAYA WORDS\n\n\nThe vowels and consonants have their continental sounds with the\nfollowing exceptions:--\n\n  =[)a]=   like _u_ in hut\n  =ai=     like _i_ in island\n  =k=      (Beltran's _c_) ordinary palatal _k_\n  =q=      (Beltran's _k_) velar _k_\n  =[[c].]= (Beltran's _[c]_) _ts_ explosive or fortis\n  =[c]=    (Beltran's _tz_) _ts_ non-explosive\n  =[vs]=   (Beltran's _x_) like _sh_ in hush\n  =t[vs]=  (Beltran's _ch_) like _ch_ in church\n  =[ts.]=  (Beltran's _c[=h]_) _ch_ explosive\n  =[p.]=   (Beltran's _pp_) _p_ explosive\n  =t=      (Beltran's _t[=h]_) _t_ explosive\n\n\n\n\nLIST OF PLATES\n\n\n Plate.\n   1.  Mollusca: _Fasciolaria gigantea, Oliva_.\n   2.  Insecta: Honey bee (_Melipona_).\n   3.  Insecta and Myriapoda.\n   4.  Arachnoidea, Arachnida, Crustacea.\n   5.  Myriapoda, Pisces.\n   6.  Pisces.\n   7.  Amphibia.\n   8.  Amphibia, Reptilia.\n   9.  Reptilia: Rattlesnake (_Crotalus_).\n  10.  Reptilia: Serpents.\n  11.  Reptilia: Serpents.\n  12.  Reptilia: Iguana, Lizards.\n  13.  Reptilia: Crocodile\n  14.  Reptilia: Turtles.\n  15.  Aves: Herons, Frigate-bird.\n  16.  Aves: Ocellated Turkey (_Agriocharis ocellata_).\n  17.  Aves: King Vulture (_Sarcorhamphus papa_).\n  18.  Aves: King Vulture (_S. papa_), Black Vulture (_Catharista urubu_).\n  19.  Aves: Vultures.\n  20.  Aves: Harpy Eagle (_Thrasaetos harpyia_).\n  21.  Aves: Yucatan Horned Owl (_Bubo virginianus mayensis_).\n  22.  Aves: Yucatan Horned Ow[TN-1] (_B. v. mayensis_).\n  23.  Aves: Yucatan Screech Owl (_Otus choliba thompsoni_).\n  24.  Aves: Quetzal (_Pharomacrus mocinno_).\n  25.  Aves: Blue Macaw (_Ara militaris_).\n  26.  Aves: Parrots, Turkeys.\n  27.  Aves: Miscellaneous.\n  28.  Various animals.\n  29.  Mammalia: Armadillo and miscellaneous.\n  30.  Mammalia: Deer, Hare.\n  31.  Mammalia: Yucatan Deer (_Odocoileus yucatanensis_).\n  32.  Mammalia: Yucatan Peccary (_Tayassu angulatum yucatanense_),\n                 Yucatan Deer (_O. yucatanensis_).\n  33.  Mammalia: Yucatan Peccary (_T. a. yucatanense_).\n  34.  Mammalia: Jaguar, Puma.\n  35.  Mammalia: Jaguar, Coyote, Bear.\n  36, 37.  Mammalia: Dog (_Canis_).\n  38.  Mammalia: Leaf-nosed Bat (_Vampyrus_ or _Phyllostomus_).\n  39.  Mammalia: Monkey (_Cebus_) and miscellaneous.\n\n\n\n\nLIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS IN TEXT\n\n\n FIG.\n   1.  Top of Altar T, Copan (Mandslay,[TN-2] I. Pl. 95)             320\n\n   2.  Pottery whistle from Uloa Valley, Honduras, representing a\n       vulture. Peabody Museum Memoirs. I. No. 4, fig. 15            332\n\n   3.  }\n   4.  } Glyphs of Maya month _Moan_ showing moan-bird\n   5.  } characteristics                                             339\n   6.  }\n\n   7.  Quetzal from the bas-relief of the Temple of the Cross,\n       Palenque                                                      341\n\n   8.  }\n   9.  } Glyphs for Maya month _Kankin_ (Ribs of dogs)               364\n  10.  }\n\n  11.  }\n  12.  }\n  13.  } Glyphs for Maya month _Zotz_ (Bats)                         365\n  14.  }\n\n  15.  Pottery whistle from Uloa Valley, Honduras (Peabody Museum\n       Memoirs, I, No. 4, fig. 14), representing an ape              366\n\n  16.  }\n  17.  }\n  18.  } Glyphs for Maya day _Chuen_                                 367\n  19.  }\n\n  20.  }\n  21.  }\n  22.  } Glyphs of God C. (Schellhas, Peabody Museum Papers, IV,     368\n  23.  } No. 1)\n  24.  }\n\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION.\n\n\nThe various peoples inhabiting Mexico and Central America in early\npre-Columbian times were accustomed to record various events, especially\nin regard to their calendar and the religious ceremonials in relation to\nit, on long strips of skin or bark. These were usually painted on both\nsides and folded together like a screen. Several of these codices are\nstill in existence from the Nahua and Zapotec areas in Mexico, but only\nthree have come down to us from the Maya region which is included in the\npeninsula of Yucatan, the states of Tabasco and Chiapas in Mexico, and\nportions of Guatemala and Honduras. These three manuscripts are the\nDresden Codex in the Royal Public Library at Dresden, the\nTro-Cortesianus (formerly considered to have been two, the Troano and\nthe Cortesianus) in the National Archaeological Museum at Madrid, and\nthe Peresianus in the National Library at Paris. These pre-Columbian\nmanuscripts have all been published in facsimile. (See bibliography.)\n\nThese remains of a once extensive literature show evidence not only of\nconsiderable intellectual attainments on the part of their authors but\nalso of a high degree of artistic skill in the drawings and\nhieroglyphics. The frequent occurrence in these manuscripts of\nrepresentations of animals showing various degrees of elaboration and\nconventionalization has led us to undertake the task of identifying\nthese figures as far as possible and studying the uses and significance\nof the several species, a field practically untouched.[284-*]\nF\u00f6rstemann in his various commentaries on the Maya codices (1902, 1903,\n1906), Brinton (1895), and deRosny[TN-3] (1876) have only commented briefly\nupon this side of the study of the manuscripts. Seler (1904a) and some\nothers have written short papers on special animals. During the\npreparation of this paper there has appeared a brief account by Stempell\n(1908) of the animals in the Maya codices. The author has, however,\nomitted a number of species and, as we believe, misidentified others. In\nmaking our identifications we have given the reasons for our\ndeterminations in some detail and have stated the characteristics\nemployed to denote the several species.\n\nWe have not limited ourselves entirely to the Maya manuscripts as we\nhave drawn upon the vast amount of material available in the stone\ncarvings, the stucco figures, and the frescoes found throughout the Maya\narea. This material has by no means been exhausted in the present paper.\nIn addition to the figures from the Maya codices and a comparatively few\nfrom other sources in the Maya region, we have introduced for comparison\nin a number of cases figures from a few of the ancient manuscripts of\nthe Nahuas and the Zapotecs to the north. The calendar of these two\npeoples is fundamentally the same as that of the Mayas. The year is made\nup in the same way being composed of eighteen months of twenty days each\nwith five days additional at the end of the year. There is therefore a\nmore or less close connection as regards subject matter in all the\npre-Columbian codices of Mexico and Central America but the manner of\npresentation differs among the different peoples of this region.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[284-*] The first two parts of Dr. Seler's Treatise, \"Die Tierbilder der\nmexikanischen und der Maya-Handschriften\" published in the _Zeitschrift\nf\u00fcr Ethnologie_, Vol. 41, have appeared during the time when this paper\nwas passing through the press. The most excellent and exhaustive\ntreatment by Dr. Seler would seem to render the present paper\nunnecessary. It has seemed best, however, to continue with its\npublication inasmuch as its field is narrower and more space is devoted\nto the Maya side of the question to the exclusion of the Mexican. Dr.\nSeler, on the other hand, while by no means neglecting the Maya, has\nspent more time in explaining the Mexican figures.\n\n\n\n\nI\n\nSYNOPTIC CONSIDERATION OF THE MEANING AND OCCURRENCE OF ANIMAL FORMS\n\n\nBefore taking up the different animals in the codices it may be well to\nconsider some of the more common ways in which the figures occur and\ntheir connection with the surrounding figures.\n\nMANNER OF REPRESENTATION. The entire body of the animal may be\nrepresented realistically or the head alone may be shown. The animal\nhead is frequently attached to a human body. The animal may appear\nconventionalized to a greater or less extent and the head in turn may\nchange in the same way until only a single characteristic of the animal\nremains by which to identify it as, for example, the spots of the jaguar\nor the feathering around the eye of the macaw. In the case of the\nglyphs, a term employed to designate the regular and usually square\ncharacters appearing in lines or columns throughout the codices and\ninscriptions, we find both the realistic drawing and that where\nconventionalism has come in.\n\nTHE TONALAMATL. The Maya codices are made up, for the most part, of the\nrecords of the sacred period of two hundred and sixty days, a period\ncalled in Nahuatl, _tonalamatl_, and other numerical calculations. The\n_tonalamatl_ was used for purposes of divination in order to find out\nwhether good or bad fortune was in store for an individual. It is not\nnecessary at this place to go into the different means taken to record\nthis period of time or its methods of use. It may be well, however, to\nexplain the usual distribution of the pictures in the codices, including\nthose of animals, in connection with the representation of the\n_tonalamatl_. A normal period is shown in Dresden 6c-7c. A column of\nfive day signs occurs in the middle of 6c with a single red dot over it.\nTo the right of this column stretches a horizontal line of numbers\nconsisting of alternate groups of black and red lines and dots. Under\neach pair of red and black numbers there is usually a human form and\nover each pair a group of four glyphs belonging to the figure below.\nSchellhas (1904) has classified the various figures of gods appearing in\nthese vignettes of the _tonalamatl_ and lettered them. References\nthroughout the paper will be made to the gods by letters and the reader\nis referred to Schellhas' paper. Animal figures often take the place of\nthese gods as in the second picture in Dresden 7c where the screech owl\nis shown with human body. The greater number of animal figures in the\ncodices occur in some connection with these _tonalamatls_.\n\nMYTHOLOGICAL ANIMALS. Where figures are shown with human body and animal\nhead standing alone in the place usually occupied by one of the various\ndeities in the _tonalamatl_, there can be little doubt that they have a\nmythological meaning and are to be taken, either as gods themselves, or\nas representing certain of the gods. All of the animals are by no means\nshown in this position. The screech owl, or Moan bird (as in Dresden\n10a) appears most frequently in this way. The king vulture (Dresden 8a),\nthe dog (Dresden 7a), and the parrot (Dresden 40b) come next in\ndescending importance. The animals represented as copulating (as in\nDresden 13c) might also be considered as mythological animals as well as\nthe full drawings of the jaguar (Dresden 8a) and the other animals when\nthey occur alone in the regular vignette of the _tonalamatl_. The four\npriests in Dresden 25a-28a should also be regarded as representing, in\nall probability, the dog as a mythological animal. The idea of\nworshipping animals as gods in themselves is strengthened by noting the\nease with which the Maya people worshipped the horse which was left\nbehind by Cortes in his march from Mexico across to Honduras\n(Villagutierre, 1701, pp. 100-101).\n\nASTRONOMICAL IDEAS. Animals frequently have a part to play in relation\nto the constellations. Throughout the codices and, to a less degree, in\nthe stone carvings, we find what have usually been considered to be\nglyphs for several of the constellations. Numerous calculations in the\ncodices make it clear that the Mayas had a good knowledge of astronomy.\nThese glyphs are usually oblong in shape and three or more are arranged\ntogether end to end. We have called these the constellation bands.\nVarious attempts have been made to identify these signs of the various\nconstellations. Animals frequently are pictured below these bands. The\ndog with fire brands in his paws and often attached to his tail is shown\nin several places coming head downward from one of these bands (as in\nDresden 36a). The peccary is also shown in the same position although\nthe fire brands do not appear (Dresden 68a). A figure with macaw head\noccurs once standing beneath one of these bands with fire brands in his\nhands (Dresden 40b). The serpent (as in Dresden 36a), the\nlizard-crocodile-like animal in Dresden 74, the turtle (Tro-Cortesianus\n71a), the vulture (Dresden 38b), the turkey (Tro-Cortesianus 10b), and\nthe deer (Tro-Cortesianus 47a) all appear in connection with these\nconstellation bands. It is impossible at this time to decide upon the\npart these various animals play in relation to distinct constellations.\nIn addition to the animals named, several of the gods, especially god B,\nare found below these bands. One of these signs, the one identified by\nF\u00f6rstemann as standing for Saturn, is composed of the head of the\ncrocodile more or less conventionalized.\n\nF\u00f6rstemann (1902, p. 27) identifies the turtle with the summer solstice\nand the snail as the animal associated with the winter solstice. There\ndoes not seem to be any one animal used in connection with any one of\nthe cardinal points. In Tro-Cortesianus 88c the dog seems to be\nassociated with the north as shown by the glyph which is ordinarily\nregarded as connected with that direction, the ape with the west, and an\nunidentifiable bird sitting on a _Cimi_ (death) sign with the south. The\neast is connected in this place with a human figure. It should be\nstated, however, that it is not absolutely certain that the usual\nassignment of the cardinal points, each to its special direction, is\ncorrect. The signs for the east and west as well as those for the north\nand south may be reversed. With the exception of the assignment of the\noffering-glyphs to the various cardinal points which will be discussed\nlater (p. 290) this is almost the only case where a clear relation can\nbe made out between the various animals and the signs for the four\ndirections. There is no definite relation as is seen, for example, in\nthe Vaticanus 3773, 17, 18 where the quetzal is noted perched on the\ntree of the east, the eagle on that of the north, the humming bird on\nthat of the west, and the jaguar on the tree of the south.\n\nCOPULATION. The conception, the period of pregnancy, the infant baptism,\nand possibly, the naming of children are shown in both the\nTro-Cortesianus (91-95) and the Dresden (13-23). Animals are frequently\nshown copulating with various gods or with one another. In Dresden 13c,\nthe deer and god M and the vulture and the dog; in 19c, the vulture and\na woman; in Tro-Cortesianus 91d, a god and a woman; and in 92d, an\narmadillo and a deer both with female figures. These animals probably\nrepresent in some way the totems of the man or woman in question and are\nshown in place of the human figure. The Lacandones, a Maya people, show\nat the present time the remains of a totemic system (Tozzer, 1907, pp.\n40-42). The deer (_Ke_) gens is found at the present time. In the\ngreater number of cases where copulation is shown a god and a female\nfigure are pictured. The presentation of the new-born children by women\nwith bird head-dresses, also occurring in this same section of both\nmanuscripts, is discussed later (p. 291).\n\nANIMAL SACRIFICES. Various ceremonials occurring at intervals throughout\nthe Maya year which included sacrifices to the gods, evidently took up a\nlarge part of the time of the people. Animals composed by far the major\npart of the gifts made to the gods. This was especially true in regard\nto the ceremonies occurring at the beginning of each year. According to\nthe Maya calendar there were four days only which could come at the\nbeginning of the year and these came in succession. Landa (1864, pp.\n210-233), the first Bishop of Yucatan, gives a minute description of the\nrites of the four years which were named according to the initial day.\nHe also relates the manner in which the various animals are employed as\nofferings in these rites and also in others taking place at the\nbeginning of the various months.[289-*]\n\nThe rites which took place at the beginning and the end of the year are\nshown in Dresden 25-28 and in Tro-Cortesianus 34-37. The dog, the deer,\nand the turkey are the most important of the animals shown as being\noffered to the gods in this connection. It will not be necessary to\nconsider these animals in detail at this place as they are each taken up\nlater.\n\nOFFERINGS SHOWN BY GLYPHS. It is, however, in another connection than\nthat just considered that the animals are shown as offerings far more\nfrequently throughout the Maya manuscripts. In the ceremonies of the\nfour years, the animals and birds are, for the most part, represented\nentire and purely as pictures. Offerings are also shown in the form of\nglyphs. These may occur in connection with the figures of the gods or in\nthe lines of hieroglyphs above the pictures. When they are used in the\nformer relation they are usually shown as resting in a bowl or dish\n(Dresden 35a). It frequently happens that when a god is making an\noffering represented by the entire animal or a glyph of the animal in\nthe main picture, there is a corresponding glyph of the offering above\nin the line of hieroglyphics (Dresden 23b).\n\nThe fish, iguana, turkey, deer and possibly the lizard are the usual\nanimals shown as glyphs in this connection. The frigate bird occurs once\nin the Dresden (35a) and once in the Tro-Cortesianus (34a) as an\noffering. The dog, curiously enough, does not seem to be represented by\nan offering-glyph although he has a glyph of his own when appearing in\nother connections. The iguana and fish are shown entire although drawn\nvery small; the head is the only part usually shown of the turkey and\nthe haunch of venison of the deer. The head and feet of the lizard, as\nhas been noted, may also be shown by a glyph. The turkey and iguana\nglyphs are very often found with a _Kan_ sign indicating an offering of\nmaize and bread as well as that of the animal. In connection with glyphs\nshowing various offerings of food, there is one which occurs especially\nin the Tro-Cortesianus (as in 106a). This shows a row of points\nthemselves running to a point over a _Kan_ sign. This, as will be\npointed out later (p. 318) may also represent an iguana. The jar\ncontaining a representation of the honey comb (as in Tro-Cortesianus\n107b) might come in here in the consideration of the offering-glyphs.\n\nIn many instances the common offerings shown by glyphs are found\nassociated with the signs for the four cardinal points but there does\nnot seem to be any strict uniformity as to the special offering\nassociated with each direction. In Dresden 29b, the lizard glyph is\nfound in the same group with the sign commonly assigned to the east, the\nturkey with the south, the iguana with the west, and the fish with the\nnorth while in Dresden 29c, the deer is associated with the east, the\nfish with the south, the iguana with the west, and the turkey with the\nnorth. The iguana is usually found with the sign for the west and the\nfish with that of the south. The others vary greatly in the assignment\nof the various directions.\n\nSchellhas (1904, p. 17) considers that the fish, the lizard, \"the\nsprouting kernel of maize or (according to F\u00f6rstemann, parts of a\nmammal, game)\" and a vulture's head are symbols of the four elements.\nThe head which Schellhas interprets as that of the vulture is certainly\nthe head of a turkey. He remarks that these signs of the four elements\nappear with god B in the Dresden manuscript. Other gods, as he also\nnotes, are found with these four offering-glyphs. There seems to be a\nfifth glyph, however, (as in Dresden 29b) which we have interpreted as\nthat of a lizard.\n\nANIMALS AS RAIN BEARERS. Various animals are associated with the rain\nand water. The serpent is most frequently represented in this\nconnection. Snails, fish, the turtle, and the frog, as well as the\nlizard-crocodile figure in Dresden 74 are naturally found associated\nwith water. The vulture-headed figure in Dresden 38b and the vulture as\na bird in Tro-Cortesianus 10a both appear in the rain. The peccary\n(Dresden 68a), and the turkey (Tro-Cortesianus 10b) appear associated\nwith the rain as well as with the constellation bands. The scorpion\n(Tro-Cortesianus 7a) encloses the rain within its legs.\n\nThe connection of an old female figure occurring in many places in the\ncodices with the rain will be discussed later (p. 316) when considering\nthe serpent. It remains at this place to comment upon the woman in\nTro-Cortesianus 30b from whose breasts water is flowing. She is\nrepresented as having animal figures seated on her two outstretched\nhands and on her right foot together with another animal at her side.\nGod B sits on her left foot. This picture immediately recalls\nrepresentations in the Mexican codices where the various parts of the\nbody of a god are associated with various day signs, ten of which have\nanimal names. In the Maya picture, a jaguar is shown on the right hand,\na peccary on the left, a dog on the right foot, and a rabbit beside the\nbody at her right. The peccary is not represented among the Nahua day\nsigns but the other three are found, namely the _oceolotl_ (jaguar),\n_itzcuintli_ (dog), and _tochtli_ (rabbit).\n\nANIMAL HEAD-DRESSES. Animal figures appear perhaps most frequently as\nhead-dresses of the various gods in the codices. Here, as elsewhere,\nfrom all that can be made out, the religious character is uppermost as\nin addition to being a decoration, they undoubtedly have some religious\nsignification. Birds occur by far most commonly in this connection. Both\nmale and female figures seems to have these head-dresses. The same bird\nis often found as the head-dress of several different gods as, for\nexample, the turkey which appears with gods A, B, C, E, and N. The\nvulture, on the other hand, when used as a head-dress for male figures,\nappears exclusively with god F. The whole bird is seldom represented on\nthe head-dress of the male figures. It is usually only the head and a\npart of the body of the bird which forms but a portion of the whole\nhead-covering. Landa (1864, p. 148)[292-*] notes the dress of the leader\nin the rites. He wears a jacket of red feathers worked with other\nfeathers and from it hang long plumes. He also wears a feather\nhead-dress.\n\nEntire birds appear as the sole head-covering only in connection with\nfemale figures and then only in one section of the Dresden (16-18) and a\nparallel passage in the Tro-Cortesianus (94-95). In both these places\nthe conception and the bearing of children are shown together with their\nbaptism. The bird above the head of each female figure seems to be a\nbadge of office, possibly the totems which are held by the women and\ngiven to the children. The parrot, quetzal, vulture, screech owl and the\nhorned owl appear in this connection. It is to be noted that the birds\nassociated with these women are not really represented as head-dresses\nat all. They are quite different from the head decoration composed of a\nbird's head and feathers seen in other parts of the manuscripts. In the\nDresden especially, these birds above the women's heads are shown in\nalmost every case standing with the claws clasping the necklace at the\nback of the neck. Landa (1864, pp. 144-154) gives an interesting account\nof the method of baptising children. He also states (p. 304)[292-[+]]\nthat in the month _Yaxkin_ an old woman brought the little girls to the\ngeneral feast. This old woman was dressed in a garment of feathers. It\nwas understood that this devoted old woman was not permitted to become\nintoxicated[293-*] lest she should lose in the road the plume of her\noffice.\n\nThe serpent appears as a head-dress exclusively with female figures and\nthen usually when the woman is in the act of offering something or is\nassociated with water or rain. The centipede occurs only with god D.\nQuadrupeds are employed as head-dresses only very seldom. The head of a\ndeer is, in three places, used as a part of the head decoration of god M\nand the head of a jaguar appears in two places only.\n\nSECULAR OCCUPATIONS. Animals appear frequently in scenes showing various\noccupations. These, although appearing at first sight as secular, have\nto do with the religion of the people and they show in every case acts\nundertaken in behalf of the deities. It is almost exclusively in the\nTro-Cortesianus that these religious-secular occupations are shown.\n\nHunting scenes occur in one section of this codex (38-49). The whole aim\nof the hunt in these pages is to obtain animals for sacrifice. In almost\nevery case the various animals are shown as being captured alive, either\nin a pitfall or a trap of the \"jerk-up\" type. This was undoubtedly in\norder that the animal might be killed the moment it was offered to the\ngods by having its heart cut out. Deer are most commonly represented in\nthis hunting section although peccaries and armadillos also appear.\nFishing is shown in one place at least (Dresden 33a).\n\nThe practice of agriculture is shown in Tro-Cortesianus 24-28. The\nsprouting grain is represented as being eaten by a vulture and a jaguar.\nCertain gods in this section which relates to the planting of maize are\nshown as being attacked by vultures and blow-flies. Another occupation\nof the natives depicted in the Tro-Cortesianus (103-112) is apiculture.\nThis, again, has clearly some religious significance. Pottery-making is\nshown in the same manuscript (95-101). It is, however, a purely\nreligious ceremony. The renewal of the incense-burners is shown.\nAnimals occur very infrequently in this section. The quetzal and two\nvultures are noted seated on top of an oven-like covering under which is\nthe head of god C, probably representing the idol. There are several\nother occupations shown in this codex such as weaving (79c) and the\ngathering of the sap of the rubber tree (102b), but as animals do not\noccur in any connection with these operations, it is not necessary to\ndwell upon them.\n\nANIMAL GLYPHS. It remains finally to speak of the various animals which\nare represented in glyph form as well as drawn in full in the pictures\nproper. The creatures pictured in the codices are often accompanied by\ntheir glyphs which appear in the lines of signs directly above. In many\ncases, the animal pictured below is not represented by its glyph above\nand, vice versa, the animal glyph may appear without its picture below.\nThe same is seen also in connection with the representation of the gods\nand their glyphs. Both the picture and the glyph usually appear but\neither may appear alone. Many times when the glyph, either of a god or\nan animal, is shown with no accompanying picture, the reason seems to be\nthat there is no room for the latter on account of the numerical\ncalculations which take up all the space.\n\nThere are some animals in the codices which are represented by glyphs\nvery frequently. Among these are the screech owl (the Moan, the bird of\ndeath), which has several different glyphs by which it is recognized,\nthe dog which, in addition to its own glyph, may be represented by the\nday sign _Oc_, the king vulture, the turtle, the bee (if we consider the\nday sign _Cauac_ stands for this insect), and the centipede. Among the\nanimals whose glyphs only seldom appear may be mentioned the macaw, the\npeccary, the tree-toad (god P), the quetzal, and the jaguar. The glyph\nfor the black vulture (Tro-Cortesianus 26c), the ape (Tro-Cortesianus\n88c), the deer (Peresianus 10), the eagle (Tro-Cortesianus 107c), and\nthe serpent (Tro-Cortesianus 106c) seem to appear but once. It might\nalso be well to mention in this place the glyphs for various molluscs\nwhich are used not to represent the shell but to give the value of zero\nto the numerical calculations.\n\nIn the inscriptions glyphs frequently occur which represent animals\neither showing the whole body or simply the head. In the eastern fa\u00e7ade\nof the Monjas at Chichen Itza there are glyphs for both the king and the\nblack vulture and the peccary. The macaw and the turtle seem also to be\nrepresented by glyphs in the inscriptions. The _Tun_ period glyph shows\nvulture-like characteristics and the _Uinal_ period glyph certainly\nresembles the lizard. The glyphs representing the various animal\nofferings have already been discussed under a special heading (p. 289).\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[289-*] p. 162. \"Las mugeres no usavan destos derrammamientos, aunque\neran harto santeras; mas de todas las cosas que aver podian que son aves\ndel cielo, animales de la tierra, o pescados de la agua, siempre les\nembadurnavan los rostros al demonio con la sangre dellos.\"\n\np. 164. \"Y otras cosas que tenian ofrecian; a algunos animales les\nsacavan el corazon y lo ofrecian, a otros enteros, unos vivos, otros\nmuertos, unos crudos, otros guisados.... Que sin las fiestas en las\nquales, para la solemnidad de ellas, se secrificavan animales, tambien\npor alguna tribulacion o necessidad.\"\n\np. 254. \"Tenian buscados todos animales y savandijas del campo que\npodian aver y en la tierra avia, y con ellos se juntavan en el patio del\ntemplo en el qual se ponian los _Chaques_.... Sacavan con liberalidad\nlos cora\u00e7ones a las aves y animales, y echavanlos a quemar en el fuego;\ny sino podian aver los animales grandes como tigres, leones o largartos,\nhazian los cora\u00e7ones de su encienso, y si los matavan trayanles los\ncora\u00e7ones para aquel fuego.\"\n\n[292-*] \"Vestido salia con un jaco de pluma colorado y labrado de otras\nplumas de colores, y que le cuelgan de los estremos otras plumas largas\ny una como coroza en la cabe\u00e7a de las mesmas plumas.\"\n\n[292-[+]] \"Y a las ni\u00f1as se les dava una vieja, vestida de un habito de\nplumas, que las traia alli y por esto la llamavan _Ixmol_, la\nallegadera.... Aquella devota vieja allegaria con que se emborachava en\ncasa por no perder la pluma del officio en el camino.\"\n\n[293-*] \"Intoxication was obligatory with the men in many of the\nreligious rites. This is reported by the early Spanish historians and is\nthe case at the present time among the Lacandones.\" (See Tozzer, 1907,\np. 136.)\n\n\n\n\nII\n\nZOOLOGICAL IDENTIFICATION AND ETHNOLOGICAL EXPLANATION OF ANIMAL FORMS.\n\n\nIn the descriptions of the animals which follow the general plan will be\nto consider first the identification purely from a zoological point of\nview, and, secondly, the connection and, wherever possible, the meaning\nof the use of the various animal figures wherever they occur.\n\n\nMOLLUSCA\n\nFASCIOLARIA GIGANTEA. Representations of this marine shell are found in\nseveral places in the codices. It is the only large _Fusus_-like species\non the western coast of the Gulf of Mexico, and, indeed, is the largest\nknown American shell. It is therefore not strange that it should have\nattracted the attention of the Mayas and found a place in their\nwritings. Several figures are shown that represent _Fasciolaria_ (Pl. 1,\nfigs. 1-9). One in the Codex Vaticanus 3773 (Pl. 1, fig. 3) in common\nwith those shown in Pl. 1, figs. 2, 6, 9, has the spire represented by\nsegments of successively smaller size. The species of _Fasciolaria_\noccurring on the Yucatan and adjacent coasts is characterized by\nnumerous prominent bosses or projections on its later whorls, and these,\ntoo, appear in conventionalized form in most of the representations. In\nPl. 1, fig. 2, the second whorl, and in figs. 6, 9, the third whorl is\nshown with three stout tubercles in side view, corresponding to those\nfound in this region of the shell. Figs. 7, 8 (Pl. 1) are glyphs\nrepresenting the same species, but as in fig. 4, the spire is omitted,\nthough the knobs are present. Round spots of color are evidently\nintended by the markings on the shells shown in figs. 3, 5, 6 (Pl. 1).\nFig. 5, shows a further modification of the spire, which here is made\nlike the head of a serpent.\n\nThe _Mollusca_ in the codices are not always associated with the water\nalthough this is usually the case. God N (Pl. 1, fig. 1) sitting with\nthe shell around his body is represented as in the rain and the shells\nin Pl. 1, figs. 4, 6, appear under water. The snail (Maya, _[vs]ot_) is\nconsidered by the Nahuas as the symbol of birth and death. The first\nidea is well brought out in Pl. 1, fig. 2, where the human figure is\nemerging from a shell. The same idea among the Mayas is seen in Pl. 1,\nfig. 1, where god N is coming from a shell. As god N is usually\nassociated with the end of the year, we may have here the complementary\nidea of death associated with the shell. The same meaning is brought out\nin the Bologna Codex (Pl. 1, fig. 3) where the shell is decorated with\nflint points, the symbol of death. As the tortoise is often identified\nwith the summer solstice, as previously pointed out, so the snail is\nassociated with the winter solstice.\n\nF\u00f6rstemann's identification of the head-dress of god D (Dresden 5c), god\nA (Dresden 9c, 13a), and god E (Dresden 11c) as representing snails is\nnot clear. Stempell (1908, p. 739) also follows the same course thinking\nthat the knob-like prominences represent the stalked eyes of snails.\nThis seems quite unlikely as such representations are usually short and\noccur in too widely dissimilar connections. Moreover, there are\nsometimes three of these instead of but a single pair (Dresden 14a). A\nsimilar attempt has been made by Brinton to identify the head-dress of\nthe death god (god A) as the snail. The head-dress in Dresden 13a and\n13b associated with god A looks far more like the head and upper jaw of\nsome mammal.\n\nOLIVA. A univalve shell frequently represented is of an oval shape,\npointed at each end, with a longitudinal lip and a short spire at one\nextremity. This is doubtless a species of _Oliva_, a marine shell. Mr.\nCharles W. Johnson informs us that _O. reticulata_ is the species\noccurring on the Yucatan shores, while _O. splendidula_ is found in\nother parts of the Gulf of Mexico. Representations of this shell are\nshown in Pl. 1, figs. 10-12. In figs. 10, 11, the lip and spire are\napparent but in fig. 12 the lip only is seen as a white fissure against\nthe general dark background. An earthenware vessel representing a tapir\n(Pl. 28, fig. 1) shows a string of _Oliva_ shells about the animal's\nneck and similar strings very often decorate the belts worn by the\npersonages represented on the stelae of Copan.\n\nThe shell in the codices is found in most cases to represent zero in the\nMaya numerical calculations. Just as a bar has the meaning five, and a\ndot one, so the shell often has the signification of zero. This is seen\nespecially in the numeration by position in the codices (Pl. 1, figs. 7,\n8, 10-14).\n\nOTHER MOLLUSCA. In addition to the species just described at least two\nor three others occur in the Nuttall Codex, but so conventionalized that\nit is out of the question to hazard a guess at their identity. One (Pl.\n1, figs. 16, 17) is a bivalve with long pointed shell, another (Pl. 1,\nfigs. 18-20) is rounder with conventionalized scroll-like markings.\nFigs. 21, 22 (Pl. 1) may be a side view of the closed bivalve shown in\nfigs. 16, 17, or possibly a species of cowry. In like manner, fig. 13 is\nprobably a side view of the mollusc shown in fig. 14, for it is seen\nthat in each case the figure showing the two opened valves has a\nbipartite extended foot, whereas that of the single valve is simple.\nThis doubling of the single median foot of the bivalve may be an\nartistic necessity for the sake of balance, or perhaps represents both\nfoot and siphon at the same end. Figs. 23, 24 (Pl. 1) seem to represent\nmolluscs still further reduced and conventionalized. These molluscs from\nthe Nuttall Codex (Pl. 1, figs. 15-24) are almost all found represented\nin the blue water, whereas those which stand for zero in the Maya\ncodices have no immediate association with either water or rain.\n\n\nINSECTA\n\nTHE HONEY BEE (_Melipona_). A portion of the Tro-Cortesianus appears to\ntreat of apiculture, as previously noted, or, at all events, contains\nnumerous figures of bees, some of which are shown in Pl. 2. As stated by\nStempell (1908, p. 735) this is doubtless a species of _Melipona_,\nprobably _M. fulvipes_ or _domestica_. It is well known that this bee\nwas kept by the ancient Mexicans, and what appear to be improvised hives\nare shown in Pl. 2, figs. 7, 10, where the combs are noted depending\nfrom the ceiling or walls. These combs are seen to be composed of cells\nroughly four-sided for the most part, though in fig. 11 several\nhexagonal cells are present in the mass of comb held by the black god,\nM. Darwin, in his _Origin of Species_, has called attention to the form\nof the comb built by this bee, and considers its irregular cells of from\nthree to six sides intermediate in their degree of perfection between\nthose of the bumble bee (_Bombus_) and the honey bee of Europe (_Apis\nmellifica_). The _Caban_ form in connnection[TN-4] with the hive in fig.\n10 may have some phonetic signifiance[TN-5] as _kab_ is honey in Maya.\nThis sign occurs very frequently in the pages devoted to apiculture.\n\nThe figures of the bees in the codex show a number of interesting\nvariations. In figs. 1-3, 5, 11, the insect is less conventionalized\nthan in figs. 4, 6 (Pl. 2). The hairy feet are well indicated as well as\nthe segmented body and a single pair of wings. All the figures show an\nanterodorsal view so that, on account of the size of the first pair of\nlegs, only the tops of the second pair appear in Pl. 2, figs. 1, 3, 5.\nIn fig. 2, however, two pairs are seen, and in figs. 4, 6, the\nanthropomorphic tendency is further shown by providing the insect with\ntwo pairs of limbs each with four or five digits, and a conventionalized\nface, eyes and mouth. In Pl. 2, fig. 1, the bee is represented without\nmouthparts but antennae only. This may indicate a drone or a queen bee\nthat takes no active part in the work of gathering honey or making comb.\nFig. 2 is perhaps the least reduced of any of the figures and shows the\nworker bee with antennae and mouthparts.\n\nThe so-called \"cloud balls\" of the day sign _Cauac_ (Pl. 2, fig. 8) may\nrepresent the honey comb. _Cauac_ is usually supposed to have some\nconnection with lightening[TN-6] and thunder although Valentini agrees with\nthe authors in associating _Cauac_ with the bees and honey. The\n_Cauac_-like forms in Pl. 2, figs. 7, 10, have been described above as\nhives. The representation of legs in the full drawing of a bee as four\nlarge limbs, an anterior and a posterior pair, coupled with the method\nof drawing the insect as seen from above and in front, may have led to\nits final expression by an X-shaped mark shown in connection with the\nhives (Pl. 2, figs. 7, 10). The X is also seen in the day sign _Cauac_.\n\nApiculture was common among the various peoples of Central America and\nMexico. Las Casas speaks of hives of bees and Gomara states that the\nbees were small and the honey rather bitter. Clavigero (Vol. 1, p.\n68)[300-*] mentions six varieties of bees which were found in\nMexico;--the first is the same as the common bee of Europe, the second\ndiffers from the first only in having no sting and is the bee of Yucatan\nand Chiapas which makes the fine clear honey of aromatic flavor. The\nthird species resembles in its form the winged ants but is smaller than\nthe common bee and without a sting. The fourth is a yellow bee, smaller\nthan the common one but, like it, furnished with a sting. The fifth is a\nsmall bee without a sting which constructs hives of an orbicular form in\nsubterranean cavities and the honey is sour and somewhat bitter. The\n_Tlalpipiolli_, which is the sixth species, is black and yellow, of the\nsize of the common bee, but has no sting.\n\nThe natives of the country at the present time often cultivate hives of\nbees in logs which they hollow out for this purpose and keep in a\nspecially constructed shelter. It is, however, rather the ceremonial\nside of apiculture that is the interesting feature and this is clearly\nemphasized in the Tro-Cortesianus. The section in this manuscript (80b,\n103-112), as has been noted, is taken up almost exclusively with the\nculture of the bee and in all probability represents a definite\nreligious ceremony or series of rites which are connected intimately\nwith bees and honey. Landa (1864, p. 292)[300-[+]] states that in the\nmonth _Tzoz_ the natives prepare for a ceremony in behalf of the bees\nwhich takes place in the following month, _Tzec_. In the month _Mol_\nanother fiesta is undertaken in behalf of these insects so that the\ngods may provide an abundance of flowers for the bees (Landa, 1864, p.\n306).[301-*]\n\nIt seems clear therefore that we have represented in the pages of the\nTro-Cortesianus referred to, the rites carried out in this connection.\nThe more or less realistic drawings of the bees (Pl. 2, figs. 1-6, 9)\nrepresent the god of the bees and to him offerings of food and incense\nare being made. Pl. 2, fig. 11, shows the war god (M) with his eagle\nhead-dress offering a mass of honey in the comb to the god of the bees.\n\nCuriously enough the bee does not seem to be represented in the Dresden\nCodex. F\u00f6rstemann's identification of the head-dress of the goddess in\nDresden 9a as a bee does not seem to us to be correct.\n\nIn addition to the bees, there occurs in the Nuttall Codex 4 (Pl. 3,\nfig. 4) a curious representation of an insect with a pointed beak-like\nstructure and a spine at the posterior extremity of its human-like body.\nIt is engaged in apparent conflict with a man and may represent a\nhornet.\n\nBLOW-FLY (_Sarcophaga_). Two figures in the Tro-Cortesianus (Pl. 3,\nfigs. 1, 2) are of special interest since they appear to have been\nfrequently regarded as picturing snakes attacking men. These are\nthick-bodied sinuous creatures distinguished by the curious conformation\nof the mouth and by a lateral row of dots that may represent the\nmetameric spiracles or, as commonly, a demarcation between dorsal and\nventral surfaces. That these are maggots of a blow-fly (_Sarcophaga_)\nthere can be little doubt, not only on account of their mouth parts\nwhich are similar to those of the agave maggot (see later) but also\nbecause of their relation to God F whom they are devouring. The latter\nin fig. 1 is doubtless dead as shown by the closed eye and it is the\nhabit of the blow-fly to deposit its eggs in the nasal cavity of dead\nanimals as well as elsewhere on the body. The fact that in each case a\nmaggot is attacking the god's nose may indicate that this habit was\nknown to the artist who, consequently, shows the larvae in this\nposition. In Pl. 3, fig. 2, the god's eye is not closed but his passive\nattitude while the maggot devours his hand and nose does not indicate\nthat he is in full possession of his strength. In addition to the\nblow-fly, a screw-fly (_Chrysomyia_) lays its eggs on the bodies of\nanimals, often on persons sleeping, and these may hatch almost at once\ninto small maggots that penetrate the skin. It may be, therefore, that\nthe larvae here considered belong to this genus.\n\nIn addition to god F, in Tro-Cortesianus 24d, there is another\nrepresentation of the same god being attacked by a vulture. This bird is\nevidently eating his nose. In this case the god is shown with the closed\neye as in 27d. In Tro-Cortesianus 25d the fly seems to be attacking the\nmouth of god F. From the fact that no other god is ever found in this\nconnection it may be suggested that there may be some relation between\ngod F as a god of human sacrifice and the fact that his dead body is\nbeing eaten by blow-flies and vultures. A portion of the body of the\nperson sacrificed was usually eaten by those taking part in the\nceremony.\n\nLEPIDOPTEROUS INSECTS. In Tro-Cortesianus 28c (Pl. 3, fig. 3) is shown a\nsecond insect larva with curiously formed mouth parts. It is represented\nas attacking agave which is springing from the ground as shown by the\n_Caban_ signs in the codex. Hough (1908, p. 591) has shown this to be\nthe larva of _Acentrocneme kollari_ Felder, \"called by the Mexicans\n_guson_, and in Nahuatl _mescuillin_.\" This grub, he says, is white,\nabout an inch long, and tunnels the fleshy leaves of the agave. It is\ngreatly prized as an article of food for \"_gusones_ to this day are\ncollected in April, boiled, wrapped in the epidermis of the agave, sold\non the streets of Mexico, and are eaten with avidity. To all appearances\nthey are nourishing and palatable, and it is said that connoisseurs\nprefer them to oysters or swallows' nests.\" Hough believes \"that the\ndiscovery of the sap-yielding quality of the agave was through search\nfor these larvae.\"\n\nIn the Nuttall Codex occur numerous representations of insects, some of\nwhich appear to represent butterflies or moths (Pl. 3, figs. 5-8) but\nthese are quite unidentifiable. That shown in fig. 6 is colored blue in\nthe original, while the others are of various colors. Possibly the round\nmarkings on the wings in figs. 5, 8, represent the ocelli on the wings\nof certain species of moths. In this connection, too, it is interesting\nto compare the conventionalized butterfly with its single eye and\npointed antennae from the Aubin manuscript (Pl. 3, fig. 9) with one\ndrawn on the same plan from the Nuttall Codex (Pl. 3, fig. 8).\n\n\nMYRIAPODA\n\nRepresentations of a centipede (probably a species of _Scolopendra_)\noccur in the Dresden Codex and in several others examined. That shown in\nPl. 5, fig. 1, from the Vaticanus 3773, is perhaps the least\nconventionalized.[303-*] This figure appears partly to encircle a\ntemple, behind which the major portion of its length is hidden and hence\nis not here shown. The bipartite structure coming from the animal's head\ndoubtless represents the mouthparts, and at its base on either side\narise antennae. The first pair only of legs is shown with a pinching\nclaw, possibly intended as a conventionalized hand, while the rest are\nsimple. The plumes decorating the posterior extremity are of course\nextraneous and represent the tail of the quetzal or trogon.\n\nIn the Dresden Codex, god D constantly appears in connection with a\nhead-dress from which depends a centipede, greatly reduced and\nconventionalized. Two forms of this centipede are shown in Pl. 3, figs.\n15, 18. The body appears to consist of four or five segments each with\nits pair of ambulatory appendages (though there may not always be the\nsame number of each) terminated by a circular segment with a\nconventionalized three-knobbed structure, apparently corresponding to\nthe portion that bears the quetzal plume in Pl. 5, fig. 1. The outline\nof the head in Pl. 3, fig. 15, is shown in dotted line but by solid line\nin fig. 18. One of the antennae appears to be omitted from the former\nfigure, also, but both are present in the latter. The insect-like head\nis made on much the same plan as that of the bee (Pl. 2, fig. 11), the\nfacial portion divided by a median line into a right and a left half\nwith a small triangle below for a mouth. The eyes, however, instead of\nbeing circular like those of the bee are made as narrow elongated\nprojections extending inward from the dorsal margin of the facial disc.\n\nThe glyphs for god D in Dresden 7b (Pl. 3, fig. 11), Dresden 7c, and\nDresden 14b (Pl. 3, fig. 12) undoubtedly show three forms of the sign\nfor god D, only one of which (fig. 12) is given by Schellhas (1904, p.\n22) among the signs of this god. In each of these cases the centipede\nhead surrounded by dots is shown in connection with the main part of the\nglyph. In Dresden 44b (Pl. 3, fig. 13) there is a glyph which seems to\nshow the same centipede head although it has no connection with god D in\nthe place where it is found. In Dresden 27 (Pl. 3, fig. 14), moreover,\nstill another variant of the glyph for god D seems to occur. This shows\na prefix clearly representing the centipede and the \"moon sign\" is the\nmain part of the glyph. Directly beside this in the codex is found the\n_Ahau_-like sign for god D and god D himself is represented in the\nmiddle section of the page.\n\nThe association of god D with the centipede may be explained by the fact\nthat as this god is regarded as the Moon or Night god, so the centipede\nis an animal which frequents dark places. Another point in this\nconnection may be made if we consider the head of the centipede in the\nhead-dress and in the glyphs as representing the day sign _Akbal_ (Pl.\n3, fig. 10) as _Akbal_ in Maya means night. It must be admitted,\nhowever, that the head might represent the day sign _Chuen_ almost as\nwell as _Akbal_. The centipede is connected with death and destruction\nin the same way as the owl. Both are shown in Vaticanus 3773, 13,\nassociated with the \"house of drought.\"\n\n\nCRUSTACEA\n\nWith one possible exception no crustaceans were found depicted in the\nMaya codices, but we have introduced figures of two from the Nuttall\nCodex. The first of these (Pl. 4, fig. 5) is probably a crayfish,\nperhaps _Cambarus montezumae_. It seems unlikely that the so-called\nSpanish lobster (_Palinurus_) can be intended or the powerful spined\nantennae would have been shown. It is interesting to note that the\nstalked eyes are clearly pictured. The second example seems to be a crab\n(Pl. 4, fig. 6). Two large chelae of nearly equal size are simply drawn\nand four rounded projections at the top of the figure appear to\nrepresent the walking legs. Its rotund form and subequal chelae suggest\nthe land crab, _Geocarcinus_, but exact determination is of course\nimpossible. What is certainly a large crab, perhaps of the same species,\nis shown in Tro-Cortesianus 88c (Pl. 36, fig. 1) in connection with a\ndog whose feet it seems about to pinch with its two large chelae. The\nshell is ornamented in a conventionalized way as if with scales.\n\n\nARACHNIDA\n\nIn Codex Borbonicus 9 (Pl. 4, fig. 4) there is represented a\nstout-bodied form of spider with two sharply pointed chelicerae\nprojecting from the conventionalized mouth. These characteristics\ntogether with the absence of any web, suggest a large predacious\nspecies, probably the tarantula (_Tarantula_ sp.) which is common in\nMexico. The acute powers of observation shown by the artist are evinced\nin this figure since he draws the spider correctly with eight legs\ninstead of the six or ten sometimes seen in drawings by our own\nillustrators.\n\n\nARACHNOIDEA\n\nThe scorpion (Maya, _sinaan_) figures prominently in the\nTro-Cortesianus, two drawings from which are shown (Pl. 4, figs. 1, 2).\nAs here conventionalized, the jointed appendages are represented as\ncomposed of an indefinite number of round segments. The large chelate\npedipalps are also prominently figured but the smaller walking legs are\ncommonly omitted. In Pl. 4, fig. 1, however, there is a pair of\nposterior chelate appendages which are probably added to give a more\nanthropoid cast to the figure. The slight projections along the sides of\nthe body in Pl. 4, fig. 2, probably do not represent the legs. In\nanother drawing (Tro-Cortesianus 44b) these are also present but further\nreduced so as not to exceed the heavy fringe of spines surrounding the\nbody. In Pl. 4, fig. 1, the fringe alone appears. The formidable nature\nof the scorpion is of course due to the poisonous sting at the tip of\nthe attenuated abdomen or \"tail.\" In the Maya pictures this portion is\nusually shown as a grasping organ. Thus in fig. 1 it is similar to the\nchela and holds a cord by which a deer has been caught. In fig. 2 the\n\"tail\" is terminated by a hand. The same thing is seen in\nTro-Cortesianus 44b where the hand seizes a cord by which a deer is\nsnared. The scorpion is represented in the drawings with a\nconventionalized face that is very characteristic. The facial disc is\ndivided into three parts by a median area of straight or irregular\nlateral boundaries ending anteriorly in two in-turned scrolls suggesting\nthe alae of the nose. A circular eye is present in each of the lateral\ndivisions of the face while from the oral region projects a forked\ntongue.\n\nIt is of course hazardous to attempt a specific identification of these\nfigures but, as pointed out by Stempell (1908, p. 739), there are two\nlarge scorpions in Yucatan (_Centruroides margaritatus_ and _C.\ngracilis_) which are probably the species pictured in the codices.\n\nThe representations of the scorpion in the Tro-Cortesianus are almost\nalways associated with scenes of the hunt. As the deer is caught in a\ntrap so F\u00f6rstemann considers that Pl. 4, fig. 1, shows a trap with five\nappliances, the \"tail\" one alone being effective. Brinton (1895, p. 75)\nnotes that the Mayas applied the term _sinaan ek_, \"scorpion stars\" to a\ncertain constellation and suggests that it was derived from the\nSpaniards. There is certainly some association between the scorpion and\nwater as, in Tro-Cortesianus 7a, the fore and hind legs of the animal\nenclose a body of water. The scorpion \"tail\" alone appears in\nTro-Cortesianus 31a and 82a as the tail of a god. Its significance is\ndifficult to make out. Destruction is indicated by the scorpion in the\nAubin manuscript as suggested by Seler (1900-1901, p. 71).\n\nIn the Nuttall Codex there is a remarkably beautiful conventionalization\nof a scorpion (Pl. 4, fig. 3) in which the tripartite nature of the head\nis still preserved though it is so reduced as to resemble the calyx of a\nflower. The \"tail\", as elsewhere, and the legs are present.\n\n\nPISCES\n\nFigures of fish (Maya _kai_) occur commonly in the Maya codices in\nvarious connections as well as in the stone carvings, but none of these\nseems certainly identifiable. Among the representations, however, there\nare clearly several species. One (Pl. 5, figs. 2, 6, 7-9; Pl. 6, fig. 9)\nhas a single dorsal fin, powerful teeth, and a generally ferocious\naspect and may represent some large predacious variety, perhaps a tunny.\nThe distinct operculum in most of the figures would preclude their\nrepresenting a shark. Other figures picture similar fish without the\nprominent teeth (Pl. 5, fig. 4, 5; Pl. 6, figs. 2, 6, 10, 13). In two\ncases the scales are diagramatically shown by straight or crescentric\nlines (Pl. 5, fig. 4, 8). A third species of fish is shown provided with\ntwo dorsal fins (Pl. 6, figs. 3, 11; Pl. 7, fig. 6, the last an\nexcellent stone carving). Others (Pl. 6, figs. 7, 14-17) represent\nfishes without dorsal fins, one of which (fig. 7) from its length may be\nan eel, possibly _Muraena_.\n\nIn the Nuttall Codex occurs a remarkable fish with an unmistakable wing\narising just behind the head nearly at the dorsal line. While this may\nrepresent a flying fish (_Exocetus_), the head is so bird-like that the\nwhole may be merely a combination figure.\n\nOf frequent occurrence in the Dresden is a glyph, two modifications of\nwhich are here shown (Pl. 6, figs. 4, 5). Stempell suggests that the\nvertical lines on the posterior portion of such figures may be gill\nslits and that hence they may represent sharks in which these orifices\nare without an operculum.\n\nAs with the molluscs, so with the fish, we naturally find them usually\nassociated with the water. This may be seen especially well in the\nNuttall Codex. In Dresden 33a (Pl. 6, fig. 13) the fish is clearly\nassociated with the operation of fishing as two figures are seated on\nthe edge of a body of water in the act of casting a net. An eel is shown\nin the water under god B in Dresden 65b (Pl. 6, fig. 7) and fish are\nshown just below the claws of a crocodile in text figure 1. In Dresden\n44a god B holds a fish in his hands. As will be pointed out later (p.\n314) this god is frequently associated with water. In Dresden 44c a fish\nappears between god B and an unidentifiable deity. In the Maya codices\nthe greater number of representations of fish are in connection with\nsacrifice. In Dresden 27 (Pl. 6, fig. 6) the fish is pictured resting on\ntwo _Kan_ signs, the symbol of maize or bread, and these in turn on a\nflat bowl. In Dresden 29b (Pl. 5, fig. 9) the fish is represented\nbetween the red and black numbers of the _tonalamatl_. Here again the\nfish is shown as an offering.\n\nIn two cases only do we find the fish used as a part of the head-dress\nand in each case the fish is graphically shown as held in the mouth of a\nheron. One of these is in the Dresden Codex 36b (Pl. 5, fig. 3) and one\nin the stone carving of the Temple of the Cross at Palenque (Pl. 15,\nfig. 5). Fish are often represented on the stone carvings as feeding\nupon a water plant. This is seen in the border at the bottom of the\nLower Chamber of the Temple of the Tigers at Chichen Itza (Pl. 5, figs.\n2, 4; Pl. 6, fig. 2). In several instances at Copan fish are shown as\nforming the sides of the Great Cycle glyph at the beginning of an\nInitial Series (Pl. 6, figs. 14-17). It has often been suggested that as\nthe word fish in Maya is _kai_ (usually written _cay_), there may be\nsome phonetic significance here, combining the fish, _kai_, with the\nusually drum-like sign for stone, _tun_, making _kai tun_ or _katun_.\nThis is the term usually given not to the Great Cycle but to the period\ncomposed of twenty _tuns_ and is probably derived from _kal_ meaning\ntwenty and _tun_, a stone.\n\n\nAMPHIBIA\n\nFROGS. Figures undoubtedly representing frogs (Maya _mut[vs]_ or _uo_)\nor toads are found in several places in the codices and in the stone\ncarvings, but it is quite impossible to refer them definitely to any of\nthe numerous species occurring in Central America, if, indeed, the\nartists had any one species in mind. In the Tro-Cortesianus frogs are\nnot uncommon. In 31a there are four (Pl. 7, fig. 1) with water coming\nfrom their mouths. They are characterized by their stout tailless\nbodies, flattened heads and toothless mouths. In 101d (Pl. 7, figs. 2,\n3) there are two, the first painted blue with spots of darker blue and\nthe second white and represented as broken in two in the middle. The\nsigns of death above the latter clearly show that a dead animal is\nindicated. Pl. 7, fig. 6, shows the end of Altar O from Copan on which a\nfrog and a fish are pictured, the former in dorsal view, the latter in\nlateral aspect. The peculiar pointed snout of this frog is similar to\nthat of the frog shown in Pl. 7, fig. 7, also in dorsal view. A somewhat\nsimilar creature (Pl. 29, fig. 6) we have included and though it may\nrepresent an opossum it has little to distinguish it from the figures of\nfrogs.[309-*]\n\nGod B in Tro-Cortesianus 12b should be associated with the frog. His\nlegs are those of a frog and he appears as if swimming in the water.\nFrog in Maya is _Uo_ which is also the name of the second month of the\nMaya year. The first day of this month, according to Landa, corresponds\nto August 5 of our year and this is the height of the rainy season in\nthe Maya region. The sign for _Uo_ does not, however, resemble a frog in\nany way. The frog above one of the figures in the Lower Chamber of the\nTemple of the Tigers at Chichen Itza (Pl. 7, fig. 7) has clearly some\nrelation to the name or totem of the warrior. The Nahua custom is seen\nhere.\n\nToads are probably intended in Pl. 7, figs. 4, 5. In these the great\nbreadth of the head and mouth together with the short inflated body\ncombine to produce a very toad-like appearance. It is not unlikely that\nthey represent the huge marine toad, _Bufo marinus_, common from\nsouthern Mexico to Brazil and in the West Indies. There seems to be no\ndistinction in the treatment of frogs and toads in the codices.\n\nTREE-TOAD (_Hyla eximia_). Of great interest are the figures in\nTro-Cortesianus 26a and b (Pl. 8, figs. 1, 3), showing a god with\nexpanded finger tips and characterized further by the presence of two\nparallel black stripes from the hinder and lower margins of the eye\nrespectively. The knob-like finger tips at once suggest one of the\ntree-toads, and the presence of the two lines seems to indicate _Hyla\neximia_ as the species represented. In this tree-toad there is a long\nblack lateral line running posteriorly from the tympanum and above it a\nshorter line just as in the drawings. It appears to be a common species\nin the valley of Mexico though but little seems to have been written of\nits habits. At the beginning of the rainy season it repairs to pools of\nwater to breed and is then very noticeable from its loud voice. No doubt\nits importance in the Maya economy was from its conspicuousness at the\nbeginning of the rainy period. This fact is brought out more strongly\nwhen we consider that these gods representing the tree-toad are\nassociated with agriculture and the sowing of grain at the beginning of\nthe rainy season. F\u00f6rstemann (1902, p. 35) identifies these figures as\ngod F. They are quite unlike the usual representation of this god and\nare clearly god P as Schellhas (1904, p. 39) indicates. It is\ninteresting to note that the two black lines behind the eye are also\nseen in the other gods shown in Tro-Cortesianus 26a and b although the\nknob-like finger tips are lacking. The glyph for this tree-toad god is\nrecognized in the fifth place at the top of the same page (Pl. 8, fig.\n2) by the same two black lines under and behind the eye.\n\n\nREPTILIA\n\nSERPENT. It would be impossible in the present paper to enter into any\nlengthy discussion of the use of the serpent (Maya _kan_) in Mexico and\nCentral America. It seems to be one of the main elements in the religion\nand consequently in the art of the Mayas and Mexican peoples. It is\nrepresented again and again in many forms and varied combinations. It\nunderlies the whole general trend of Maya art. The serpent is often\nassociated with feathers. The culture hero of the Nahuas,\n_Quetzalcoatl_ (feathered serpent) corresponds to a similar god among\nthe Mayas, _Kukulcan_ (also meaning feathered serpent). The feathers of\nthe quetzal are the ones commonly used in connection with the serpent.\n\nAny attempt at identification of the species represented is beset by\ngrave difficulties for so conventionalized have the figures often become\nthat, except in the case of the rattlesnake with its rattles, there are\nno characteristic marks by which the species may be known. It is natural\nto suppose that the species used for artistic purposes would be those\nthat are most noteworthy because of their size, coloring, or venomous\nqualities. No doubt a number of harmless species were also used in the\nreligious ceremonies.[311-*] Such may be those used as hair ornaments in\nmany of the figures (Pl. 8, figs. 7-13, 15) and in which no indication\nof a rattle is to be seen. The fierce eye of these reptiles is shown by\nmeans of an exaggerated overhanging brow occasionally embellished by\nrecurved crests (Pl. 8, figs. 10, 11, 13, 15). These crests are\nsometimes shown as two or three stalked knobs (Pl. 10, fig. 7) that\nStempell was misled into identifying as the eyes of snails. Various\nheads of snakes usually with fangs exposed and tongue protruding are\npictured in Pl. 8, figs. 4, 6; Pl. 9, figs. 2, 4-6: one snake with a\nspiny back is shown in Pl. 8, fig. 5, but obviously it represents merely\nthe artist's endeavor to present as terrifying a creature as possible.\n\nVarious types of rattlesnakes are shown in Pl. 9. The presence of the\nrattle is of course the characteristic, and this portion alone is\nlikewise used, in one case, at least, as a glyph (Pl. 9, fig. 7). It\ncannot be denied, however, that some or most of the snakes in which no\nrattles appear, are nevertheless intended for rattlers. It may have been\nthat the figures were so well understood that the addition of rattles in\nthe drawings was quite unnecessary. This, however, is quite conjectural.\nThe species of rattlesnake is probably _Crotalus basiliscus_ or _C.\nterrificus_ of southern Mexico and adjacent regions, not _C. horridus_\nor _adamanteus_ as supposed by Stempell since these two species are\nconfined to the United States. Among the figures shown on Pl. 9, it is\nnoteworthy that five of the rattlesnakes show no fangs. Some are\nspotted, but in a wholly arbitrary manner. Three are unmarked. One is\nshown coiled about the base of a tree (Pl. 9, fig. 5), another coiled\nready to strike though the rattle is pictured trailing on the ground\ninstead of being held erect in the center of the coil as usually is done\n(Pl. 9, fig. 9). A rattlesnake is shown held in the hand of a man in Pl.\n9, fig. 8.\n\nIn Pl. 10, fig. 1, is shown a rattle-less snake with prominent fang,\ncoiled about the top of an altar which may represent a tree or bush.\nFrom the latter fact, it might be concluded that it was a tree or\nbush-inhabiting species, possibly the deadly \"bush-master\" (_Lachesis\nlanceolatus_). Other figures (Pl. 10, figs. 3, 7; Pl. 11, figs. 1, 2)\nare introduced here as examples of the curious head ornamentation\nfrequently found in the drawings. The two first are merely serpents with\nthe jaws extended to the utmost, and with a characteristic head\ndecoration. The last is provided with an elaborate crest. The size and\nmarkings of the two serpents shown in Pl. 11, as well as their want of\nrattles suggest that they may represent some species of large _Boidae_\nas _Loxocemus bicolor_ or _Boa_ (sp?).\n\nAfter having commented upon the various serpents occurring in the\ncodices and in several other places, we will now take up the manner and\nconnection in which the various figures occur. We shall pass over\ncompletely the use of the \"serpent column\" at Chichen Itza, the\nimportance of the serpent motive in the development of the masked panel\nas worked out by Spinden, and the countless representations of the\nplumed serpent in the whole field of Maya design and decoration. In the\nsingle Temple of the Tigers at Chichen Itza, the feathered serpent\noccurs in the round as a column decoration supporting the portico, as\ncarved on the wooden lintel at the entrance to the Painted Chamber,\nagain and again on the frescoes of this room,[313-*] in the Lower\nChamber as dividing the bas-relief into zones or panels, and, finally,\nas the center of the whole composition of this bas-relief. It will be\nseen, therefore, that it will be necessary in a short paper, to limit\nourselves to the representations of the serpent in the Maya codices.\n\nThe serpent is most frequently associated with god B. Schellhas (1904,\np. 17), Fewkes (1894), F\u00f6rstemann (1906), and Thomas (1882), seem to\nagree that god B is to be identified as _Kukulcan_, the most important\nof the deities of the Mayas and, as pointed out before, appearing in the\nNahua mythology, as _Quetzalcoatl_, and in the Quiche myths as\n_Gucumatz_. It was also noted that the name means both in Maya and in\nNahuatl, the \"feathered serpent\" or the \"bird serpent.\" Other\nauthorities consider god B as _Itzamna_, another of the main gods of the\nMayas. Seler interprets god B as the counterpart of the Nahua rain god,\n_Tlaloc_. It is certain that when god B and the serpent are associated\ntogether water and rain are usually indicated. God H, \"the _Chicchan_\ngod,\" also has some relation to the serpent. As pointed out by Schellhas\n(1904, pp. 28-30), this god often appears characterized by a skin-spot\nor a scale of the serpent on his temple of the same shape as the\nhieroglyph of the day _Chicchan_ (serpent). The glyph belonging to this\ndeity also shows the _Chicchan_ sign as its distinguishing mark. Similar\nsigns appear on the body of the serpent in many places, as in\nTro-Cortesianus 30a (Pl. 11, fig. 1).\n\nWe have already noted that the serpent, god B, and water are frequently\nshown together, so the serpent also appears associated with water and\nrain, when no figure of god B is present. From this connection, it can\nbe argued that there is some relation between the serpent and the coming\nof the rains. These facts would give strength to the theory that god B\nis to be identified as a rain god. In Dresden 33a, 35a, god B is seated\non the open jaws of a serpent, while the body of the reptile encloses a\nblue field evidently signifying water. The number nineteen appears on\nthis blue color. It will be noted that there are nineteen spots on the\nserpents in Pl. 11, figs. 1, 2. In Tro-Cortesianus 3a-6a, corresponding\nscenes seem to be shown. The body of the serpent encloses water, and\nhere the number eighteen appears in each case. God B occurs always in\nfront of the serpent and his head appears as the head of the reptile in\nthe first instance. In Dresden 35a, 36a, the head of god B is pictured\nas the head of the serpent in the midst of the water. In Dresden 37b\n(Pl. 10, fig. 8), B is holding a snake in the water.\n\nWater appears in connection with the serpent and god B in many places in\nthe Tro-Cortesianus. In 9, god B is pictured pouring water from a jar, a\ncommon method of showing the idea of rain in the codices. In 12b, B\nagain is shown perhaps representing a frog, and behind him a serpent.\nThe reptiles in 13b-18b, are all associated with the idea of rain, the\nturtle and frog also appearing in this section. In 30a (Pl. 11, fig. 1),\ngod B and a female figure are both pouring water from a jar, as they\nstand on the body of a serpent. In 32a, the black god (L) is seen in the\nrain, and a serpent is near, while in 32b and 33b (Pl. 9, fig. 1), the\nserpent forms the belt of god L, and a female figure and water are seen\nin both cases. The blue color of the snake and of god B in 31b (Pl. 11,\nfig. 2) may also suggest water.\n\nGod B also occurs in connection with the serpent in Dresden 42a (Pl. 8,\nfig. 14), where the god is seated on the reptile, in Tro-Cortesianus,\n10b, where the head of the same god is the head of the snake, and in\nTro-Cortesianus 19a, where god B again and god A are each seated on the\nopen jaws of a serpent.\n\nThe astronomical role of the serpent is noted in Dresden 56b, 57b (Pl.\n10, fig. 3), Tro-Cortesianus 5b, 12b, 15b, and 67b, where the snake is\nshown in connection with a line of constellation signs, the _kin_ or sun\nsign prominent in most of the drawings. In the \"battle of the\nconstellations\" in Dresden 60, the serpent appears forming a sort of\naltar, the seat of a figure which is supported by another figure. A\nserpent head also appears at the foot of the latter figure.\n\nThat the serpent appears associated with the idea of time seems clear\nfrom the fact of the long number series in Dresden 61, 62 (Pl. 10, fig.\n7), and 69, which are shown in the spaces made by the winding of the\nserpents' bodies. In Tro-Cortesianus 13a-16a, four large reptiles appear\nin connection with the lines of day signs.\n\nThe study of the serpent used as a head-dress is interesting. As noted\npreviously, quite a different kind of snake seems to be represented when\nused in this connection. Two other points come out in this\ninvestigation, namely, that it is only with female figures that the\nserpent is employed as a head-dress, and in far the greater number of\ncases the women are shown, either in the act of offering something, or\nof pouring water from a jar. The usual type of serpent head-dress is\nseen in Dresden 9c (Pl. 8, fig. 11), 15b (Pl. 8, fig. 12), 18a (Pl. 8,\nfig. 13), 22b (Pl. 8, fig. 10), and 23b (Pl. 8, fig. 8). In the first\ncase, the offering is a jicara or gourd of some sacred drink\n(_balt[vs]e_?), in the second and third examples, the dish is clearly\nshown, but the offering is unidentifiable, in the fourth case, maize (a\n_Kan_ sign), and in the last, a fish resting on a dish. In Dresden 20a\n(Pl. 8, fig. 15), a woman with serpent head-dress is seen associated\nwith the Moan-headed figure, possibly in the act of offering it as a\nsacrifice.\n\nIn Dresden 39b (Pl. 8, fig. 7), 43b (Pl. 8, fig. 9), and 70, a similar\nserpent head-dress is shown on a female figure in the act of pouring\nwater from a jar. In Tro-Cortesianus, the serpent head-dresses differ in\ntype only, and in two out of the four cases where they appear, water is\nshown flowing from the breasts (30b) of the female figure or from the\nmouth (32b). The woman thus represented in connection with the water is\ngod I, the water goddess of Schellhas. She is, as he notes (1904, p. 31)\nusually the figure of an old woman. \"Evidently, we have here the\npersonification of water in its quality of destroyer, a goddess of\nfloods and cloud-bursts.\" We are not at all sure that we have here a\ndistinct god as similar female figures with serpent head-dresses occur\nfrequently in the Dresden Codex with no suggestion of water. The failure\nto find any distinct glyph for this goddess seems to strengthen the view\nof not considering her as a separate deity. Finally, in our\nconsideration of head-dresses, the serpent is to be seen in\nTro-Cortesianus 79c on the head of the first woman who is weaving.\nPossibly, a conventionalized serpent forms the head covering of the\nsecond figure who is represented as dead.\n\nThe serpent in Dresden 26c-28c (Pl. 10, fig. 1) coiled around the altar\nwhich rises from a _Tun_ sign is not easily explained. In 25c, the altar\nis replaced by god B and in the former cases, the reptiles may stand for\nthis god with whom they are often associated.[316-*] The serpent seems\nclosely connected with the idea of offerings as the body of a snake is\nshown in several instances as the support of the jar containing the\nvarious gifts in Tro-Cortesianus 34a, 34b, 35a, 35b, 36a, 36b, and\npossibly 52c (Pl. 9, fig. 3).\n\nFinally the serpent is to be noted in a number of miscellaneous\nconnections:--in Dresden 36b (Pl. 19, fig. 11), as being attacked by a\nblack vulture,[317-*] in Tro-Cortesianus 40b (Pl. 9, fig. 4) a\nrattlesnake is biting the foot of one of the hunters, and in\nTro-Cortesianus 66b, where the serpent has a human head and arm coming\nfrom its open jaws. This is a very frequent method of representing the\nserpent in the Maya stone carvings. In Tro-Cortesianus 60c, 100d (Pl. 9,\nfig. 8), twice, 106a, and 111b, the rattlesnake is shown as a sprinkler\nfor the holy water in the hand (in the first, second and fourth\nexamples) of god D. Landa (1864, p. 150)[317-[+]] describes in the\nceremony of the baptism of children, that the leader of the rite wore on\nhis head a kind of mitre embroidered with plumage in some manner and in\nhis hand a small holy-water sprinkler of wood, carved skillfully, of\nwhich the filaments were the tails of serpents, similar to serpents with\nrattles.\n\nIn spite of the importance of the serpent in the manuscripts and stone\ncarvings, it never seems to appear as a separate deity. With one\nexception, no glyph is to be found representing this reptile as is the\ncase with many of the animals. Tro-Cortesianus 106c (Pl. 9, fig. 7) is\nthis exception showing the rattles of a snake which are found in the\nline of glyphs above two of the bees. No serpent appears in the picture.\n\nThe Nahuatl day, _Couatl_, has the signification serpent, as suggested\nbefore, in discussing the meaning of the name _Quetzalcoatl_ or\n_Quetzalcouatl_. This day sign occurs throughout the Mexican\nmanuscripts as the head of a serpent (Pl. 8, figs. 4, 6; Pl. 9, fig. 2;\nPl. 10, figs. 2, 4-6).\n\nIGUANA. Of the lizards represented, the iguana (Maya _hu_) is the most\nstriking, and is readily identified on account of the prominent spines\nalong the back. As noted by Stempell, there are two or three species of\nlarge lizards in Central America commonly called iguana, and it is\nprobable that the one here considered is the _Ctenosaura acanthura_ of\nYucatan or _Iguana tuberculata_ of South and Central America.\n\nIn the manuscripts the iguana is almost exclusively represented as an\noffering (Pl. 12, figs. 1-6). It is usually found on top of the _Kan_\nsign, meaning maize or bread,[318-*] and this, in turn, resting in a\nbowl (Pl. 12, figs. 3, 4, 6). Landa (1864, p. 230)[318-[+]] gives a\npleasing confirmation of this offering of an iguana with bread. It is\npossible that the object shown in Tro-Cortesianus 12b (Pl. 12, fig. 13)\nmay be the conventionalized representation of this lizard. It must be\nadmitted that this interpretation is very doubtful. The triangular\npoints suggest the lizard, but the pointed character of the sign as a\nwhole in no way resembles the back of this reptile. It is found\nassociated with three _Kan_ signs. In Cakchiquel, a dialect of the Maya\nstock, _K'an_, according to Guzman and Brinton (1893, p. 24) is the name\napplied to the female of the iguana or the lizard, and this is believed\nto be the original sense of the Maya term. It may also be noted that the\nNahua day sign _Cuetzpalin_, meaning lizard, is the one which\ncorresponds with the Maya day _Kan_. Pl. 12, figs. 10, 12, 14, show\nrepresentations of the day corresponding to _Cuetzpalin_ in the Aubin\nand Nuttall codices. These show a stout spineless species with a short\nthick tail and may be the Gila monster (_Heloderma horridum_), a large\nand somewhat poisonous species having much these proportions.\n\nFurther offerings are shown in Pl. 12, figs. 7, 8. These seem to be the\nheads and forefeet of lizards, but, from the shape of the head, perhaps\nnot of iguanas.\n\nIn Stela D of Copan, the _Uinal_ period glyph seems to be represented by\na spineless lizard covered with scales (Pl. 12, fig. 9). Frog-like\ncharacteristics also appear. This stone monument is remarkable from the\nfact that the glyphs are all more or less realistic representations of\nhuman and animal forms. It should be noted that there certainly seems to\nbe some connection between the _Uinal_ period glyph and the lizard. Pl.\n13, fig. 9, represents a _Uinal_ glyph from the Temple of the Foliated\nCross at Palenque and the lizard form is clearly seen in the eyebrow and\nthe upper jaw. Compare also Pl. 13, fig. 11, and Pl. 28, fig. 3. A\ncollection of glyphs of this period shows clearly the lizard-like\ncharacter of the face.\n\nThat some connection existed between the lizard and the idea of rain\nseems clear from a reference in the _Relacion de la Ciudad de Merida_\n(1900, p. 51).[319-*] Finally the lizard is shown in Dresden 3a (Pl. 12,\nfig. 11) directly in front of god H beside the scene of human sacrifice.\n\nCROCODILE. The text figure (1) shows a dorsal view of a crocodile (Maya,\n_ayin_) carved on the top of Altar T at Copan. The general form is\nconsiderably conventionalized with limbs elongated and provided with\nhuman hands and long toes. The protuberances of the back are roughly\nshown by oval markings, which are here continued on the legs. The large\nscales of the ventral surfaces also appear at the sides of the body, and\nalong the posterior edges of the limbs. The tail is shortened and\nbifurcate. The most interesting portion, however, is the head. The snout\nis distinctly pinched in at the base, though broadened again distally.\nIn the alligator the snout is broad and tapers but little. As in other\nrepresentations of the crocodile, the lower jaw does not appear, and\neven in this dorsal view the artist seems to have deemed it necessary to\nshow the row of teeth as if in side view, or as though they projected\nlaterally from the mouth. What may represent ears or ear plugs are shown\none on each side behind the eyes. There are few other examples of full\ndrawings of the crocodile in the Maya writings. Dresden 74 shows an\nanimal which has been considered to represent a crocodile or alligator\nbut it seems to have more of the characteristics of a lizard.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 1.\nTOP OF ALTAR. T. COPAN.]\n\nFigures of a crocodile (_Crocodilus americanus_) are frequent in the\nNuttall Codex, where there is one large figure of the entire animal (Pl.\n13, fig. 8), making its way along under water. It is shown with numerous\ndorsal spines, a long tail, and powerful claws. Curiously, however, it\nhas no lower jaw and the same is true of the numerous glyphs\nrepresenting the head of the animal. This is so pronounced a\ncharacteristic, that it may be doubted if the open-mouthed head and the\nsingle limb shown in Pl. 13, fig. 2, really picture the same animal,\nthough otherwise apparently referable to the crocodile. In the various\nglyphs showing the head of this species, the prominent, elongate eyebrow\nand the absence of the lower jaw are noteworthy points, while the teeth\nmay vary in number from three to six.\n\nThe glyphs (Pl. 13, figs. 1, 3-7) represent the Nahua day sign\n_Cipactli_ corresponding to the Maya day _Imix_. In the band of\nconstellation signs in Dresden 52b (Pl. 13, fig. 10), there occurs a\nsingle figure with a long curled eyebrow and lacking the lower jaw. In\nthe upper jaw three teeth are indicated. A comparison of this figure\nwith the glyphs in the Nuttall Codex seems to leave little doubt that it\nrepresents a crocodile. This is the sign which F\u00f6rstemann (1906, p. 206)\ninterprets as standing for Saturn. Pl. 13, fig. 12, is certainly the\nsame sign as it stands in relatively the same position in the\nconstellation band on Dresden 53a. It represents the highly\nconventionalized head of a crocodile. On Stela 10 from Piedras Negras\n(Maler, 1901-1903, Pl. 19) the same glyph is seen.\n\nThe range of the alligator in North America does not extend to Yucatan,\nhence the crocodile, which does occur there, is taken as the original of\nall these figures. There is nothing in the latter that would distinguish\nit from the alligator.\n\nTURTLES. Representations of the turtle (Maya, _ak_) are not uncommon\namong the Mayas. At Uxmal there is a ruined building called _Casa de las\nTortugas_ on which at intervals around the cornice there are carvings of\nturtles. Turtles of at least two species occur in the Tro-Cortesianus.\nWith one exception, they seem to be limited to this codex. That shown on\nPl. 14, figs. 1-3, 5, is a large species with the dorsal scutes\nrepresented by large diamond-shaped pieces. There is little that might\nbe considered distinctive about these turtles, although one (Pl. 14,\nfig. 5) has the anterior paddles much larger than the posterior,\nindicating a sea turtle. What is doubtless the same turtle is pictured\nin several places in the Nuttall Codex. In one of the figures in the\nlatter manuscript, the shell is shown apparently in use as a shield (Pl.\n14, fig. 4). This would indicate one of the large sea turtles, and there\nis not much doubt that either the Loggerhead turtle (_Thalassochelys\ncephalo_) or the Hawksbill (_Chelone imbricata_) is here intended.\n\nQuite another species is that shown in Pl. 14, fig. 6. That this is a\nfreshwater turtle is plainly indicated by the parasitic leeches that are\nnoted fastened by their round sucking-discs to the sides of its body.\nThe long neck, pointed snout, and apparent limitation of the dorsal\nspinous scutes to the central area of the back may indicate the snapping\nturtle (_Chelydra serpentina_) or possibly a species of the genus\n_Cinosternum_ (probably _C. leucostomum_). It is hardly likely that it\nis one of the true soft-shelled turtles (_Trionyx_), as the range of\nthat genus is not known to include Mexico. The turtle from Nuttall 43\n(Pl. 14, fig. 11) may belong to the same species as its scutes seem\nrather few, or it may be that the view shown here is of the ventral side\nand that the scales indicate the small plastron of one of the sea\nturtles.\n\nThe turtle appears alone as one of the figures in the _tonalamatl_ in\nseveral cases in the Tro-Cortesianus, 13a, 17a (Pl. 14, fig. 3), 72b\n(Pl. 14, fig. 6). It is found associated with the toad appearing in the\nrain in Tro-Cortesianus 17b (Pl. 14, fig. 2) and alone in the rain in\n13a. In Tro-Cortesianus 81c (Pl. 14, fig. 5), it appears in front of an\nunidentifiable god.\n\nSchellhas has called the turtle an animal symbolical of the lightning\nbasing his opinion, as Brinton (1895, p. 74) tells us, on Dresden 40b\nwhere a human figure with animal head is holding two torches in his\nhands. This figure does not seem to us to represent a turtle, as is\ncommonly supposed, but a parrot, as will be pointed out later (p. 343).\nF\u00f6rstemann (1902, p. 27) identifies the turtle with the summer\nsolstice, as has been noted before, explaining that the animal is slow\nof motion, and is taken to represent the time when the sun seems to\nstand still. He bases his theory (1904, p. 423) in part on the fact that\nthe sign for the Maya month _Kayab_, which is the month in which the\nsummer solstice occurs, shows the face of the turtle (Pl. 14, fig. 10).\nThis undoubtedly is correct, but he seems to us wrong in classing as\nturtles the figure in Dresden 40b (Pl. 25, fig. 1) with its accompanying\nglyph (Pl. 25, fig. 6).\n\nThe turtle is found in connection with two sun (_kin_) signs beneath a\nconstellation band in Tro-Cortesianus 71a. Resting upon his body are\nthree _Cauac_ signs. The single representation of the turtle in the\nDresden Codex is on page 49 (Pl. 14, fig. 12) where a god is pictured\nwith a turtle's head. The heavy sharp beak indicates that he represents\none of the sea turtles previously mentioned. He is shown transfixed by a\nspear and corresponds to the other figures in the lower parts of pp.\n46-50. These all have some connection with the Venus period which is\nconsidered in these pages.[323-*]\n\nA number of glyphs representing the turtle are found throughout the\ncodices (Pl. 14, figs. 7-10). They are all characterized by the heavy\nbeak. It may be noted that these glyphs are virtually the same as the\nsign for the first _a_ in Landa's alphabet. As the turtle is called _ak_\nor _aak_ in Maya, the reason is clear for the selection of this sign for\nan _a_ sound. These turtle glyphs often occur alone; one, however, (Pl.\n14, fig. 7) is found in connection with the swimming turtle in\nTro-Cortesianus 17a (Pl. 14, fig. 3). Figs. 7-9 agree in having the\nsmall scrolls at the posterior end of the eye. The head shown in Pl. 14,\nfig. 10, has quite a different eye, though otherwise similar. Its\nresemblance to the glyph on Pl. 25, fig. 9, is marked and suggests the\nparrot. Schellhas (1904, p. 44) gives in his fig. 64, a glyph for the\nturtle which seems clearly to be a glyph for the parrot (Pl. 25, fig.\n7).\n\n\nAVES\n\nHERONS (_Ardea herodias_; _Hydranassa tricolor ruficollis_). Only a few\nwater birds are shown in the Maya works. Several are found, however,\nthat seem to picture herons (Pl. 15, figs. 1-7). The best of these (fig.\n5), a carving from the west side panel of the Temple of the Cross at\nPalenque shows a crested heron standing on one foot and holding in its\nbill a fish. A second figure (Pl. 15, fig. 1) is from the stucco\nornament from the Palace, House B, at Palenque. It is less carefully\nexecuted, but seems to be a long-necked bird with a crest and outspread\nwings curiously conventionalized. In the Nuttall Codex there is another\nunmistakable heron (Pl. 15, fig. 4) with the same general\ncharacteristics, though the crest is less prominent, here represented as\na series of erectile feathers separated at their tips. This elongation\nof the crest seems to be carried still farther in what seems to be the\nhead and neck of a heron from Dresden 37b (Pl. 15, fig. 3) with erectile\nfeathers at intervals along its length.\n\nThe heron is seldom employed as a head-dress. In the Lower Chamber of\nthe Temple of the Tigers at Chichen Itza, one of the warriors wears a\nbird head-dress (Pl. 15, fig. 2), which from the length of the bill is\nprobably made from a heron's head, though the crest seems greatly\nexaggerated. The bas-relief on which this is found is strongly Nahua in\nfeeling and execution. This head covering may indicate, according to the\nNahua fashion, the tribe to which the warrior belongs. Again in Dresden\n36a (Pl. 15, fig. 7), a man is shown wearing as a head-dress the head\nand neck of a heron that holds in its bill a fish. This head resembles\nvery closely that of the heron in fig. 1. What appears to be a similar\nhead is shown in Pl. 15, fig. 6. It is interesting to note that the\nheron with a fish (Pl. 15, fig. 5) from Palenque also forms a part of a\ncomplicated head-dress.\n\nIt is, of course, uncertain to which of the several herons occurring in\nCentral America these representations refer. Possibly the Great Blue\nheron (_Ardea herodias_) or the Louisiana heron (_Hydranassa tricolor\nruficollis_) is intended. It seems not unlikely also, that one of the\nwhite egrets may be shown as their crests are fairly conspicuous.\n\nFRIGATE-BIRD (_Fregata aquila_). We have included here two figures (Pl.\n15, figs. 8, 9) that undoubtedly represent a single species of bird. It\nis characterized by a deeply forked tail and long beak, which has part\nway on its length, a circular object surrounded by a circle of dots. It\nseems still problematical what this object may be. In one figure (fig.\n9), the beak is strongly hooked, in the other (fig. 8) it is straight,\nbut as the latter is plainly a much more carelessly made drawing, we may\ninfer that the hooked bill is more nearly correct. This would exclude\nthe Terns (_Sterna_), to which Stempell has referred the figures. It\nseems probable that the frigate-bird (_Fregata aquila_) is the species\nintended, as this is not only a large conspicuous form on these coasts,\nbut it has a long and strongly hooked beak and forked tail. The length\nof the beak would probably exclude from consideration, the\nswallow-tailed kite that also occurs in the region.\n\nBoth these birds are pictured, evidently as an offering or sacrifice. It\nis very seldom that the whole bird is represented in this connection,\nand still more infrequent to find anything but the turkey, which is the\nusual bird of sacrifice. The figure from the Dresden Codex (Pl. 15, fig.\n9) rests upon the usual bowl or jar, that from the Tro-Cortesianus (Pl.\n15, fig. 8) is pictured upon a grotesque animal head, three _Kan_ signs\nand these upon the jar.\n\nIn the Tro-Cortesianus 20c, 21c, there occur several representations of\nman-like forms with very peculiar heads. The latter are each provided\nwith a beak-like projection, on which appears the circle surrounded by\ndots noted above in connection with the frigate-bird. Brinton concludes\nthat this mystic symbol is a representation of the curious knob on the\nbill of the male white pelican, and therefore identifies these curious\nfigures as pelicans. Stempell follows Brinton in this, but considers\nthat they are the brown pelican (_P. fuscus_), since the white pelican\nis rare or casual, as far south as Yucatan. Unfortunately, however, for\nthis supposition, the brown pelican lacks the curious knob that Brinton\nbelieved to be represented by the circle of dots. Moreover, this same\nsign occurs on the drawings of the bills of the frigate-bird and the\nocellated turkey, and is evidently not of specific significance. To our\nminds it is doubtful if the figures under discussion are birds at all,\nand we are unable to assign them a name with any degree of confidence. A\npeculiar glyph occurs in connection with them which may be an aid to\ntheir ultimate identification. Brinton calls the glyph the \"fish and\noyster sign.\"\n\nOCELLATED TURKEY (_Agriocharis ocellata_). This turkey (Maya _ku[[c].]_)\nis an important species in the Maya economy, and is seen frequently in\nthe manuscripts. This is a smaller bird than the more northern true\nturkey (_Meleagris_) and is characterized by the presence of curious\nerect knobs on the top of the naked head. These are shown in\nconventionalized form in the various figures (Pl. 16), and afford a\nready means of identification. On the bill of the bird shown in\nTro-Cortesianus 10b (Pl. 16, fig. 2) occurs again the curious symbol, a\ncircle surrounded by dots, previously noted under the frigate-bird and\npelican. It probably has some special significance. Other figures of\nocellated turkeys show but little in addition to the points just\ndiscussed. One shown in Pl. 16, fig. 7, from Codex Vaticanus 3773,\nhowever, has a circular ring about the eye and the wattles are indicated\nas projections merely. In fig. 13, they are apparently shown as stalked\nknobs found elsewhere in connection with serpent head ornaments. It is\nonly the head in this latter figure, which is considered in this\ninterpretation.\n\nIn the Nuttall Codex, there frequently occur representations of a bird\nthat was evidently used for sacrificial purposes. It is shown with\nerectile head feathers and a ring of circular marks about the eye (Pl.\n26, figs. 12, 14; Pl. 27, figs. 2-3) or with concentric circles (Pl. 27,\nfig. 1). These figures are not surely identifiable, but probably\nrepresent this turkey. Possibly they are the chachalaca (_Ortalis vetula\npallidiventris_), a gallinaceous bird, commonly kept in\nsemi-domestication in Mexico, whose bare eye ring and slightly erectile\nhead feathers may be represented by the drawings. It is probable that\nthis turkey is the bird represented frequently in the Maya codices as a\nbird of sacrifice. The head alone usually appears in this connection,\namong other places, in Dresden 34a (Pl. 16, fig. 10), 41c (fig. 14), 29c\n(fig. 16), 28c (fig. 17), and in Tro-Cortesianus 12b (Pl. 16, fig. 11),\n105b (fig. 12), 107b (fig. 15). In several of these places the head is\nrepresented as resting on one or more _Kan_ signs, again meaning bread,\nas well as on the vessel or jar. In Dresden 26c (Pl. 16, fig. 9), the\nwhole turkey is pictured as an offering, as in the preceding case noted\nin Dresden 35a (Pl. 15, fig. 9). The whole bird as an offering may also\nappear in Tro-Cortesianus 4a (Pl. 16, fig. 4) corresponding to the\noffering of venison and iguana on the following pages. This\nrepresentation of the entire bird is very rare although the fish, when\nused as an offering, is always represented as a whole and the iguana is\nin most cases when used in the same connection. Landa (1864, p.\n222)[327-*] confirms the offering of the heads of birds with bread.\n\nIt is, however, the sacrifice of a bird, probably a turkey, by\ndecapitating, that is especially interesting, as the operation as shown\nin the Dresden Codex 25c (Pl. 26, fig. 2), 26c, 27c, 28c, in the rites\nof the four years, is described in full by Landa. In the codex, a priest\nis represented as holding in his hand before an altar, a headless bird.\nLanda (1864, pp. 212, 218, 224, 228)[327-[+]] tells us that in the\n_Kan_, the _Muluc_, the _Ix_, and the _Cauac_ years, the priests burnt\nincense to the idol, decapitated a \"_gallina_\" (undoubtedly a turkey),\nand presented it to the god.\n\nThe turkey is also used as a head-dress. Only in one case, however,\nTro-Cortesianus 95c (Pl. 16, fig. 5), is the whole bird represented in\nthis connection. This is clearly of totemic significance here, as it\noccurs in that part of the codex where birth and infant baptism are\nshown. In many other places there are curious partial representations of\nbird heads in the front of head-dresses which may or may not be\nidentified as heads of turkeys. Among these are the head-dress of god H\nin Dresden 7c, of god E in Dresden 11e, of god C in Dresden 13b, of god\nA in Dresden 23c, and a female divinity in Dresden 20a (Pl. 16, fig.\n13). Schellhas (1904, p. 43) identifies these birds as vultures.\n\nThat the turkey is connected with the rain seems clear. This is\nespecially the case among the Nahuas. In the Aubin manuscript the rain\ngod, _Tlaloc_, often appears in the disguise of the turkey-cock\n(_uexolotl_), and in the Vaticanus 3773, 14, the turkey (Pl. 16, fig. 7)\nis represented in the \"House of Rain,\" in contrast to the owl shown in\nthe \"House of Drought\" (Seler, 1902-1903, p. 75). It might be noted also\nthat Fewkes (1892, p. 228) shows that the turkey is emblematic of the\nrain among the pueblo peoples. The same idea seems to be present among\nthe Mayas, as we note in the Tro-Cortesianus 10b (Pl. 16, fig. 2) the\nturkey is pictured in the rain and surrounded on three sides by bands of\nconstellation signs.\n\nTwo methods of capturing the turkey are shown in the Tro-Cortesianus 93a\nand 91a (Pl. 16, figs. 1, 3). By the first, the bird is captured alive\nin a sort of wicker basket, which drops over it at the proper moment.\nThe second method is by the \"twich-up\" or snare, which consists of a\nnoose tied to a bent sapling and properly baited. In connection with Pl.\n16, fig. 1, it may be suggested that possibly this represents a cage\nrather than a trap, in which the bird is confined. The Lacandones at the\npresent time often keep their totem animals in captivity (Tozzer, 1907,\np. 40).\n\nKING VULTURE (_Sarcorhamphus papa_). Numerous figures of vultures appear\nin the codices and elsewhere. Indeed, they are among the most common of\nthe birds depicted. Two species only seem to occur in the writings, the\nking vulture and the black vulture. The former is a large black and\nwhite bird with the head and the upper part of the neck unfeathered,\nexcept for numerous short, almost bristle-like plumules. These naked\nportions are often colored red and there is a large more or less\nsquarish fleshy knob at the base of the upper ramus of the beak. This\nconspicuous protuberance has been seized upon as a characteristic in the\nconventionalized figures, and serves to identify the king from the black\nvulture. In addition, a series of concentric circles about the eye seems\nto be a rather constant mark of the king vulture, though they are also\nsometimes found in connection with figures which, from the absence of\nthe rostral knob, must represent black vultures (Pl. 18, figs. 18, 27;\nPl. 19, figs. 7, 10, 11). In the case of the bird shown in Pl. 19, fig.\n1, the knob is hardly apparent, and the same is true of Pl. 19, fig. 13.\nBoth these may represent king vultures. A remarkable figure is that\nshown in Pl. 17, fig. 4, in which an ocellated turkey and a king vulture\nconfront each other with necks intertwined. The short hair-like black\nfeathers of the head are represented in this as well as in Pl. 17, fig.\n11, and in the glyph carved in stone (Pl. 17, fig. 10), which from the\npresence of the knob is probably a king vulture. The characteristic knob\nis shown in a variety of ways. Thus, in Pl. 17, fig. 1, it is greatly\ndeveloped and resembles a large horn with a falcate tip. In Pl. 17, fig.\n4, it is sharply angular and nearly square. Frequently, it is a circle\nwith a centered ring surmounted by one or two additional rings or\nterminated by a mitre-shaped structure (Pl. 17, figs. 2, 5-7, 8-12). A\nvery simple form was found in the carving shown in Pl. 17, fig. 13,\nwhere a long projecting knob is seen at the base of the culmen.\n\nThe king vulture seems to have a part to play as a mythological being,\nas it is pictured as a god with human body and bird head in the act of\ncohabiting with a woman in Dresden 19a, and with a dog in Dresden 13c\n(Pl. 17, fig. 3). Moreover, the same vulture god is represented on a\nblue background and under a band of constellation signs in Dresden 38b,\nand is also to be noted in Dresden 8a. F\u00f6rstemann (1906, p. 66) shows\nthat the thirteenth day of the Maya month is reached in the _tonalamatl_\nreckoning at this place. This day is _Cib_, which corresponds to the\nNahua day _Cozcaquauhtli_, which has the meaning vulture, and here, as\npreviously noted, the vulture god is represented. In Tro-Cortesianus 22c\n(Pl. 17, fig. 2) and 10a,[330-*] the king vulture appears alone, in the\nfirst instance with a blue background, and in the second with a\nbackground representing rain. Rain is also shown in connection with the\nvulture god in Dresden 38b, and the black vulture in Tro-Cortesianus 18b\n(Pl. 19, fig. 13).\n\nThe king vulture is found employed as a head-dress twice out of the\nthree times it appears in any connection with female figures,\nTro-Cortesianus 26c (Pl. 17, fig. 12) with male figure, and 94c (Pl. 17,\nfig. 11) and 95c with female figures. The last two clearly have to do\nwith the baptism and naming of infants, as previously explained.\n\nThe study of the glyph used to indicate the vulture is interesting, for\nwe find it recurring again and again throughout the Maya codices and\noften when there is no other drawing of the animal, as in Dresden 39c\n(Pl. 17, fig. 5; Pl. 18, fig. 19). The first example (glyph 6) is\nclearly the head of the king vulture, whereas the second (glyph 3) is\nprobably the head of the black vulture. The glyph in Dresden 38b (Pl.\n17, fig. 7) appears in connection with the vulture god directly below\nit. In Dresden 11b (Pl. 18, fig. 1), it occurs alone and no figure\nappears in the usual place below. The _Tun_ period glyph (Pl. 17, fig.\n10) frequently shows vulture characteristics especially in the nostril\nof the face. The teeth, however, often appearing in the _Tun_ glyph\nwould be against this theory. The blending of bird and mammal\ncharacteristics is not uncommon in the Maya drawings, however.\n\nThe Nahua day sign, _Cozcaquauhtli_, as previously noted, has the\nmeaning vulture, and we naturally find this bird frequently represented\nin the Mexican codices. In the Nuttall Codex, the head of the king\nvulture occurs repeatedly as a glyph for this day. In its less modified\nforms (Pl. 18, figs. 2-4), the beak is merely a pair of flattened rami,\nsurmounted proximally by the conspicuous quadrangular knob. The minute\nhair-like feathers on the otherwise naked head are shown as a fringe at\nthe throat and crown, while a conventionalized ear is represented\nposteriorly. A series of interesting figures (Pl. 18, figs. 5-10)\nillustrates steps in the further reduction of this head to a small glyph\nin which only the beak with its large squarish knob remains (Pl. 18,\nfig. 10).\n\nBLACK VULTURE (_Catharista urubu_). It is difficult to assign any single\ncharacteristic to the figures representing the black vulture (Maya,\n_t[vs.]om_) other than the long raptorial beak. A number of drawings\nprobably depict black vultures, though this cannot be certainly\naffirmed. Such are those shown in Pl. 18, figs. 11, 12, 14, 17; Pl. 19,\nfigs. 2-4, 13, 14. Stempell considers the vulture shown in Pl. 18, fig.\n13, to be a king vulture, but it has no knob on the beak, and thus is\nquite likely the black vulture. The fact that its head is shaped much\nlike that of the god with the king vulture head (Pl. 17, fig. 3) would\nindicate merely the individuality of the artist. The coloring of the\nspecies under discussion is uniformly black in the Dresden and\nTro-Cortesianus, except in certain cases where the birds are shown in\noutline only, as in Pl. 19, fig. 12. It is not certain, however, that\nthese two last are black vultures, though they suggest the species. The\ntwo birds shown in Pl. 19, figs. 5, 6, are almost surely black vultures,\nand, as represented in the manuscript, are descending upon a man.\nStempell thinks they may be ravens, but this is very doubtful, for the\nraven probably was unknown to the Mayas, since its range is to the\nnorthward. What appears to be a crest is seen on the head of the bird in\nPl. 19, fig. 4. The black coloring and the shape of the bill otherwise\nsuggest the black vulture, though perhaps the crest would indicate the\nharpy eagle. Similarly, Pl. 19, fig. 14, is provided with a sort of tuft\nor crest, but its general appearance is suggestive of the vulture. A\npottery whistle (text fig. 2) from the Uloa Valley evidently represents\na black vulture. The head of the bird shows the characteristic wrinkled\nappearance seen in the drawings, with the heavy beak. The absence of the\nrostral knob would preclude its being a king vulture.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 2.\nPOTTERY WHISTLE, VULTURE. ULOA VALLEY, HONDURAS.]\n\nIt is natural that this bird should find an important place in the Maya\nwriting, as it is an abundant species in the region considered, and of\ngreat importance as a scavenger. The black vulture seems to lack the\nmythological character associated with the king vulture. It appears\nusually in connection with death and in the role of a bird of prey. This\nis especially true in the Tro-Cortesianus where in 24d, 26d (Pl. 19,\nfigs. 5, 6) and 28c, it is attacking a human being, in the first and\nlast cases represented as dead. In 86a and 87a, the bird is shown\nplucking out the eye of a man. In Dresden 3a (Pl. 19, fig. 7), it\nappears at the top of the tree above the human sacrifice and seems to be\nin the act of consuming the victim. In Tro-Cortesianus 91c, it also\nappears in a tree. In Tro-Cortesianus 40a (Pl. 17, fig. 9), and 42a (Pl.\n19, fig. 1), it is shown as eating the entrails of a deer. In the first\ncase, the bird looks like a king vulture, although this is the only\ninstance where this species is shown as a bird of prey. In\nTro-Cortesianus 28b and 36b (Pl. 18, fig. 17), the black vulture appears\neating the Kan sign. In the first example, the _Kan_ represents the\nnewly sowed corn, in the second, the _Kan_ is held by god F. Landa\n(1864, p. 230)[333-*] records that in the _Cauac_ year there was a\nceremony to prevent the ants and the birds devouring the corn. In\nDresden 34b and 35b, the vulture is shown on top of the head-dress of\ngod F, evidently the enemy of the harvest and, again, on 35b (Pl. 19,\nfig. 4) on top of the _Cauac_ sign. Its role as a bird of prey is\nfurther shown in Dresden 36b (Pl. 19, fig. 11), where it is shown\nattacking a serpent.\n\nThis vulture is associated with god B in Dresden 69b, with god M in\nTro-Cortesianus 70a (Pl. 18, fig. 12), and with god D in Tro-Cortesianus\n67a (Pl. 17, fig. 1). The last may be the king rather than the black\nvulture, as suggested above. The black vulture occurs only once as the\nusual head-dress, in Dresden 17b (Pl. 18, fig. 13), and here in\nconnection with a female figure and the idea of birth. Two birds,\nprobably vultures, appear over the enclosure around the head of god C in\nTro-Cortesianus 100b (Pl. 19, fig. 12). In the Lower Chamber of the\nTemple of the Tigers occurs a black vulture in bas-relief with a\nnecklace represented (Pl. 19, fig. 14).\n\nThe glyph of the king vulture has already been discussed. There are\nother glyphs which seem to show the black vulture, although it is quite\npossible that no sharp distinction was made between the two in regard\nto the glyphs at least. In one case (Pl. 18, fig. 18), the wrinkled skin\nof the head and neck is indicated much as in the case of the king\nvulture. A few other glyphs are shown (Pl. 18, figs. 16, 19, 22, 27), as\nwell as a variety from the Nuttall Codex in which the minute hair-like\nfeathers of the head are variously represented, usually much exaggerated\nas a sort of crest or comb. Pl. 18, fig. 22, is interesting as being the\nonly case in the Maya codices where the whole figure is shown in the\nglyph. As noted in the case of the glyphs of the king vulture, the\ngreater number of these occur quite alone. They seem to indicate that a\nfull drawing of the bird is meant to be understood as occurring below.\n\nSeveral of the carved glyphs (Pl. 19, figs. 8-10) show the black vulture\nheads in some detail with the conspicuously open nostril and hooked\nbeak. A carving of the entire bird may be shown on Stela D from Copan\n(Pl. 28, fig. 5), where the naked head and neck are marked off by lines\nindicating wrinkled skin. The same lines on the neck of the bird\ndepicted on Pl. 28, fig. 2, will probably identify it as a vulture, and,\nif the square ornament above the beak certainly is part of the figure,\nit is unquestionably the king vulture. The knob is not, however, clearly\non the bird's beak. There are two interesting glyphs which occur on the\neastern fa\u00e7ade of the Monjas at Chichen Itza. The glyphs in this\ninscription are unlike the usual Maya hieroglyphs, although several of\nthe so-called constellation signs can be made out. The two glyphs in\nquestion represent the entire body possibly of a vulture, that on Pl.\n17, fig. 13, probably the king vulture, and that on Pl. 18, fig. 14, the\nblack vulture.\n\nHARPY EAGLE (_Thrasaetos harpyia_). In the Nuttall Codex, what is\nundoubtedly the harpy eagle is of frequent occurrence. This great bird\nis not uncommon in the forests of southern Mexico and Central America,\nand must have attracted the notice of the people from its size. The\nelongated feathers at the back of the head form a conspicuous crest, a\nfeature that characterizes this species in most of the representations.\nA stone carving from Chichen Itza (Pl. 20, fig. 10) pictures a harpy\neagle eating an egg-shaped object, and another similarly engaged is\ncopied from the Codex Vaticanus 3773 (Pl. 20, fig. 14). The former is\nconsidered to be a vulture by Maudslay, but the presence of feathers\ncovering the head excludes this interpretation. In two stone glyphs (Pl.\n20, fig. 1, 3), occurs a large bird apparently devouring something held\nin its talons, as in Pl. 20, fig. 10. From this general resemblance, it\nseems probable that both represent the harpy, although no crests are\nshown on the glyphs. In the Dresden and the Tro-Cortesianus occur a few\nfigures of crested birds that probably are the same species. The crest\nfeathers are reduced to two, however, or, in some cases, what may be a\nthird projecting forward from the base of the bill (Pl. 20, figs. 5, 7,\n12, 13). The last two figures are not certainly identifiable, though it\nis probable that they represent the harpy.\n\nThe eagle seems to be the bird associated with warriors in the codices.\nSeler (1900-1901, p. 89) notes that the eagle and the jaguar are both\nthe mark of brave warriors among the Nahuas. In the Aubin manuscript,\nthe warrior god, _Yaotl_, is always associated with the eagle\n(_quauhtli_). In the Maya pantheon, god M is usually considered the war\ngod, as he is almost always armed with a spear. He is seen in Dresden 74\n(Pl. 20, fig. 13), and in Tro-Cortesianus 109c with an eagle as a\nhead-dress. There are other gods, however, who wear a similar head\ncovering. God L appears in Dresden 14b (Pl. 20, fig. 7) and again in 14c\n(Pl. 20, fig. 5) with an eagle head-dress. God D in Dresden 23c (Pl. 20,\nfig. 11) has an eagle coming from a _Tun_ sign on top of his head. The\neagle is probably represented at the prow of a boat in Dresden 43c (Pl.\n20, fig. 12) in which god B is rowing. In Tro-Cortesianus 88c (Pl. 20,\nfig. 4), a bird which may represent the eagle appears sitting on a\n_Cimi_ (death) sign. Above in the glyphs the character for the south is\nshown. Here, clearly, there is some connection between the signs of the\ncardinal points in the line of glyphs and the various creatures pictured\nbelow.\n\nThere seems to be only one glyph which can in any way be taken for that\nof the eagle in the Maya manuscripts and this appears only once, in\nTro-Cortesianus 107c (Pl. 20, fig. 9). This identification may be\nquestioned, as there is no drawing of an eagle associated with the\nglyph. Attention has already been called to the two stone glyphs in Pl.\n20, figs. 1, 3. There are various drawings of the glyph for the eagle in\nthe Nahua and Zapotecan codices (Pl. 20, fig. 8), as the Nahua day,\n_Quauhtli_, has the meaning eagle. It is interesting to note in the\nglyph from the Nuttall Codex (Pl. 20, fig. 8) the tips of the feathers\nare crowned with stone points, a frequent way of representing birds of\nprey among the Mexican peoples.\n\nYUCATAN HORNED OWL (_Bubo virginianus mayensis_). Stempell makes a\nserious mistake by confusing the eared owl shown in full face with that\nshown in profile in the drawings, for he considers both to represent the\ngreat horned owl. The figures are, however, quite different in every\nway. The owl in full face view is unquestionably the great horned owl\n(Maya, _ikim_), the Yucatan form of which is recognized by the\nsubspecific title _mayensis_. This is the bird opposed to the\n\"Moan-bird\" which, as will be shown later, is associated with death. In\nPl. 21 are some truly remarkable figures which seem to represent this\nhorned owl, the first modelled in stucco from Palenque, the second\ncarved in stone from Yaxchilan, and the third carved in wood from Tikal.\nFigs. 1 and 3 show the bird in flight with extended wings. The two\nerectile tufts of feathers or \"horns\" are conspicuously represented in\nfig. 3, at either side of the bird's head and between them the flat top\nof the crown is secondarily divided in like manner into three parts,\nrepresenting the \"horns\" and the top of the head. The beetling brows,\nheavy hooked beak, and spread talons combine to give a fierce and\nspirited mien to the great bird. Pl. 21, fig. 2, may be a greatly\nconventionalized owl in which the essential characteristics of the bird\nare reproduced in a rectangular design. The large bill is conspicuous in\nthe center, and in each upper corner terminates one of the ears. The\neyes are represented by rectangular areas at the base of the bill, each\nwith three vertical bars across it. Below the beak, or at either side of\nthe tip, are the feet, each with the claw cross-hatched. What seem to be\nthe reduced and highly conventionalized wings fill the lower corner of\neach side of the figure.\n\nThe shield in the center of the Tablet of the Sun at Palenque (Pl. 22,\nfig. 6) shows a face in which the motif seems to be the full-face view\nof the horned owl. The hooked bill curves over the mouth at each side of\nwhich is the curious scroll seen in the same connection in the figures\nof Pl. 21. The ears are somewhat shorter in proportion than usual and\nbelow each, at the sides of the face, is a large ear-plug, similar to\nthat elsewhere found. The eyes are still further conventionalized with a\ndecorative scroll surrounding each. Another example of the\nconventionalized owl's head is on Stela 1 from Cankuan (Maler, 1908, Pl.\n13). We are not yet ready to advance an explanation of the reason why\nthe owl should occupy such a prominent position in the art of the Mayas.\n\nIn only one case is the horned owl found in the Maya manuscripts. In\nTro-Cortesianus 95c (Pl. 22, fig. 2), this owl appears as the head-dress\nof a woman in that portion of the codex where baptism and naming are\nshown. An owl's head seems to be shown on the end of a warrior's staff\nin the bas-relief of the Lower Chamber of the Temple of the Tigers at\nChichen Itza (Pl. 22, fig. 4). Pl. 22, figs. 5, 7, show two owls from\nthe Aubin manuscript; the first is considered to be the screech owl\n(_chiqualli_) and the second the horned owl (_tecolotl_, in Nahuatl).\nPl. 22, figs. 1, 3, show two drawings of owls from Nahua manuscripts.\n\nYUCATAN SCREECH OWL or MOAN BIRD (_Otus choliba thompsoni_). A second\nspecies of owl is represented by the figures on Pl. 23. This has\nlikewise two feathered tufts or \"ears\" on its head and is always shown\nwith the head, at least, in profile, but the tufts one in front, the\nother at the back of the head. The facial disc is not very prominent the\nbeak rather long, the tail short, and the plumage somewhat mottled. A\ndark ring usually surrounds the eye. It is, with little doubt, the\nscreech owl, the only other form of eared owl commonly met with in the\nCentral American region, and in Yucatan is represented by the race above\nindicated. This owl, under the name of the Moan bird,[338-*] is always\nassociated with the idea of death among the Mayas. The familiarity of\nthis species and its mournful quavering cry uttered at night have no\ndoubt led to its association with death and mystery as with owls in\nother parts of the world.\n\nThis Moan bird has an important place in the Maya pantheon, as it is the\nrepresentative in many places of god A, the Death god. It appears with a\nhuman body in Dresden 7c (Pl. 23, fig. 1), 10a (Pl. 23, fig. 8), and 11a\n(Pl. 23, fig. 3) and in Tro-Cortesianus 66a (Pl. 23, fig. 2). In each of\nthese places, it occupies the space in which one of the regular gods is\nusually found. In Dresden 10a, the day reached in the _tonalamatl_\nreckoning is _Cimi_, meaning death, and here, as has been noted, is\nfound the Moan bird, the symbol of death, with another sign of death in\nthe circle just above the head of the bird (Pl. 23, fig. 8).\n\nThis owl is used as a head-dress itself, but always for women, Dresden\n16a (Pl. 23, fig. 19), 18b (Pl. 23, fig. 5), Tro-Cortesianus 94c (Pl.\n23, fig. 4), and 95c (Pl. 23, fig. 20). It occurs in both manuscripts in\nthe pages mentioned several times before, where birth, baptism, and the\nnaming of children are shown. The curious figure, with a head similar to\nPl. 23, fig. 21, carried on the back of some of the women, is the Moan\nsign, referring to the idea of death, possibly to still-birth, as\ncopulation and birth are shown in this section of the codex (Dresden\n18c, 19c). The Moan is found associated with man only once in the\nmanuscripts. In Tro-Cortesianus 73b (Pl. 23, fig. 18), he is found\nperching on a curious frame-like structure in which god B is sitting.\n\nThere are several glyphs representing the Moan bird or screech owl; the\nfirst type is easily identifiable, as the head of the bird is clearly\npictured (Pl. 23, figs. 11-14, 16). This head is frequently associated\nwith the number thirteen (Dresden 8b). It may occur in the line of\nglyphs (Dresden 16c), and refer to the Moan pictured below, or it may\noccur in the line of glyphs with no picture corresponding to it below\n(Dresden 53b). Pl. 23, fig. 15, from Dresden 38c has been placed with\nthese drawings, although the identification is not certain. It may\nrefer, however, to the large Moan head below, on which god B is sitting\n(Pl. 23, fig. 11). The second type of glyph does not resemble in any way\nthe Moan, but they are clearly signs for it, as they are often found in\nconnection with the picture of the Moan, Dresden 7c (Pl. 23, figs. 6, 7,\n21) and 10a. In both places fig. 7 is associated with the number\nthirteen. Schellhas also places Pl. 23, fig. 17, among the Moan signs.\n\n[Illustration: FIGS. 3, 4, 5, 6.\nGLYPHS OF MONTH MUAN SHOWING MOAN-BIRD CHARACTERISTICS.]\n\nOne of the eighteen Maya months is named Muan, and some of the glyphs\nappearing for this month in the codices certainly represent the Moan or\nscreech owl. This is especially so with text figs. 3-6. F\u00f6rstemann\n(1904a) considers that the month Muan and, consequently, the sign as\nwell, refer to the Pleiades.\n\nIn connection with the screech owl referring to death, it is interesting\nto note that among the Nahuas the owl is considered of unlucky augury\nand is usually found in the \"House of Death\" and \"of Drought\", as\ncontrasted with the turkey, considered as a bird of good fortune, and\nfound in the \"House of Rain.\"\n\nCOPPERY-TAILED TROGAN or QUETZAL (_Pharomacrus mocinno_). The quetzal is\ncommon locally in certain parts of southern Mexico. Its brilliant\nmetallic green plumage and the greatly elongated tail feathers make it a\nvery notable bird. The feathers of the head are erect and stand out as a\nlight crest, those of the anterior portion being slightly recurved. The\ndelicate erect feathers of the head are well indicated in Vaticanus\n3773, 17 (Pl. 24, fig. 9) and the tail, also, in this figure, is only\nslightly conventionalized with an upward instead of the natural downward\nsweep. In most of the representations, the crest feathers are\nindicatd[TN-7] by large plumes, the most anterior of which project\nforward. They may be even further modified into three knobs shown in\nDresden 7c (Pl. 24, fig. 1). The two characteristics of the quetzal,\nnamely its erect head feathers and its extraordinarily long tail\nfeathers, are often used separately. Thus the tail, which is commonly\ndrawn with the outer feather of each side strongly curled forward,\nappears by itself in Pl. 24, fig. 8, or it may be seen as a plume in the\nhead-dress of a priest or warrior and in other connections as an\nornament. A greatly conventionalized drawing of the bird is also shown\nin Pl. 24, fig. 11, in which the head bears a curious knob and the\ndorsal feather of the tail is upcurled in the manner of the other\ndrawings. It is not at once apparent why the long drooping tail feathers\nshould be shown thus recurved. Possibly these feathers, when used by the\nMayas for plumes, curled over by their own weight, if held erect, so\nthat the representations are a compromise between the natural appearance\nand that when used as ornament in the head decoration.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 7.\nQUETZAL, TEMPLE OF THE CROSS, PALENQUE.]\n\nThe color of the bird and the very long tail feathers have already been\nmentioned, and these explain the reason of the importance of this bird\namong the Mayas. It is claimed by several old authorities that the\nquetzal was reserved for the rulers, and that it was death for any\ncommon person to kill this bird for his own use. It seems from a\nstatement in Landa (1864, p. 190)[341-*] that birds were domesticated\nfor the feathers. This bird occurs again and again in various\nmodifications throughout the Maya art. The feathers of the quetzal are\nthe ones usually associated with the serpent, making the rebus,\n_Quetzalcoatl_, the feathered serpent, the culture hero of the Nahuas,\nor _Kukulcan_, which has the same signification among the Mayas. It is\nimpossible to mention here all the various connections in which the\nquetzal appears. The feathers play an important part in the composition\nof the head-dresses of the priests and warriors, especially those in the\nstone carvings. A quotation has already been given from Landa, showing\nthe use made of feathers in the dress of the people. Text fig. 7 shows\nperhaps the most elaborate representation of this bird. It is found on\nthe sculptured tablet of the Temple of the Cross at Palenque. The\nquetzal is shown seated on top of a branching tree which was long taken\nto represent a cross. A similar representation is seen on the tablet of\nthe Temple of the Foliated Cross from the same ruined city. In the Codex\nFejervary-Mayer, there are four trees in each of which there is a bird.\nA quetzal is perched in the one corresponding to the east, which is\nregarded as the region of opulence and moisture. Seler (1901, p. 17)\nsuggests that the quetzal in the tree on the two bas-reliefs at Palenque\nmay represent a similar idea and that temples which would show the other\nthree trees and their respective birds had not been built in that\ncenter.\n\nThe representation of the quetzal as an entire bird is, after all,\ncomparatively rare. The most realistic drawing is seen on a jar from\nCopan in the collections of the Peabody Museum. The whole body of the\nbird is shown as a head-dress in a few places in the codices where birth\nand the naming of children are pictured. In Dresden 16c (Pl. 24, fig. 3)\nand Tro-Cortesianus 94c (Pl. 24, fig. 6), the quetzal is the head-dress\nof women. In Dresden 13b (Pl. 24, fig. 2), a partial drawing of the bird\nis shown as a part of the head-dress of god E, in Dresden 7c (Pl. 24,\nfig. 1) of god H, and in Tro-Cortesianus 110c of god F. The feathers\nalone appear as a female head decoration in Dresden 20c (Pl. 24, fig.\n8). It occurs as a sacrifice among the rites of the four years in\nTro-Cortesianus 36b (Pl. 24, fig. 12). In Tro-Cortesianus 70a (Pl. 24,\nfig. 5), it is found in the act of eating fruit growing over the \"young\ngod.\" In Tro-Cortesianus 100b (Pl. 24, fig. 4), the bird is perched over\nthe encased head of god C.\n\nThere seems to be a glyph used for the quetzal. In those drawn in Pl.\n24, figs. 10, 17, it is noticeable that the anterior part only of the\nhead is shown. The first is a glyph from the tablet of the Temple of the\nSun at Palenque, and at least suggests the quetzal by the feathers on\nthe top of the head, as also Pl. 24, fig. 13, a glyph from Copan, Stela\n10, where the entire head appears in a much conventionalized form. Other\nglyphs are shown in Pl. 24, figs. 14-16, in which there is a single\nprominent recurved feather shown over the eye, succeeded by a few\nconventionalized feathers, then one or more directed posteriorly. It is\nto be noted that whereas in many previous examples of glyphs the full\ndrawing of the animal or bird has been found in connection with them,\nhere with the quetzal glyphs there is no instance where a drawing of the\nbird occurs with them. A curious human figure (Pl. 24, fig. 19), with a\nhead decoration similar to the frontal curve and markings on the quetzal\nglyphs (fig. 14-16), may possibly represent this bird in some relation.\n\nBLUE MACAW (_Ara militaris_). A large macaw (Maya, _mox_ or _[t.]u[t.]_)\nis undoubtedly pictured in the figures in Pl. 25. The least\nconventionalized drawing found is that shown in Dresden 16c (Pl. 25,\nfig. 2), a bird characterized by long narrow tail feathers, a heavy\nbill, and a series of scale-like markings on the face and about the eye.\nFurther conventionalized drawings are found in Pl. 25, figs. 3, 10, 13,\nand Pl. 26, fig. 1. In all these the tail is less characteristic, though\ncomposed of long, narrow feathers, and the facial markings are reduced\nto a ring of circular marks about the eye. These last undoubtedly\nrepresent, as supposed by Stempell, the bare space about the eye found\nin certain of these large parrots. In addition, the space between the\neye and the base of the bill is partially bare with small patches of\nfeathers scattered at somewhat regular intervals in rows. It is probable\nthat this appearance is represented by the additional round marks about\nthe base of the bill in Pl. 25, figs. 1, 2, 5, 8, the last two of which\nshow the head only. There has hitherto been some question as to the\nidentity of certain stone carvings, similar to that on Stela B from\nCopan, of which a portion is shown in Pl. 25, fig. 8. This has even been\ninterpreted as the trunk of an elephant or a mastodon, but is\nunquestionably a macaw's beak. In addition to the ornamental\ncrosshatching on the beak, which is also seen on the glyph from the same\nstela (Pl. 25, fig. 5), there is an ornamental scroll beneath the eye\nwhich likewise is crosshatched and surrounded by a ring of subcircular\nmarks that continue to the base of the beak. The nostril is the large\noval marking directly in front of the eye.\n\nThe animal in Dresden 40b (Pl. 25, fig. 1) has always been considered\nto be a tortoise (Schellhas, 1904, p. 44, and F\u00f6rstemann, 1904). This\nanimal, together with the dog, is found beneath the constellation signs\ncarrying firebrands; both are regarded as lightning beasts. By comparing\nthe head of the figure shown in Pl. 25, fig. 1, with figs. 2, 4, 5, of\nthe same plate, the reasonableness of the identification of this head as\nthat of a macaw and not that of a tortoise appears clear. The same\nfigure occurs in Tro-Cortesianus 12a (Pl. 25, fig. 3) carrying a torch.\n\nIn order to make this point clearer, we will take up the consideration\nof the glyphs at this place, rather than at the end of the section as\nusual. As the macaw in Pl. 25, fig. 1, has been hitherto identified as a\nturtle, so the glyph found in connection with it (Pl. 25, fig. 6) has\nbeen considered to stand for the turtle. Pl. 25, fig. 7, is another\ndrawing of the same glyph. By comparing the markings on the face of fig.\n1, it is seen that a similar ring surrounds the eye shown on the glyph.\nThe second glyph (Pl. 25, fig. 7) is better drawn and shows, in addition\nto the eye ring, the slightly erectile feathers at the back of the head.\nComparison with the glyphs representing turtles (Pl. 14, figs. 7-10)\nhitherto confused with these macaw glyphs shows differences, the most\nimportant of which are of course the eye ring and the feathers at the\nback of the head.\n\nVarious other glyphs occur which undoubtedly represent the heads either\nof macaws or smaller parrots. They are, for the most part, glyphs from\nthe stone inscriptions. A crest, resembling that depicted on the head of\nthe quetzal, is found on a glyph on Altar Q from Copan (Pl. 25, fig.\n10). The eye ring, however, seems to indicate the macaw which also has\nslightly erectile feathers on the head. Much doubt is attached to the\nidentification of the glyph of the month _Kayae_[TN-8] from Stela A,\nQuirigua (Pl. 25, fig. 9). It resembles closely the glyphs of the turtle\n(Pl. 14, figs. 7-9) and especially that on Pl. 14, fig. 10. The Quirigua\nglyph has a prominent fleshy tongue, however, like the parrot. From the\nfact that the glyph is certainly that for the month _Kayab_ and the\n_Kayab_ glyphs in the codices (Pl. 14, fig. 10) resemble the sign for\n_a_, in the Landa alphabet which seems to stand for _ak_ (turtle), we\nare led to identify this as a turtle rather than a parrot.\n\nThe use of the macaw as a lightning beast has already been commented\nupon. The parrot is also used in the codices as a head-dress. As with\nseveral other birds the only places in the manuscripts where the whole\nbird is shown is in connection with the bearing of children and the\nbaptism. Here the parrot head-dress is seen on women, Dresden 16c (Pl.\n25, fig. 2) and Tro-Cortesianus 94c (Pl. 25, fig. 13). There seems to be\nan exception to the whole bird appearing as a head-dress exclusively\nwith women in Tro-Cortesianus 26c (Pl. 26, fig. 1), where god F appears\nwith a head-dress composed of the whole bird. The bird is also seen as a\nhead-dress on Altar Q from Copan (Pl. 26, fig. 3). The head of the macaw\nappears as part of the head-dress of god H in Dresden 11a (Pl. 26, fig.\n13), god E in Dresden 11b (Pl. 26, fig. 11), god F in Dresden 14b, god D\nin Tro-Cortesianus 89a (Pl. 26, fig. 5) and of women in Dresden 12b (Pl.\n26, fig. 6) and 19a (Pl. 26, fig. 9). In the rites of the four years in\nTro-Cortesianus 37b, there are two birds which are quite different from\nthose we have been considering, but which may represent macaws (Pl. 25,\nfig. 12; Pl. 26, fig. 10).\n\nIn the Nuttall Codex, occur several figures of heavy-billed birds that\nmay be macaws or other smaller parrots of the genera _Amazona_ or\n_Pachyrhynchus_. They are not, however, certainly identifiable (Pl. 26,\nfigs. 4, 7).\n\nIMPERIAL WOODPECKER (_Campephilus imperialis_). We have here introduced\ntwo drawings from the Nuttall Codex (Pl. 27, figs. 5, 6) which seem to\nrepresent the Imperial ivory-billed woodpecker, a large species that\noccurs in the forests of certain parts of Mexico. The figures show a\nlong-billed bird with acutely pointed tail feathers, a red crest, and\notherwise black and white plumage. The red crest of the woodpecker is of\ncourse highly conventionalized in the drawings where it is shown as of a\nnumber of erect feathers instead of the prominent occipital tuft of\nthis bird. The crest and particularly the pointed tail feathers and long\nbeak combined with the characteristic coloring seem to leave little\ndoubt as to the identity of the species figured. This bird does not seem\nto appear in the Maya drawings.\n\nRAVEN (_Corvus corax sinuatus_) (?). There occurs in the Nuttall Codex a\nfigure of a large black bird (Pl. 27, fig. 7), which may be a black\nvulture, but which, from the presence of what appear as prominent\nbristles over the nostril, may also be a raven. These bristles are\nrather prominent in ravens and quite lacking in the vulture, so that we\nare led to identify the drawing as representing the former bird. We have\nfound no other figures that suggest ravens.\n\nMISCELLANEOUS BIRDS. Four drawings of birds from the Aubin manuscript are\nshown here (Pl. 27, figs. 8-11), in order that the conventionalization of\nthe bird form may be seen. The first two are supposed to represent the\nparrot (_cocho_) and the last two the turkey cock (_uexolotl_). There is\nlittle in the drawings by which they can be differentiated. In the codex,\nthe heads of the parrots are colored red. There is no doubt, however,\nabout the identification, as they occur in the same relative position on\nevery page of the manuscript and are two of the thirteen birds associated\nwith the thirteen gods, the \"Lords of the House of Day\" (Seler,\n1900-1901, pp. 31-35). From the foregoing, it may be seen that where\nthere is no question about the identification, the drawing of the bird\nform is rather carelessly done and no great attempt is made to indicate\nthe special characteristics of the different birds.\n\nAs has been shown previously, it is not always possible to identify\nwithout question many of the forms appearing in the manuscripts. This is\nespecially true with birds. In Tro-Cortesianus 20c, an unidentifiable\nbird, painted blue, appears on the top of the staff carried by god F.\nThe head-dress of this same god in Tro-Cortesianus 27c is a bird form\nand in Tro-Cortesianus 55b, the _tonalamatl_ figure is a bird whose\nidentity cannot be made out with certainty.\n\n\nMAMMALIA\n\nOPOSSUM (_Didelphis yucatanensis_, _D. mesamericana_). Figures\nrepresenting opossums are not with certainty identifiable in the Maya\nwritings. We have provisionally identified as a frog the animal shown in\nPl. 29, fig. 6, although at first sight the two median round markings\nmight be taken to represent a marsupial pouch. Stempell considers the\nanimals found in the upper division of Dresden 25-28 as opossums of one\nof the above species, and this seems very possible. They are shown with\nlong tails, slightly curved at the tips, and with long head and\nprominent vibrissae. A rather similar figure is found in the Nuttall\nCodex (Pl. 34, fig. 7). There is nothing, however, that seems to\npreclude their being dogs and, in our opinion, they represent this\nanimal.\n\nNINE-BANDED ARMADILLO (_Tatu novemcinctum_). This is the common species\nof armadillo (Maya, _wet[vs]_) found throughout the warmer portion of\nMexico and Central America, where it is frequently used as an article of\nfood, and its shell-like covering is utilized in various ways. Several\nrepresentations of it occur in the Tro-Cortesianus (Pl. 29, figs. 1-4),\nwhere it is characterized by its scaly covering, long ears and tail, and\nthe moveable bands about the body.\n\nThis animal is associated with the bee culture, as it is represented\ntwice in Tro-Cortesianus 103a (Pl. 29, figs. 1, 3) seated below a bee\nunder an overhanging roof. The hunting scenes in the Tro-Cortesianus\nalso show the armadillo; in 48a (Pl. 29, fig. 4) and in 91a it is shown\nin a pit-fall. In the last case the _Cauac_ signs are clearly seen on\ntop of the trap, whereas in the former case the same signs seem to be\nindicated by the crosses. Finally, this same animal occurs seated in\nTro-Cortesianus 92d (Pl. 29, fig. 2) facing a female figure. There seems\nto be no glyph used in connection with this animal.\n\nYUCATAN BROCKET (_Mazama pandora_). Among the numerous representations\nof deer in the Maya writings, there is but one that appears to show the\nbrocket. This occurs in Tro-Cortesianus 92a (Pl. 30, fig. 2), where a\nhoofed animal with a single spike-like horn is shown, seemingly impaled\non a stake set in the bottom of a pit-fall. As stated by Stempell, this\nanimal from the character of its horns is probably to be identified as a\nbrocket, though there is nothing to preclude its being a young spike\nbuck of some species of _Odocoileus._\n\nYUCATAN DEER (_Odocoileus yucatanensis_; _O. thomasi_). Several species\nof small deer (Maya, _ke_) occur in Mexico and Central America whose\nrelationships are not yet thoroughly understood (Pls. 30-32). The\nspecies of Yucatan and southern Mexico have small lyrate antlers with\nfew, short tines, rather different from the broader type of the more\nnorthern species with well developed secondary tines. The former type of\nantlers seems to be indicated by the conventionalized structure shown in\nPl. 32, figs. 8-12. These probably represent the Yucatan deer or its\nally Thomas's deer of southern Mexico. Two of the figures, both from the\nNuttall Codex, show the lower incisor teeth (Pl. 32, figs. 8, 11),\nthough in other cases these are omitted. The larger part of the figures\nof deer represent the does which have no antlers. For this reason it is\nimpossible to distinguish females of the brocket from those of the other\nspecies of deer, if indeed, the Mayas themselves made such a\ndistinction. The characteristics of deer drawings are the long head and\nears, the prominently elevated tail with the hair bristling from its\nposterior side (the characteristic position of the tail when the deer is\nrunning), the hoofs, and less often the presence of incisors in the\nlower jaw only and of a curious oblong mark at each end of the eye,\npossibly representing the large tear gland.\n\nThe deer plays a large part in the Maya ceremonials. It is an important,\nperhaps the most important animal offering as a sacrifice to the gods.\nSeveral pages of the Tro-Cortesianus (38-49) are given over to the hunt\nand the animal usually represented is the deer, the hunters are shown,\nthe methods of trapping, the return from the chase, and the rites in\nconnection with the animals slain. Tro-Cortesianus 48b (Pl. 30, fig. 1)\nshows the usual method of trapping where the deer is caught by a cord\naround one of the fore legs. Tro-Cortesianus 91a pictures the same\nmethod and 92a (Pl. 30, figs. 2) shows where the deer is caught on a\nspike in another type of trap. In Tro-Cortesianus 86a (Pl. 31, fig. 5)\nthe deer appears with a rope around his body held by a god who is not\neasily identified.\n\nInteresting descriptions of the hunt are given in several of the early\naccounts.[349-*] It will be noted that the hunt was usually connected\nwith the religious rites and the offering of deer meat and various parts\nof the body of the deer had a ceremonial importance. Attention is called\nto similar practices among the Lacandones, the inhabitants of the\nregion of the Usumacinta at the present time (Tozzer, 1907), where the\ngreater part of the food of the people must, first of all, be offered to\nthe gods before it may be eaten by the natives.\n\nThe figures of the deer in the codices are clearly associated with god\nM, and the latter may be considered a god of the hunt as well as a god\nof war. It is very unusual to find a quadruped used as a head-dress in\nany way, and yet in several cases we find god M has the head of a deer\nas a sort of head covering, Tro-Cortesianus 50b (Pl. 31, fig. 6), 51c\n(Pl. 31, fig. 7) and 68b. In the first two cases, the god seems to be\nsupplied with a bow and arrow. In a passage in Landa (1864, p.\n290)[350-*] there is a description of this very scene.\n\nIn the month _Zip_, the hunters each took an arrow and a deer's head\nwhich was painted blue; thus adorned they danced. God M is found in one\ncase in the Dresden in connection with the deer. In Dresden 13c the\nanimal is represented as female and is shown in intercourse with god M.\n\nAn offering of venison is frequently pictured in the manuscripts. Landa\n(1864, p. 220)[350-[+]] also furnishes a parallel for this. The haunches\nof venison arranged as offerings in dishes are realistically seen in a\nnumber of representations of religious rites, as in Dresden 28c (Pl. 31,\nfig. 14) in the last of the rites of the dominical days, 35a (Pl. 31,\nfig. 12) and in Tro-Cortesianus 5a above the serpent enclosing the body\nof water, 65a in front of god B or D and 105b (Pl. 31, fig. 13) and 108a\n(Pl. 31, fig. 15), both of which are in connection with the bee\nceremonies.\n\nThe head of the deer, rather than the legs, is also shown as an\noffering, in Tro-Cortesianus 69b with god B and Tro-Cortesianus 78 (Pl.\n31, fig. 10) in the line of glyphs. The whole deer may be represented as\nan offering in Tro-Cortesianus 2b (Pl. 31, fig. 8).[351-*]\n\nThere are some examples in the manuscripts where the deer is pictured\nquite apart from any idea of the hunt or an offering. In Tro-Cortesianus\n14b, it is shown on top of the body of one of the large snakes and in\nTro-Cortesianus 29c (Pl. 31, fig. 3), it appears seated on the end of a\nsnake-like curve. The deer occurs in Tro-Cortesianus 30b (Pl. 30, fig.\n6) in connection with the goddess from whose breasts water is flowing.\nGod B appears in Dresden 41c (Pl. 31, fig. 1) seated on a red deer. The\nsame animal is also to be noted in Dresden 60a (Pl. 30, fig. 5) in\nconnection with the combat of the planets.[351-[+]] A deer is seen in\nTro-Cortesianus 92d seated on a mat opposite a female figure in the same\nmanner as the armadillo on the same page and a dog on the preceding\npage. These, as previously noted, probably refer to cohabitation. On Pl.\n32, fig. 9, is a deer from the Peresianus and Pl. 32, fig. 12, shows\nanother from Stela N, east, from Copan.\n\nThe Nahua day _Ma\u00e7atl_ signifies deer and we naturally find a large\nnumber of glyphs representing this animal among the day signs in the\nMexican manuscripts (Pl. 31, fig. 9; Pl. 32, figs. 8, 10, 11).\n\nYUCATAN PECCARY (_Tayassu angulatum yucatanense_; _T. ringens_).\nPeccaries (Maya, _qeqem_) of the _T. angulatum_ group are common in\nMexico and Yucatan, and a number of local forms have been named. The\nwhite-lipped peccaries also occur, but in the figures it is impossible\nto distinguish the species. These animals are characterized by their\nprominent snout, curly tail, bristling dorsal crest, and rather\nformidable tusks, as well as by the possession of hoofs. By these marks\nmost of the figures are readily identifiable (Pl. 32, fig. 1; Pl. 33,\nfigs. 1, 2, 4-6, 9). The tail is, however, often omitted as well as the\nerect line of bristles down the back. The presence of hoofs and the\npossession of a truncated pig-like snout are sufficiently\ncharacteristic. In the Dresden Codex occur several figures of undoubted\npeccaries. Two of these are pictured in Pl. 32, figs. 2, 4. In each the\nhoofs and curly tail appear, and in the latter figure the bristling back\nis conventionally drawn by a series of serrations. These marks are\nsufficient to identify the animals. Their heads are further\nconventionalized, however, by a great exaggeration of the snout beyond\nthat slightly indicated in Pl. 32, fig. 1, and Pl. 33, figs. 6, 9. Other\nrepresentations of the peccary, are shown in Pl. 32, fig. 5, a man with\na peccary's head, and fig. 7 in which the animal's hoofs are replaced by\nhuman hands and feet. In both cases the form of the head remains\ncharacteristic. A curious combination is shown in Pl. 32, fig. 3, an\nanimal whose head and fore feet are those of a peccary, while the hind\nfeet have five toes, and there is a long tail. The addition of what look\nlike scales is found in a figure from the Dresden (Pl. 32, fig. 6).\n\nThe peccary is found in several different connections in the\nmanuscripts. As deer are found associated with the hunt, so, but to a\nmuch more limited extent, the peccary. It is represented pictured as\nbeing captured in snares of the familiar \"jerk-up\" type. Similar\ndrawings show this animal caught by the foreleg and held partially\nsuspended, Tro-Cortesianus 49a (Pl. 33, fig. 9),[352-*] 49c (Pl. 33,\nfig. 1), and 93a (Pl. 33, fig. 4). Tro-Cortesianus 41b also shows the\npeccary associated with hunting scenes. Another realistic drawing of\nthis animal in Dresden 62 (Pl. 33, fig. 6)[352-[+]] represents him as\nseated on the open jaws of a serpent connected with a long number\nseries. We are unable to explain the signification of the appearance of\nthe animal in this connection. The peccary is pictured in\nTro-Cortesianus 27b (Pl. 33, fig. 5) seated on the left hand of the\ngoddess from whose breasts water is flowing.\n\nThe peccary seems to be associated with the sky, as it is seen in a\nconventionalized form in four instances (Dresden 44b, 45b, (Pl. 32, fig.\n4)[TN-9] coming from a band of constellation signs and in Dresden 68a (Pl.\n32, fig. 2) coming from a similar band with god E sitting\nunderneath.[353-*] Above each of these conventionalized figures occur\nthe corresponding glyph forms (Pl. 33, figs. 7, 8), which show merely\nthe head with the exaggerated upturned snout. There is a striking\nresemblance between these snouts and those of the stone mask-like\nfigures so frequently represented as a fa\u00e7ade decoration in northern\nYucatan. The presence in the mouths of the faces there represented of a\nrecurved tusk in addition to other teeth is a further resemblance to the\ndrawings of peccaries. Stempell (1908, p. 718) has reproduced a\nphotograph of these extraordinary carvings and considers them the heads\nof mastodons, apparently solely on account of the shape of the upturned\nsnout, whose tip in many of the carvings turns forward. They certainly\ndo not represent the heads of mastodons, but we are not ready to say\nthat the peccary is the prototype of these carvings, although the\nsimilarity between the glyphs (Pl. 33, figs. 7, 8) and the masks is\nworthy of note. One point which does not favor this explanation is the\nfact that on the eastern fa\u00e7ade of the Monjas at Chichen Itza where the\nmask-like panel is seen at its best, we find a realistic drawing of a\npeccary (Pl. 33, fig. 2) on the band of glyphs over the doorway, and it\nin no way suggests the head on the panel and is quite different from the\nhead already noted as the glyph of the peccary in the codices.\n\nBAIRD'S TAPIR (_Tapirella bairdi_). No undoubted representations of\ntapirs occur in the manuscripts here considered. Possibly tapirs did\nnot live in the country occupied by the Maya peoples. At the present\ntime they are found only to the south of Yucatan. In Central America\nBaird's and Dow's tapirs are native, the latter, however, more on the\nPacific coast. We have included a drawing of an earthenware vessel (Pl.\n28, fig. 1) that represents a tapir, about whose neck is a string of\nOliva shells. The short prehensile trunk of the tapir is well made and\nthe hoofs are likewise shown. A greatly elongated nose is found in many\nof the drawings of the deities, but it does not seem clear that these\nrepresent trunks of tapirs, or, as suggested by Stempell, mastodons! Two\nsuch heads are shown in Pl. 39, figs. 7, 9. These offer a considerable\nsuperficial resemblance to that of a tapir, but as no other drawings\nthat might be considered to represent this animal are found, it seems\nvery questionable if the long noses are other than parts of grotesque\nmasks. The superficial resemblance of the curious nose pieces of the\nmasks on the panel of the Maya fa\u00e7ades to elephants' trunks does not\nseem to us especially significant, as otherwise the carvings are quite\nunlike elephants. They have no great tusks as an elephant should, but,\ninstead, short recurved teeth similar to those representing peccary\ntusks, as already pointed out.\n\nRABBIT (_Sylvilagus_ or _Lepus_). Rabbits and hares from their\nfamiliarity, their long ears, and their peculiar method of locomotion,\nseem always to attract the notice of primitive peoples. Several species\noccur in Mexico, including the Marsh rabbit (_Sylvilagus truei_; _S.\ninsonus_), various races of the Cottontail rabbit (_S. floridanus\nconnectens_; _S. f. chiapensis_, _S. f. yucatanicus_; _S. aztecus_; _S.\norizabae_, etc.) and several Jack rabbits (_Lepus alleni pallitans_; _L.\ncallotis flavigularis_, _L. asellus_). It is, of course, quite\nimpossible to determine to which of these species belong the few\nrepresentations found. Several drawings, shown in Pl. 30, figs. 3, 4, 7,\n8, are at once identifiable as rabbits from their long ears, round\nheads, and the presence of the prominent gnawing teeth.[354-*] In two\nof the figures (Pl. 30, figs. 7, 8), the entire animal is shown, sitting\nerect on its haunches, the first with one ear in advance of the other, a\ntrait more characteristic of the jack rabbit than of the short-eared\nrabbits. For convenience of comparison, we have placed beside these two\nfigures one of a deer in much the same position. It is at once\ndistinguished, however, by its long head, longer bushy tail, and by the\nmarks at each end of the eye. What at first sight appear to be two\ngnawing teeth of the rabbit seem to be the incisors of the lower jaw.\nThis is the animal identified by Stempell as a dog.\n\nThe animal shown to be a rabbit in Dresden 61 (Pl. 30, fig. 8) is\npictured seated on the open jaws of a serpent in the same way as the\npeccary on the following page. These two animals, together with two\nrepresentations of god B and the black god (Dresden 61), are each\nclearly connected with the serpents on which they are sitting.\n\nThe Nahua day _Tochtli_ signifies rabbit and naturally the animal occurs\nthroughout the Mexican manuscripts as representing this day (Pl. 30,\nfigs. 3, 4).\n\nOTHER RODENTS. We have included in Pl. 29, figs. 5, 7, 8, three\nundetermined mammals. The second of these is characterized by the two\nprominent gnawing teeth of a rodent and by its long tail. It may\nrepresent a pack rat (_Neotoma_) of which many species are described\nfrom Mexico. In its rounded ears and long tail, fig. 5 somewhat\nresembles fig. 7, but it lacks the gnawing incisors. Still less\nsatisfactory is fig. 8 from Tro-Cortesianus 24d, at whose identity it\nseems unsafe to hazard a guess. It is shown as eating the corn being\nsowed by god D.\n\nJAGUAR (_Felis hernandezi_; _F. h. goldmani_). Throughout its range, the\njaguar (Maya, _balam_ or _t[vs]akmul_) is the most dreaded of the\ncarnivorous mammals. It is, therefore, natural that the Mayas held it in\ngreat awe and used it as a symbol of strength and courage. A few\ncharacteristic figures are shown in Pl. 34, figs. 1-3; Pl. 35, figs.\n5-14. The species represented is probably _Felis hernandezi_, the\nMexican race of jaguar, or one or the other of the more or less nominal\nvarieties named from Central America. The distinguishing mark of the\njaguar, in addition to the general form with the long tail, short ears\nand claws, is the presence of the rosette-like spots. These are\nvariously conventionalized as solid black markings, as small circles, or\nas a central spot ringed by a circle of dots (Pl. 35, fig. 12).\nFrequently the solid black spots are used, either in a line down the\nback and tail or scattered over the body. The tip of the tail is\ncharacteristically black, and the teeth are often prominent. Such a\nfigure as this (Pl. 35, fig. 10) Stempell considers to be a water\nopossum (_Chironectes_), for the reason that it is held by the goddess\nfrom whose breast water is flowing. This can hardly be, however, for not\nonly are the markings unlike those of the water opossum, but the large\ncanine tooth indicates a large carnivore. Moreover, the water opossum is\na small animal, hardly as big as a rat, of shy and retiring habits, and\nso is unlikely to figure in the drawings of the Mayas.\n\nAs for the significance of the jaguar in the life of the Mayas, it may\nbe said that this animal seems to have played a most prominent part. At\nChichen Itza, the building on top of the southern end of the eastern\nwall of the Ball Court, usually called the Temple of the Tigers, has a\nline of jaguars carved in stone as frieze around the outside of the\nbuilding, and in the Lower Chamber of the same structure, the figure of\na jaguar (Maudslay, III, Pl. 43) serves as an altar. The front legs and\nthe head of a jaguar often are seen as the support of a seat or altar on\nwhich a god is represented as at Palenque in the Palace, House E\n(Maudslay, IV, Pl. 44) and in the Temple of the Beau Relief (Holmes,\n1895-1897, Pl. 20). Altar F at Copan (Pl. 35, fig. 7) shows the same\nidea. The head of a puma or jaguar (Pl. 34, fig. 6) appears in the\nbas-relief of the Lower Chamber of the Temple of the Tigers, evidently\nrepresenting a part of an altar. A realistic carving of a jaguar was\nfound on a stone near the Temple of the Cones at Chichen Itza (Maudslay,\nIII, Pl. 52, fig. a), and another occurs near the present hacienda of\nChichen Itza carved in relief on a ledge of rock.\n\nIn the Maya manuscripts the jaguar appears in a number of connections.\nIts mythological character is shown in Dresden 8a (Pl. 35, fig. 5),\nwhere it is pictured as the _tonalamatl_ figure. The day reached here in\nthe reckoning is _Ix_, and this corresponds to the Nahua _Oceolotl_,\nwhich means jaguar. In Dresden 26, in the pages showing the ceremonies\nof the years, the jaguar is carried on the back of the priest, evidently\nrepresenting one of the year bearers (_Ti cuch haab_). Balam, the name\nof the jaguar, is the title given to the four _Bacabs_ or _Chacs_, the\ngods of the four cardinal points. In Tro-Cortesianus 64a, two jaguar\nheads are noted as the end of curious bands of _Caban_ signs over a\nflaming pot. The second one is shown as dead. A jaguar head is employed\nin two places in the Tro-Cortesianus, 34a and 36a, as a head-dress for a\ngod who is in the act of sowing corn. This animal appears very\ninfrequently in the pages of the Tro-Cortesianus given over to the\nhunting scenes, 41c, 40c, 43b, and, even here, it never appears in the\nsame way as the deer and peccary, as an animal for sacrifice.\n\nThe jaguar as a predacious beast is noted in Tro-Cortesianus 28b (Pl.\n35, fig. 8), where it is attacking god F in a similar way as the\nvultures in the preceding picture. The jaguar appears in Tro-Cortesianus\n30b (Pl. 35, fig. 10) seated on the right hand of the goddess from whose\nbreasts water is flowing. The figure in Tro-Cortesianus 12b between the\nvarious offerings may be a jaguar or a dog, more probably from its\nconnection with an offering, the dog. A curious modification of the\njaguar may be shown in Tro-Cortesianus 20a (Pl. 34, fig. 2), where a god\nis seated on the gaping jaws of some animal whose identity is uncertain.\nIt may be a serpent, although the black-tipped tail from which the head\nappears to come certainly suggests the jaguar.\n\nThere are several carved glyphs in stone that probably represent\njaguars. Two of these (Pl. 28, fig. 4; Pl. 35, fig. 9) have the\ncharacteristic round spots, but others are unmarked, and suggest the\njaguar by their general character only (Pl. 35, fig. 6). This latter\nmay, of course, represent the puma quite as well. A realistic jaguar\nhead appears as a glyph in Tro-Cortesianus 2a (Pl. 35, fig. 13). The\nmore usual glyph for the jaguar is more highly conventionalized,\nalthough the spots and the short rounded ear are still characteristic\n(Pl. 35, fig. 11). A slight modification of this glyph appears in\nDresden 8a in connection with the full drawing of the animal below.\n\nThe Nahua day _Oceolotl_, as already noted, means jaguar, and the jaguar\nglyph is found among the day signs (Pl. 34, fig. 3). Seler (1904, p.\n379) associates the jaguar in the Vaticanus and the Bologna with\n_Tezcatlipoca_. He notes that the second age of the world, in which the\ngiants lived and in which _Tezcatlipoca_ shone as the sun, is called the\n\"jaguar sun.\" _Tezcatlipoca_ is supposed to have changed himself into a\njaguar.\n\nPUMA (_Felis bangsi costaricensis_). As shown by Stempell, there can be\nlittle doubt that some one of the mainly nominal species of Central\nAmerican puma is represented in Dresden 47 (Pl. 34, fig. 7). This animal\nis colored reddish in the original, as is the puma, is without spots,\nalthough the tip of the tail, as in the pictures of the jaguar, is\nblack. The animal is represented as being transfixed with a\nspear.[358-*] Another animal colored red in Dresden 41c seems to\nrepresent a puma. God B is shown seated upon him. A crude figure from\nthe Painted Chamber of the Temple of the Tigers (Pl. 34, fig. 5) is\nprobably the same species of puma. The cleverly executed head, shown in\nprofile in Pl. 34, fig. 6, is also perhaps the same animal, although it\nmay possibly represent the jaguar. One or the other of these two cats is\nalso intended, in Pl. 34, fig. 4, a drawing of a piece of pottery.\n\nCOYOTE (_Canis_). Two figures from the Nuttall Codex have been included\nas possibly representing coyotes (Pl. 35, figs. 1, 2). They are chiefly\ncharacterized by their prominent ears and bristling hair, and seem to be\nengaged in active combat. Coyotes of several species occur in Mexico and\nthough not generally regarded as aggressive animals are of a predacious\nnature. No drawings of the coyote have been noted in the Maya codices.\n\nDOG (_Canis_). The dog (Maya, _peq_) evidently played an important part\nin the life of the Mayas as it does with other races of men generally.\nOn Pls. 36, 37, we have included certain figures of dogs from several\nmanuscripts. These may represent two breeds, for it is well known that\nboth a hairy and a hairless variety were found by the early discoverers\nin Mexico.[359-*] Hairiness is more or less clearly indicated in the\nfollowing figures:--Pl. 36, figs. 1-7, 12; Pl. 37, figs. 4, 5. The\nfigures of dogs usually agree in having a black mark about the eyes that\nfrequently is produced as a downward curved tongue from the posterior\ncanthus. Sometimes, as in Pl. 37, figs. 1-3, 10, this tongue is not\nblackened. Commonly also black patches are elsewhere distributed on the\nbody, generally on the back. These markings are probably the patches of\ncolor separated by white areas that occur frequently in dogs or other\nanimals after long domestication.[359-[+]] We have included among the\nfigures of dogs two in which the eye is differently represented and\nwhich are unspotted (Pl. 37, figs. 4, 6). These modifications may have\nsome special significance, but otherwise the animals appear most closely\nto represent dogs.\n\nWe have already suggested that the animal attired in man's clothing, and\nwalking erect in Dresden 25a-28a is likewise a dog, though Stempell\nbelieves it to represent the opossum in support of which he calls\nattention to its prominent vibrissae and slightly curled tail.\n\nThe dog played a large part in the religion both of the Mayas and the\nMexican peoples. It was connected especially with the idea of death and\ndestruction. The Lacandones of the present time make a small figure of a\ndog to place on the grave (Tozzer, 1907, p. 47). This is but one of the\nmany survivals of the ancient pre-Columbian religion found among this\npeople. The dog was regarded as the messenger to prepare the way to the\nother world. Seler (1900-1901, pp. 82-83) gives an interesting parallel\nof the Nahua idea of the dog and his connection with death. He\nparaphrases Sahagun as follows: \"The native Mexican dogs barked, wagged\ntheir tails, in a word, behaved in all respects like our own dogs, were\nkept by the Mexicans not only as house companions, but above all, for\nthe shambles, and also in Yucatan and on the coast land for sacrifice.\nThe importance that the dog had acquired in the funeral rites may\nperhaps have originated in the fact that, as the departed of both sexes\nwere accompanied by their effects, the prince by the women and slaves in\nhis service, so the dog was assigned to the grave as his master's\nassociate, friend, and guard, and that the persistence of this custom in\ncourse of time created the belief that the dog stood in some special\nrelation to the kingdom of the dead. It may also be that, simply because\nit was the practice to burn the dead, the dog was looked on as the Fire\nGod's animal and the emblem of fire, the natives got accustomed to speak\nof him as the messenger to prepare the way in the kingdom of the dead,\nand thus eventually to regard him as such. At the time when the\nSpaniards made their acquaintance, it was the constant practice of the\nMexicans to commit to the grave with the dead a dog who had to be of a\nred-yellow color, and had a string of unspun cotton round his neck, and\nwas first killed by the thrust of a dart in his throat. The Mexicans\nbelieved that four years after death, when the soul had already passed\nthrough many dangers on its way to the underworld, it came at last to\nthe bank of a great river, the Chicunauhapan, which encircled the\nunderworld proper. The souls could get across this river only when they\nwere awaited by their little dog, who, recognizing his master on the\nopposite side, rushed into the water to bring him over.\" (Sahagun, 3\nAppendix, Chap. 1.)\n\nAs might be expected from the foregoing, there are abundant evidences in\nthe manuscripts of the presence of the dog in the various religious\nrites and especially those which have to do with the other world, the\nKingdom of the Dead. In Tro-Cortesianus 35b, 36b, 37a, 37b, the pages\nshowing the rites of the four years, the dog appears in various\nattitudes. In 35b and 36b, it bears on his back the _Imix_ and _Kan_\nsigns, in 37a (Pl. 37, fig. 8) it is shown as beating a drum and\nsinging, in 37b (Pl. 36, fig. 2) it is beside a bowl containing _Kan_\nsigns. In all of these places, the dogs seem to be represented among the\nvarious birds and animals which are to be sacrificed for the new years.\nLanda (1864, p. 216)[361-*] states that in the _Kan_ year a dog was\nsacrificed. In the _Muluc_ year, Landa (1864, p. 222)[361-[+]] records\nthat they offered dogs made of clay with bread upon their backs and a\n_perrito_ which had black shoulders and was a virgin. It has already\nbeen noted that two of the dogs represented in Tro-Cortesianus 35b and\n36b have a _Kan_ and _Imix_ sign fastened to the back. Moreover, we have\nalso pointed out that the _Kan_ sign frequently seems to have the\nmeaning of maize or bread. It will be noted that in Tro-Cortesianus 36b\ntwo human feet are shown on each of which is a dog-like\nanimal.[361-[++]] These may indicate the dance in which dogs were\ncarried as noted by Landa. Cogolludo (1688, p. 184)[361-\u00a7] also mentions\na similar dance. Still another reference in Landa (1864, p. 260)[362-*]\nmentions that in the months _Muan_ and _Pax_ dogs were sacrificed to the\ndeities.\n\nReference has already been made to the identification of the four\npriests at the top of Dresden 25-28 as having the heads of dogs rather\nthan of opossums. It may be suggested that in the r\u00f4le of the conductor\nto the other world the dog is represented as carrying on his back in\neach case the year which has just been completed and therefore is dead.\nThis, of course, would necessitate the identification of god B, the\njaguar, god E, and god A as representing in turn the four years.\n\nThe dog, according to Sahagun's account (p. 360) was looked upon as the\n\"Fire God's animal,\" and as an emblem of fire. This idea is seen\nfrequently in the Maya manuscripts where the dog with firebrands in his\npaws or attached to his tail is coming head downward from a line of\nconstellation signs, as in Dresden 36a (Pl. 37, fig. 3), 40b (Pl. 37,\nfig. 1) or is standing beneath similar signs as in Dresden 39a (Pl. 37,\nfig. 2) and probably in Tro-Cortesianus 13a. His tail alone has the\nfirebrand in Tro-Cortesianus 36b. Firebrands are carried by figures\nwhich have been identified by us as dogs in Tro-Cortesianus 24c (Pl. 37,\nfig. 6), 25c, and 90a. Here the animal is represented as in the air\nholding his firebrands over a blazing altar beside which god F is\nseated. In two out of the four cases, F is shown as dead. The dog in\nthese latter examples has his eye composed of the _Akbal_ sign. This\nsame glyph can also be made out with difficulty on the forehead of the\ndog shown in Dresden 36a (Pl. 37, fig. 3). As has been noted, _Akbal_\nmeans night and possibly death as well. It is certain that destruction\nis indicated in the preceding examples as well as in Tro-Cortesianus 87a\nand 88a (Pl. 37, fig. 4) where the dog is holding four human figures by\nthe hair.\n\nBeyer (1908, pp. 419-422) has identified the dog as the Pleiades and\nvarious other suggestions have been made that the dog represents some\nconstellation. The more common form of spotted dog is shown as a single\n_tonalamatl_ figure in Tro-Cortesianus 25d and 27d (Pl. 36, fig. 14) and\nan unspotted variety in Dresden 7a (Pl. 37, fig. 10). The dog is\nfrequently shown as copulating with another animal or with a female\nfigure. In Dresden 13c (Pl. 37, fig. 7) the second figure is a vulture,\nin Dresden 21b (Pl. 37, fig. 5) it is a woman and also in\nTro-Cortesianus 91c (Pl. 36, fig. 12).\n\nThe same animal appears also in a number of scenes not included in the\npreceding. In Tro-Cortesianus 88c (Pl. 36, fig. 1) a dog is seated on a\ncrab and seems to be connected with the idea of the north as this sign\nis noted above the figure; in Tro-Cortesianus 66b (Pl. 36, fig. 3) a dog\nand another animal (Pl. 32, fig. 3) are seated back to back under a\nshelter; in Tro-Cortesianus 30b a dog is seated on the right foot of the\nwoman from whose breasts water is streaming; in Dresden 29a (Pl. 37,\nfig. 12) god B is shown seated on a dog; and, finally, in Dresden 30a\n(Pl. 37, fig. 9) god B holds the bound dog by the tail over an altar.\n\nThe dog appears from numerous references to be used in connection with a\nprayer for rain. Comargo (1843) in his history of Tlaxcallan states that\nwhen rain failed, a procession was held in which a number of hairless\ndogs were carried on decorated litters to a place devoted to their use.\nThere they were sacrificed to the god of water and the bodies were\neaten.\n\nThe glyphs associated with the dog are interesting as we have, as in the\ncase with the deer, one showing a realistic drawing of a dog's head in\nTro-Cortesianus 91d (Pl. 37, fig. 13) and several others far more\ndifficult of interpretation. Pl. 37, fig. 11, seems to stand for the dog\nas it is found in several places where the dog appears below, Dresden\n21b, 40b. It is thought by some to represent the ribs of a dog which\nappear in somewhat similar fashion in Pl. 37, fig. 8. Some of the\nglyphs in the codices for the month _Kankin_ show the same element (text\nfigs. 8-10).\n\n[Illustration: Figs. 8, 9, 10.\nGLYPHS FOR MAYA MONTH KANKIN (RIBS OF DOG).]\n\nThe Nahua day sign _Itzcuintli_ signifies dog and corresponds to the\nMaya Oc (Pl. 36, figs. 9-11). This in turn is considered by many to\nstand for the dog as the animal of death and signifies the end. The\nsore, cropped ears of the domesticated dog are supposed to be\nrepresented in this sign, Oc. Nahua and other day signs for _Itzcuintli_\n(dog) are shown in Pl. 36, figs. 4, 6, 13.\n\nBEAR (_Ursus machetes_; _U. horriaeus_). In northern Mexico, in\nChihuahua and Sonora, occur a black bear (_Ursus machetes_) and the\nSonoran grizzly (_U. horriaeus_). It is unlikely that the Mayas had much\nacquaintance with these animals since they range more to the northward\nthan the area of Maya occupation. Stempell has identified as a bear, a\nfigure in Dresden 37a (Pl. 35, fig. 3). This represents a creature with\nthe body of a man walking erect but with the head apparently of some\ncarnivorous mammal, as shown by the prominent canine tooth. This appears\nas a _tonalamatl_ figure. The resemblance to a bear is not very clear.\nLess doubt attaches to the figure shown in Pl. 35, fig. 4, which seems\nalmost certainly to depict a bear. The stout body, absence of a tail,\nthe plantigrade hind feet, and stout claws, all seem to proclaim it a\nbear of one of the two species above mentioned. This picture is found in\nconnection with one of the warriors shown in the bas-relief of the Lower\nChamber of the Temple of the Tigers at Chichen Itza. It seems clearly to\ndesignate the figure in much the same way as figures are named in the\nMexican writings, _i.e._, by having a glyph showing this nearby.\nAttention has already been called to the fact that here at Chichen Itza,\nand, especially on this bas-relief, there is much which shows a strong\ninfluence from the north. The two figures in Tro-Cortesianus 43a are\nprobably bears. F\u00f6rstemann (1902, p. 68) considers that they are men\nmasked as _Chacs_ or _Bacabs_.\n\nLEAF-NOSED BAT (_Vampyrus spectrum_; _Artibeus jamaicensis_; or\n_Phyllostomus hastatus panamensis_). Several remarkably diabolical\nrepresentations of bats (Maya, _so[c]_, usually written _zotz_) occur\namong the Maya remains. These all show the prominent nose leaf\ndistinguishing the family _Phyllostomatidae_ and, as the Mayas probably\nused the largest and most conspicuous of the native species for artistic\nrepresentation, it is likely that some one of the three species above\nmentioned is the one here shown.\n\n[Illustration: FIGS. 11, 12, 13, 14.\nGLYPHS FOR MAYA MONTH ZOTZ (BATS).]\n\nThe bat had a place in the Maya pantheon. One of the months of the Maya\nyear (_Zotz_) was named after this animal and the glyph for this month\nshows the characteristic nasal appendage. This is to be seen more\nclearly in the glyphs selected from the stone inscriptions (Pl. 38,\nfigs. 1, 2, 4-6) than in those from the codices (text figs. 11-14)\nalthough the nose leaf is still visible in the latter. The day sign\n_Akbal_ (night) occurs as the eye in the figures from the manuscripts. A\ncarving showing the whole body of the bat is used as a glyph in Stela D\nfrom Copan (Pl. 38, fig. 3). This may also represent the Bat god who is\nassociated with the underworld, \"the god of the caverns.\" This god is\npictured on the \"Vase of Chama\" (Pl. 38, fig. 7) figured by Dieseldorff\n(1904, pp. 665-666) and by Gordon (1898, Pl. III). Seler (1904a) has\ndiscussed the presence of this god among the Mayas, the Zapotecs, and\nthe Nahuas. The bat does not seem to occur in the Maya manuscripts as a\ngod, although there are glyphs which seem to refer to this god (Dresden\n17b), as pointed out by Seler, when there is no other representation of\nthis deity.\n\nNo doubt in the times of the Maya civilization, these bats haunted the\ntemples by day as they do now, and thus became readily endowed with a\nreligious significance.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 15.\nPOTTERY WHISTLE, APE. FROM ULOA VALLEY, HONDURAS.]\n\nCAPUCHIN MONKEY (_Cebus capucinus,--C. hypoleucus_ Auct.)[TN-10] With the\npossible exception of one or two figures, monkeys (Maya, _maa[vs]_ or\n_baa[c]_) are not represented in the Maya codices examined. In\nTro-Cortesianus 88c (Pl. 39, fig. 4) occurs a curious nondescript animal\nwith what seem to be hoofs on the forefeet, a somewhat bushy tail of\nmoderate length, and a head that appears to be distinctly bonneted,\nsomewhat as in the representations of the capuchin. Stempell regards\nthis as a monkey, though recognizing that the short bushy tail is unlike\nthat of any Central American species. The figure seems quite as likely a\npeccary or possibly a combination of a deer with some other animal. A\nglyph (Pl. 39, fig. 5) found directly above the figure just referred\nto, suggests a monkey, though it cannot be surely identified. A pottery\nwhistle from the Uloa Valley (text fig. 15) shows two monkeys standing\nside by side with a posterior extension for the mouth piece. Their heads\nare shaped as in other representations of this monkey with a distinct\ncap or bonnet and facial discs. A pottery stamp from the same locality\nshows a monkey with a long tail (Gordon, 1898, Pl. 11, fig. f). It\nrecalls the drawings of monkeys given by Strebel (1899, Pls. 1-4).\n\nIn the Nuttall Codex are numerous heads and a few other figures of a\nmonkey, which from the erect hair of the crown, curling tail, and\ndistinctly indicated facial area must be the common bonneted or capuchin\nmonkey of Central America. This species does not occur in Yucatan. What\nis undoubtedly the same animal is shown as a head glyph in Pl. 39, fig.\n8, from the Aubin manuscript. The identifications of the head-forming\nglyphs in the Nuttall and the Aubin manuscripts are certainly correct as\nthe Nahua day sign (_O\u00e7omatli_) means ape.\n\n[Illustration: FIGS. 16, 17, 18, 19.\nGLYPHS FOR MAYA DAY CHUEN.]\n\nText figs. 16-19, show some of the signs for the day _Chuen_ from the\nMaya codices. This is the day corresponding to the day O\u00e7omatli of the\nNahuas. There is little resembling an ape in the Maya signs although it\nhas been remarked that the sign may show the open jaws and teeth of this\nanimal.\n\nF\u00f6rstemann (1897) as noted by Schellhas (1904, p. 21) alludes to the\nfact that the figure of god C, which occurs also in the sign for the\nnorth, in the _tonalamatl_ in Dresden 4a-10a occurs in the day _Chuen_\nof the Maya calendar, and this corresponds to the day _O\u00e7omatli_, the\nape, in the Nahua calendar. This would suggest a connection between god\nC and the ape and this may be seen in the glyphs for god C (text figs.\n20-24). F\u00f6rstemann sees \"an ape whose lateral nasal cavity (peculiar to\nthe American ape or monkey) is occasionally represented plainly in the\nhieroglyph picture.\" He also associates god C with the constellation of\nUrsa Minor.\n\n[Illustration: FIGS. 20, 21, 22, 23, 24.\nGLYPHS OF GOD C.]\n\nIt will be seen from the detailed examination of the fauna shown in the\ncodices that after all a comparatively small part of the animal life of\nthe country occupied by the Maya speaking peoples is represented. The\ndrawings in some cases are fairly accurate, so that there is little\ndifficulty in determining the species intended by the artist. At other\ntimes, it is hazardous to state the exact species to which the animal\nbelongs. It is only in a comparatively small number of cases, however,\nthat there is any great doubt attached to the identification. It will be\nnoted that the drawings of the Dresden manuscript are much more\ncarefully and accurately done than those of the Tro-Cortesianus. A\ngreater delicacy and a more minute regard for detail characterize the\nDresden drawings in general.\n\nIn the animals selected for reproduction by the Mayas, only those were\ntaken which were used either in a purely religious significance for\ntheir mythological character (and here naturally there is to be noted an\nanthropomorphic tendency) or animals were chosen which were employed as\nofferings to the many different gods of the Maya pantheon. The religious\ncharacter of the whole portrayal of animal life in the codices is\nclearly manifest, and it is this side of the subject which will come out\nmore clearly as the manuscripts are better known.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[300-*] Quoted in Thomas, 1882, pp. 115, 116.\n\n[300-[+]] \"En el mes de _Tzoz_ se aparejavan los se\u00f1ores de las\ncolmenares para celebrar su fiesta en _Tzec_.\"\n\n[301-*] \"En este mes (_Mol_) tornavan los colmenares a hazer otra fiesta\ncomo la que hizieron en _Tzec_, para que los dioses proveessen de flores\na las avejas.\"\n\n[303-*] Strebel (1899, Pl. 11) gives several realistic reproductions of\nthe centipede from pottery fragments.\n\n[309-*] Attention is also called to two whistles representing frogs in\nthe _Memoirs of the Peabody Museum_, I, _No._ 4 (Gordon, 1898), Pl. 9,\nfigs, i, j.\n\n[311-*] We have added here a Spanish description from the _Relacion de\nla Ciudad de M\u00e9rida_ (1900, pp. 66, 67) of the varieties of serpent\nfound in the country. \"Ay una suerte de culebra que llaman los naturales\ntaxinchan, de una tercia de largo, que para andar hinca la cabeza en el\nsuelo y da un salto, y de aquella suerte dando saltos anda, la espalda y\nla cabeza tiene dorada y la punta dela cola este se cria en los montes,\ny quando pica a alguna persona le haze reventar sangre por todos los\nporos del cuerpo que pareze que suda sangre y si no es le haze algun\nrremedio muere dentro de un dia natural y para la mordedura desta\nculebra tienen por rremedio los naturales dar a bever ala tal persona\nchile y hoja de piciete molido junto y desleido en agua, y con esto\nguarecen e sanan--ay biboras muy grandes y ponzo\u00f1osas de una vara e mas\nde largo, y tan gruesa como un brazo, que tienen cascabeles en la punta\nde la cola, y si muerden matan sino se rremedio con brebedad, y tienen\nlos naturales por rremedio beber chile e piciete como para la mordedura\ndel taxinchan--ay otras suertes de culebras que se llaman cocob, de tres\ny cuatro varas de largo y tan gruesas como una lanza gineta, que tanbien\nson muy ponzo\u00f1osas, y al que pican haze salir sangre por todo el cuerpo\ny por los ojos, como el taxinchan, ... procuraban guarecerse desta\nponzo\u00f1a con juros y encantamentos, que avia grandes en cantadores y\ntenian sus libros para conjurarlas y encantarlas, y estos encantadores,\ncon pocas palabras que dezian, encantaban y amansaban las culebras\nponzo\u00f1osas, las cojian y tomaban con las manos sin que les hiziese mal\nninguno--tanbien ay culebras bobas sin ponzo\u00f1as, de dos varas y mas de\nlargo y tan gruesas como el brazo, y suelen ponerse sobre arboles juntos\nalos caminos, y quando pasa alguna persona se deja caer encima y se le\nenros\u00e7a y rebuelve al cuerpo y a la garganta, y apretando le procura\nahogarle y matarle, a sucedido matar algunos yndios ca\u00e7adores yendo\ndescuidados--tanbien tienen estas culebras distinto natural para comer y\nsustentarse.\"\n\n[313-*] Pl. 9, figs. 5, 9, show drawings of the rattlesnake which occur\non the fresco.\n\n[316-*] The reader is also referred to the bas-relief of the Lower\nChamber of the Temple of the Tigers at Chichen Itza where a serpent is\nshown behind a low altar.\n\n[317-*] F\u00f6rstemann (1906, p. 15) agrees with Schellhas that this may be\na rebus for the name _Quetzalcoatl_ or _Kukulcan_. As the bird is a\nvulture rather than a quetzal this could hardly be the case.\n\n[317-[+]] \"Y con isopo en el mano de un palo corto muy labrado, y por\nbarbas o pelos del isopo ciertas colas de unas culebras que son como\ncaxcavales.\"\n\n[318-*] Brinton (1893, p. 25) notes that the equivalent of _Kan_ in the\nNahuatl of Miztitlan is _xilotl_ which means ear of corn. This seems to\nshow the correctness of the usual identification of the _Kan_ sign as\nmeaning maize or bread (_pan_).\n\n[318-[+]] \"Y les ofrec\u00edan dos pellas de una leche o resina de un arbol\nque llaman _kik_, para quemar y ciertas iguanas y pan y una mitra y un\nmanojo de flores y una piedra preciosa de las suyas.\"\n\n[319-*] \"Y pintaban un largarto que significaba el Diluvio--y la tierra\ne sobre este largarto hazian un gran monton de le\u00f1a y ponianle fuego.\"\n\n[323-*] See in this connection Seler, 1904.\n\n[327-*] \"Y ofrecerle cabe\u00e7as de pavos y pan y bevidas de maiz.\"\n\n[327-[+]] (Kan year) \"Sahumavan la imagen, degollavan una gallina y se\nla presentavan o offrecian ... y assi le hazian muchas offrendas de\ncomidas y bevidas de carne y pescado, y estas offrendas repartian a los\nestrangeros que alli se hallavan.\"\n\n(Muluc year) \"Y despues degollavanle la gallina como al passado.\"\n\n(Ix year) \"Y degollavan la gallina ... a la estatua de _Kac-u-Uayeyab_\nofrescian una cabe\u00e7a de un pavo, y empanados de codornices y otras\ncoasa[TN-11] y su bevida.\"\n\n(Cauac year) \"Coma solian y degollavanle la gallina ... un hombre muerto\ny en cima un paxaro cenicero llamad _kuch_, en se\u00f1al de mortandad\ngrande, ca por muy mal a\u00f1o tenian este.\"\n\n[330-*] F\u00f6rstemann identifies this bird as a black eagle.\n\n[333-*] \"Este a\u00f1o en que la letra era _Cauac_ y reynava el\n_Bacab-Hozanek_ tenian, allende de la pronosticada mortandad, por ruyn,\npor que dezian les avian los muchos soles de matar los maizales, y comer\nlas muchas hormigas lo que sembrassen y los paxaros, y porque esto no\nseria en todas partes avria en algunos comida, la qual avrian con gran\ntrabajo.\"\n\n[338-*] Brinton (1895, p. 74), according to our interpretation, makes a\nmistake when he considers the crested falcon as the Moan, \"in Maya\n_muan_ or _muyan_.\" He adds, \"Some writers have thought the moan bird\nwas a mythical animal but Dr. C. H. Berendt found the name still applied\nto the falcon. In the form _muyan_, it is akin in sound to _muyal_,\ncloud, _muan_, cloudy, which may account for its adoption as a symbol of\nthe rains, etc.\"\n\n[341-*] \"Crian paxaros para su recreacion y para las plumas para hazer\nsus ropas galanas.\"\n\n[349-*] _Relacion hecha por el Licenciado Palacio al Rey. D. Felipe II_\n(1866, p. 31). \"Lo que hacian en los sacrificios de la pesca y caza, era\nque tomaban un venado vivo y llev\u00e1banlo al patio del cu \u00e9 iglesia que\ntenian fuera del pueblo y all\u00ed lo ahogaban y lo desollaban y le salaban\ntoda la sangre en una olla, y el h\u00edgado y bofes y buches los hacian\npedazos muy peque\u00f1os y apartaban el corazon, cabeza y pies, y mandaban\ncocer el venado por si, la sangre for[TN-12] s\u00ed, y mientras esto se\ncocia, hacian su baile. Tomaban el Papa y s\u00e1bio la cabeza del venado por\nlas orejas, y los cuatro sacerdotes los cuatro pies, y el mayordomo\nllevaba un brasero, do se quemaba el corazon con ul\u00ed y copa, \u00e9 incensaban\nal \u00eddolo que tenian puesto y se\u00f1alado para la caza y pesca. Acabado el\nmitote, ofrecian la cabeza y pi\u00e9s al \u00eddolo y chamusc\u00e1banla, y despues de\nchamuscada, la llevaban \u00e1 casa del Papa y se la comia y el venado y su\nsangre comian los dem\u00e1s sacerdotes delante del \u00eddolo; \u00e1 los pescados les\nsacaban las tripas y los quemaban ante el dicho \u00eddolo. Lo propio era con\nlos dem\u00e1s animales.\"\n\n_Relacion de Cotuta y Tibolon_ (1898, p. 105). \"Un dios que dezian que\neran benados en matando un yndio un benado benia luego a su dios y con\nel cora\u00e7on le untaba la cara de sangre y sino mataba algo aquel dia\nybase a su casa aquel yndio le quebraba y dabale de cozes diziendo que\nno era buen dios.\"\n\nCogolludo (1688, Book I, Chap. VII, p. 43) \"Correan tan poco los\nvenados, y tan sin espantarse de la gente, que los soldados de \u00e1 cavallo\ndel exercito los alcancavan, y alan\u00e7eavan, muy \u00e1 su placer, y de esta\nsuerte mataron muchos de ellos, con que comieron algunos dias despues\n... Que en que consistia aquella novedad, de aver tanta maquina de\nvenados, y estar tan mansos? Les dieron por respuesta; Que en aquellos\nPueblos los tenian por sus Dioses \u00e1 los venador; porque su Idolo Mayor\nse les avia aparecido en aquella figura.\"\n\n[350-*] \"Y con su devocion invocavan los ca\u00e7adores a los dioses de la\nca\u00e7a, ... sacava cada uno una flecha y una calabera de venado, las\nquales los _chaces_ untavan con el betun azul; y untados, vailavan con\nellas en las manos unos.\"\n\n[350-[+]] In the _Muluc_ years, he states \"davan al sacredote una pierna\nde venado\" and also in the same month, \"Ofrecian a la imagen pan hecho\ncomo yemas de uevos y otros como cora\u00e7ones de venados, y otro hecho con\nsu pimienta desleida.\"\n\n[351-*] F\u00f6rstemann (1902, p. 20) identifies this animal as a rabbit!\n\n[351-[+]] F\u00f6rstemann identifies this animal as a dog.\n\n[352-*] This animal has been identified by Stempell as an agouti\nnotwithstanding the hoofs and tusks.\n\n[352-[+]] F\u00f6rstemann (1906, p. 228) suggests that this animal is a bear.\n\n[353-*] Attention is called to the curious half-human, half-animal\nfigure in Tro-Cortesianus 2a which may suggest the figures in Dresden\n44a, 45a and which are here identified as peccaries. Both are descending\nfrom the band of constellation signs and the heads of each are not\ngreatly dissimilar.\n\n[354-*] F\u00f6rstemann (1906, p. 229) suggests that fig. 8 is a walrus!\n\n[358-*] Seler (1904) gives an interesting explanation of the reason why\nthe puma and the other corresponding figures are shown hit with a spear.\n\n[359-*] _Relacion de la Ciudad de Merida_ (1898, p. 63): \"Ay perros\nnaturales dela tierra que no tienen pelo ninguno, y no ladran, que\ntienen los dientes ralos e agudos, las orejas peque\u00f1as, tiesas y\nlevantadas--a estos engordan los yndios para comer y los tienen por gran\nrregalo--estos se juntan con los perros de espa\u00f1a y enjendran y los\nmestizos que dellos proceden ladran y tienen pelo y tambien los comen\nlos yndios cano alos demas, y tambien los yndios tienen otra suerte de\nperros que tienen pelo pero tan poco ladran y son del mesmo tama\u00f1o que\nlos demas.\"\n\n[359-[+]] Brinton (1895, p. 72) regards these spots as representing\nstars.\n\n[361-*] \"Y que le sacrificassen un perro o un hombre ... porque hazian\nen el patio del templo un gran monton de piedras y ponian al hombre o\nperro que avian de sacrificiar en alguna cosa mas alta que el.\"\n\n[361-[+]] \"Avian de ofrescerle perros hechos de barro con pan en las\nespaldas, y avian de vailar con ellos en las manos las viejas y\nsacrificarle un perrito que tuviesse las espaldas negras y fuesse\nvirgen.\"\n\n[361-[++]] These might quite as well be rabbits as dogs.\n\n[361-\u00a7] \"De los Indios de Cozum\u00e8l dize, que aun en su tiempo eran\ngrandes Idolatras, y usaban un bayle de su gentilidad, en el qual\nflechaban un perro [^q] auian de sacrificar.\"\n\n[362-*] \"Donde sacrificavan un perro, manchado por la color del cacao\n... y ofrecianles yguanas de las azules y ciertas plumas de un paxaro.\"\n\n\n\n\nBIBLIOGRAPHY.\n\n\nAubin Manuscript, See Seler 1900-1901.\n\nBeyer, Herman.\n  1908, The symbolic meaning of the dog in ancient Mexico; in _American\n    Anthropologist_ (N. S.), Vol. X, pp. 419-422, Washington.\n\nBologna Codex, See Cospiano Codex.\n\nBorbonicus Codex, See Hamy, 1899.\n\nBorgia Codex, See Seler, 1904-1906.\n\nBrasseur de Bourbourg, Charles Etienne.\n  1869-1870, Manuscrit Troano. Etudes sur le syst\u00e8me graphique et la\n    langue des Mayas; 2 vols., 4^o Paris.\n\nBrinton, Daniel Garrison.\n  1893, The native calendar of Central America and Mexico; in\n    _Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society_; Vol. XXXI, pp.\n    258-314, Philadelphia.\n\n1895, A primer of Mayan hieroglyphics; in _Publications of the\nUniversity of Pennsylvania, Series in Philosophy, Literature, and\nArchaeology_, Vol. III, No. 2, pp. 152, Boston.\n\nCamargo, Domingo Mu\u00f1oz.\n  1843, Histoire de la R\u00e9publique de Tlaxcallan; in _Nouvelles Annales\n    des Voyages et des Sciences G\u00e9ographique_; IV S\u00e9rie, Tome 3, Paris.\n    (Spanish edition published by Chavero, Mexico, 1892.)\n\nCogolludo, Diego Lopez.\n  1688, Historia de Yucatan; 4^o, pp. 791, Madrid.\n\nCortesianus Codex, See Rada y Delgado, 1893.\n\nCospiano Codex (formerly Bologna).\n  1899, Published in facsimile, Paris. (Loubat edition.)\n\nDieseldorff, Erwin P.\n  1904, A clay vessel with a picture of a vampire-headed deity; in\n    _Bureau of Ethnology, Bulletin 28_, pp. 665-666, Washington.\n    (Translation of German edition published in _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr\n    Ethnologie_, 1894, pp. 576-577.)\n\nDresden Codex, See F\u00f6rstemann, 1880 and 1892.\n\nFej\u00e9rv\u00e1ry-Mayer Codex, See Seler, 1901.\n\nFewkes, J. Walter.\n  1892, The Mam-zra\u00fa-ti; a Tusayan ceremony; in _American Anthropologist_,\n     Vol. V, pp. 217-246.\n\n  1894, A study of certain figures in a Maya codex; in _American\n     Anthropologist_, Vol. VII, pp. 260-274.\n\nF\u00f6rstemann, Ernst.\n  1880, Die Maya-Handschrift der k\u00f6niglichen \u00f6ffentlichen Bibliothek zu\n    Dresden; 4^o, Preface pp. xvii, 74 colored plates, Leipzig.\n\n  1892, Second edition of 1880, Dresden.\n\n  1902, Commentar zur Madrider Mayahandschrift (Codex Tro-Cortesianus);\n    8^o, pp. 160, Danzig.\n\n  1903, Commentar zur Pariser Mayahandschrift (Codex Peresianus); 8^o,\n    pp. 32, Danzig.\n\n  1904, Tortoise and shell in Maya literature; in _Bureau of Ethnology,\n    Bulletin_ 28, pp. 423-430, Washington. (Translation of German\n    edition of 1892. Dresden.)\n\n  1904a, The Pleiades among the Mayas; in _Bureau of Ethnology,\n    Bulletin_ 28, pp. 523-524, Washington. (Translation of German\n    edition published in _Globus_, Vol. XVI, No. 15, p. 246, 1894.)\n\n  1904b, The Day Gods of the Mayas; in _Bureau of Ethnology, Bulletin_\n    28, pp. 557-572, Washington. (Translation of German edition\n    published in _Globus_, Vol. LXIII, Nos. 9, 10, 1898.)\n\n  1906, Commentary of the Maya manuscript in the Royal Public Library of\n    Dresden; in _Papers of the Peabody Museum_, Vol. IV, No. 2, pp.\n    48-266. Cambridge. (Translation, revised by the author, of the\n    German edition of 1901.)\n\nGann, Thomas.\n  1897-1898, Mounds in Northern Honduras; in _Bureau of Ethnology_, 19th\n    annual report, part 2, pp. 661-691, Washington.\n\nGordon, George Byron.\n  1898, Researches in the Uloa Valley, Honduras; in _Memoirs of the\n    Peabody Museum_, Vol. I, No. 4, pp. 44, Cambridge.\n\nHamy, Ernest T.\n  1899, Codex Borbonicus. Manuscrit Mexicain de la Biblioth\u00e8que der\n    Palais Bourbon; Text and plates, Paris.\n\nHolmes, William Henry.\n  1895-1897, Archaeological studies among the ancient cities of Mexico;\n    _Field Museum of Natural History, Publications_ 8 and 16,\n    _Anthropological Series_, Vol. I, No. I, Chicago.\n\nHough, Walter.\n  1908, The pulque of Mexico; in _Proceedings of the United States\n    National Museum_, Vol. XXXIII, pp. 577-592, Washington.\n\nLanda, Diego de.\n  1864, Relaci\u00f3n de las cosas de Yucatan; Spanish text with French\n    translation published by Brasseur de Bourbourg; 8^o, pp. 516,\n    Paris. (The references in the text are to this edition). Spanish\n    edition published by Juan de Dios de la Rada y Delgado, Madrid,\n    1884, as an appendix to his translation of Leon de Rosny's article,\n    Essai sur le d\u00e9chiffrement de l'\u00e9criture hi\u00e9ratique de l'Am\u00e9rique\n    Centrale. Second Spanish edition in Colecci\u00f3n de Documentos in\u00e9ditos\n    (2d Series); Madrid, 1900, Vol. XIII, pp. 265-411.\n\n  1900, See second Spanish edition under 1864. (This contains much that\n    is not given in the 1864 edition.)\n\nMaler, Teoberto.\n  1901-1903, Researches in the Usumatsintla Valley; in _Memoirs of the\n    Peabody Museum_, Vol. II, Cambridge.\n\n  1908, Explorations of the Upper Usumatsintla and adjacent region; in\n    _Memoirs of the Peabody Museum_, Vol. IV, No. 1, Cambridge.\n\nMaudslay, Alfred P.\n  1889-1902, Biologia Centrali-Americana, or Contributions to the\n    knowledge of the flora and fauna of Mexico and Central America.\n    Archaeology; Text and 4 vols. plates, London.\n\nNuttall Codex.\n  1902, Reproduced in facsimile by the Peabody Museum, Cambridge.\n\nPalacio.\n  1686, Relacion hecha por el Licentiado Palacio al Rey. D. Felipe II en\n    la que describe la Provincia de Guatemala, las costumbres de los\n    Indios y otras casas notables; in _Colecci\u00f3n de Documentos in\u00e9ditos\n    relativos al descubrimiento, conquista y organizacion de las\n    antiguas posesiones Espa\u00f1ales[TN-13] de Am\u00e9rica y Oceania_; Tomo VI,\n    pp. 7-40, Madrid.\n\nPeresianus Codex, See Rosny, 1887.\n\nPerez, Juan Pio.\n  1866-1877, Diccionario de la lengua Maya; sm. 4^o, pp. 437, Merida.\n\nRada y Delgado, Juan de Dios de la.\n  1893, Codice Maya denominado Cortesianus que se conserva en el Museo\n    Arqueologio Nacional; 42 colored plates, Madrid.\n\nRelacion de la Ciudad de Merida.\n  1900, in _Colecci\u00f3n de Documentos in\u00e9ditos relativos al\n    descubrimiento, conquista y organizacion de las antiguas posesiones\n    Espa\u00f1olas de Ultra mar_ (_Segunda serie_), Tomo XI, pp. 37-75,\n    Madrid.\n\nRelaci\u00f3n de Cotuta y Tibolon.\n  1900, in _Colecci\u00f3n de Documentos in\u00e9ditos etc._, (_Segunda serie_),\n    Tomo XI, pp. 93-103, Madrid.\n\nRosny, Leon de.\n  1876, Essai sur le dechiffrement de l'\u00e9criture hi\u00e9ratique de\n    l'Am\u00e9rique Centrale, Paris.\n\n  1887, Codex Peresianus, Manuscrit hi\u00e9ratique des anciens Indiens de\n    l'Am\u00e9irque[TN-14] Centrale conserv\u00e9 \u00e0 la Biblioth\u00e9que[TN-15] National\n    de Paris, Paris.\n\nSchellhas, Paul.\n  1904, Representations of deities of the Maya manuscripts; in _Papers\n    of the Peabody Museum_, Vol. IV, No. 1, pp. 1-47, Cambridge.\n    (Revised translation of second German edition of 1904.)\n\nSeler, Eduard.\n  1900-1901, The Tonalamatl of the Aubin Collection, (English edition),\n    pp. 147, plates 19, Berlin and London. (Loubat edition.)\n\n  1901, Codex Fej\u00e9rv\u00e1ry-Mayer. Manuscrit Mexicain pr\u00e9colombien du Free\n    Public Museum de Liverpool (M 12014). Text and plates, Paris.\n    (Loubat edition.)\n\n  1902-1903, Codex Vaticanus 3773, Text and plates, Berlin. (Loubat ed.)\n\n  1904, Venus period in the picture writings of the Borgia Codex group;\n    in _Bureau of Ethnology, Bulletin_ 28, pp. 355-391, Washington.\n    (Translation of German edition of 1898.)\n\n  1904a, The Bat god of the Maya race; in _Bureau of Ethnology,\n    Bulletin_ 28, pp. 231-242, Washington. (Translation of the German\n    edition of 1894.)\n\n  1904b, Antiquities from Guatemala: in _Bureau of Ethnology, Bulletin_\n    28, pp. 75-121, Washington. (Translation of the German edition of\n    1895. republished[TN-16] in his collected works, Vol. III, pp.\n    578-640.)\n\n  1904-1906, Codex Borgia. Eine altmexikanische Bilderschrift der\n    Bibliothek der Congregatio de Propaganda Fide; 4^o, 2 vols. plates,\n    Berlin (Loubat edition.)\n\n  1909, Die Tierbilder der mexikanischen und Maya-Handschriften:[TN-17] in\n    _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr Ethnologie_, 1909, pp. 209-257, 381-457 (not\n    completed).\n\nStempell, W.\n  1908, Die Tierbilder der Mayahandschriften; in _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr\n    Ethnologie_, 40 Jahrgang, Vol. V, pp. 704-743.\n\nStrebel, Hermann.\n  1899, Uber Tierornamente auf Thongef\u00e4ssen aus Alt-Mexico; in\n    _Ver\u00f6ffentlichen aus dem Konig. Mus. f\u00fcr V\u00f6lkerkunde_, Vol. VI, part\n    1, pp. 1-33, Berlin.\n\nThomas, Cyrus.\n  1882, A study of the Manuscript Troana; in _Contributions to North\n    American Ethnology_, Vol. V, pp. 234, Washington.\n\n  1884-1885, Aids to the study of the Maya codices; in _Bureau of\n    Ethnology_, 6th annual report, pp. 253-371, Washington.\n\nTozzer, Alfred M.\n  1907, A comparative study of the Mayas and the Lacandones. Report of\n    the Fellow in American Archaeology, 1902-1905; Archaeological\n    Institute of America, 8^o, pp. 195, plates 29, New York.\n\nTroano Codex, See Brasseur de Bourbourg, 1867-1870.\n\nVillagutierre Soto Mayor, Juan.\n  1701, Historia de la Conquista de la Provincia de el Itza; 4^o, pp.\n    660, Madrid.\n\nVaticanus 3773, See Seler, 1902.\n\n\n\n\nPLATE 1\n\nMOLLUSCA\n\n\nFASCIOLARIA GIGANTEA\n\n   1. Man emerging from shell, Dresden 41b.\n   2. Same, Borgia 4.\n   3. Bologna 4.\n   4. Dresden 37b.\n   5. Vaticanus 3773, 66.\n   6. Nuttall 16.\n   7. Sign for zero, Dresden 64.\n   8. Glyph, Dresden 41b.\n   9. Nuttall 16.\n\nOLIVA\n\n  10, 11. Sign for zero, Dresden 63.\n  12. Same, Dresden 55b.\n\nOTHER MOLLUSCA\n\n  13. Sign for zero, Dresden 54b.\n  14. Same. Bivalve, Dresden 63.\n  15. Bivalve, Nuttall 25.\n  16. Nuttall 49.\n  17. Nuttall 23.\n  18. Nuttall 16.\n  19. Nuttall 36.\n  20. Nuttall 75.\n  21. Bivalve closed, seen in profile, Nuttall 75.\n  22. Same, Nuttall 25.\n  23. Probably bivalve, Nuttall 16.\n  24. Same. Nuttall 36.\n\n[Illustration: PLATE 1]\n\n\nPLATE 2\n\nINSECTA\n\nHONEY BEE (_Melipona_)\n\n   1. Possibly a drone, Tro-Cortesianus 108a.\n   2, 3. Tro-Cortesianus 108a.\n   4, 6[TN-18] Bees more conventionalized, Tro-Cortesianus 80b.\n   5. Bee and honey comb, Tro-Cortesianus 109c.\n   7. Honey combs, apparently in a hive, Tro-Cortesianus 11c.\n   8. Maya day sign, _Cauac_, possibly representing a honey comb,\n        Tro-Cortesianus 106b.\n   9. Tro-Cortesianus 103c.\n  10. Honey combs in a hive, Tro-Cortesianus 104a.\n  11. Bee and honey comb, Tro-Cortesianus 109c.\n\n[Illustration: PLATE 2]\n\n\nPLATE 3\n\nINSECTA AND MYRIAPODA\n\n   1. Maggots, probably of Blowfly (_Sarcophaga_), Tro-Cortesianus 27d.\n   2. Same, Tro-Cortesianus 24d.\n   3. Larva of _Acentrocneme kollari_, Tro-Cortesianus 28c.\n   4. Conventionalized insect, possibly a hornet, Nuttall 3.\n   5. Conventionalized insect, unidentified, Nuttall 19.\n   6. Same, Nuttall 55.\n   7. Same, Nuttall 51.\n   8. Butterfly or moth, Nuttall 19.\n   9. Butterfly, Aubin.\n  10. Maya day sign, _Akbal_, possibly representing the head of a\n        centipede.\n  11. Glyph belonging to god D, apparently composed of signs for\n        centipede, Dresden 7b.\n  12. Glyph for god D, Dresden 14b.\n  13. Glyph, Dresden 44b.\n  14. Same, Dresden 27a.\n  15. Centipede in connection with head-dress of god D, Dresden 15c.\n  16. Glyph, Dresden 9b.\n  17. Same, Dresden 15c.\n  18. Centipede in connection with head-dress of god D, Dresden 7c.\n\n[Illustration: PLATE 3]\n\n\nPLATE 4\n\nARACHNOIDEA, ARACHNIDA, CRUSTACEA\n\n   1. Scorpion and deer, Tro-Cortesianus 48c.\n   2. Scorpion with sting conventionalized as a hand, Tro-Cortesianus 44c.\n   3. Scorpion highly conventionalized, Nuttall 22.\n   4. Spider, possibly a tarantula, Borbonicus 9.\n   5. Crayfish, Nuttall 16.\n   6. Crab, Nuttall 37.\n\n[Illustration: PLATE 4]\n\n\nPLATE 5\n\nMYRIAPODA, PISCES\n\n   1. Parts of a conventionalized centipede with quetzal tail, Vaticanus\n        3773, 13.\n   2. Fish with teeth, Chichen Itza, Temple of the Tigers, Lower Chamber\n        (Maudslay, III, Pl. 48).\n   3. Fish captured by heron, Dresden 36b. (Compare Pl. 15, fig. 5.)\n   4. Chichen Itza, Temple of the Tigers, Lower Chamber (Maudslay, III,\n        Pl. 45).\n   5. Fish.\n   6. Pottery fish, Chajcar (Maudslay, IV, Pl. 93).\n   7. Same.\n   8. Fish as offering, Tro-Cortesianus 3a.\n   9. Same, Dresden 29b.\n\n[Illustration: PLATE 5]\n\n\nPLATE 6\n\nPISCES\n\n   1. Possibly a flying-fish (_Exocetus_), Nuttall 75.\n   2. Palenque, Temple of the Cross (Maudslay, IV, Pl. 68).\n   3. Nuttall 36.\n   4, 5. Glyphs, possibly of a shark, Dresden 40a.\n   6. Fish as offering, Dresden 27c.\n   7. Fish without dorsal fins, possibly an eel (_Muraena_), Dresden 65b.\n   8. Fish as offering, Dresden 23b.\n   9. Pottery animal from Santa Rita (Gann, 1897-1898, Pl. 34).\n  10. Dresden 44c.\n  11. Nuttall 16.\n  12. Palenque, Palace (Maudslay, IV, Pl. 11).\n  13. Fish as offering, Dresden 33a.\n  14. Fish as part of the Great Cycle glyph, Copan, Stela C, north\n        (Maudslay, I, Pl. 41).\n  15. Same, Copan, Stela C, south (Maudslay, I, Pl. 41.)\n  16. Same, Copan, Stela D (Maudslay, I, Pl. 48).\n  17. Same, Copan, Stela C, south (Maudslay, I, Pl. 41).\n\n[Illustration: PLATE 6]\n\n\nPLATE 7\n\nAMPHIBIA\n\n   1. Frog (_Rana_), Tro-Cortesianus 31a.\n   2, 3. Same, Tro-Cortesianus 101d.\n   4. Probably a toad (_Bufo_), Copan, Oblong altar (Maudslay, I, Pl.\n        114).\n   5. Frog or toad, Tro-Cortesianus 17b.\n   6. Frog and fish, Copan, Altar O (Maudslay, I, Pl. 85).\n   7. Chichen Itza, Temple of the Tigers, Lower Chamber (Maudslay, III,\n        Pl. 46).\n\n[Illustration: PLATE 7]\n\n\nPLATE 8\n\nAMPHIBIA, REPTILIA\n\n   1. God F representing a tree-toad (_Hyla eximia_), Tro-Cortesianus\n        26b.\n   2. Glyph evidently belonging to fig. 3, Tro-Cortesianus 26a.\n   3. Same as fig. 1, Tro-Cortesianus 26a.\n   4. Snake, Nuttall 6.\n   5. Same, Nuttall 45.\n   6. Same, Nuttall 37.\n   7. Snake used as head-dress of a woman, Dresden 39b.\n   8. Same, Dresden 23b.\n   9. Same, Dresden 43b.\n  10. Same, Dresden 22b.\n  11. Same, Dresden 9c.\n  12. Same, Dresden 15b.\n  13. Same, Dresden 18a.\n  14. Dresden 42a.\n  15. Same as figs. 7-13, Dresden 20a.\n\n[Illustration: PLATE [8][TN-19]]\n\n\nPLATE 9\n\nREPTILIA\n\nRATTLESNAKE (_Crotalus_)\n\n   1. Tro-Cortesianus 33b.\n   2. Nahua day sign, _Couatl_, Aubin 10.\n   3. Tro-Cortesianus 52c.\n   4. Tro-Cortesianus 40b.\n   5. Chichen Itza, Temple of the Tigers, Painted Chamber (Maudslay, III,\n        Pl. 40).\n   6. Nuttall 29.\n   7. Glyph representing rattles, Tro-Cortesianus 106c.\n   8. Tro-Cortesianus 100d.\n   9. Chichen Itza, Temple of the Tigers, Painted Chamber (Maudslay, III,\n        Pl. 40).\n  10. Nuttall 54.\n\n[Illustration: PLATE 9]\n\n\nPLATE 10\n\nREPTILIA\n\nSERPENTS\n\n   1. Tree snake (possibly _Lachesis_), Dresden 27c.\n   2. Nuttall 37.\n   3. Dresden 57b.\n   4. Nuttall 5.\n   5. Nuttall 37.\n   6. Nuttall.\n   7. Serpent in connection with long number series, Dresden 62.\n   8. Dresden 37b.\n   9. Dresden 40c.\n\n[Illustration: PLATE 10.]\n\n\nPLATE 11\n\nREPTILIA\n\nSERPENTS\n\n   1. Large snake with conventionalized spots, Tro-Cortesianus 30a.\n   2. Tro-Cortesianus 31b.\n\n[Illustration: PLATE 11]\n\n\nPLATE 12\n\nREPTILIA\n\nIGUANA, LIZARDS\n\n   1. Iguana as offering, Tro-Cortesianus 105c.\n   2. Iguana, Tro-Cortesianus 3b.\n   3. Iguana, as offering with _Kan_, Dresden 43c.\n   4. Same, Tro-Cortesianus 107b.\n   5. Same, Tro-Cortesianus 6a.\n   6. Same, Dresden 29b.\n   7. Offering, possibly representing a lizard, Dresden 27b.\n   8. Same, Dresden 34a.\n   9. Lizard used for _Uinal_ glyph, Copan, Stela D, gl. 4. (Maudslay, I,\n        Pl. 48).\n  10. Nahua day sign, _Cuetzpalin_ (lizard), Aubin 10.\n  11. Lizard, Dresden 3a.\n  12. Nuttall 10.\n  13. Offering, the portion with serrated margin possibly representing\n        an iguana, Tro-Cortesianus 12b.\n  14. Lizard, Nuttall 2.\n\n[Illustration: PLATE 12]\n\n\nPLATE 13\n\nREPTILIA\n\nCROCODILE (_Crocodilus_)\n\n   1. Glyph of the Nahua day sign, _Cipactli_, Nuttall 1.\n   2. Crocodile represented by head and limb, Nuttall 36.\n   3. Same as fig. 1, Nuttall 1.\n   4. Same as fig. 1, Nuttall 4.\n   5. Same as fig. 1, Nuttall 9.\n   6. Same as fig. 1, Nuttall 47.\n   7. Same as fig. 1, Nuttall 1.\n   8. Nuttall 75.\n   9. Head of lizard or possibly crocodile used as a _Uinal_ glyph,\n        Palenque, Temple of the Foliated Cross (Maudslay, IV, Pl. 82,\n        gl. 6).\n  10. Head of crocodile, Dresden 52b.\n  11. Head, possibly of a crocodile, Palenque, Temple of the Foliated\n        Cross (Maudslay, IV, Pl. 82, gl. 0,[TN-20] 4).\n  12. Conventionalized head of a crocodile, Dresden 53b.\n\n[Illustration: PLATE 13.]\n\n\nPLATE 14\n\nREPTILIA\n\nTURTLES\n\n   1. Turtle, Tro-Cortesianus 19b.\n   2. Same, Tro-Cortesianus 17b.\n   3. Swimming turtle, Tro-Cortesianus 17a.\n   4. Possibly representing a turtle, Nuttall 33.\n   5. Turtle, Tro-Cortesianus 81c.\n   6. Freshwater turtle (_Chelydra_) with leeches attached,\n        Tro-Cortesianus 72b.\n   7. Glyph for fig. 3.\n   8. Glyph.\n   9. Glyph.\n  10. Glyph.\n  11. Turtle, Nuttall 43.\n  12. Turtle god, _Aac_, Dresden 49.\n\n[Illustration: PLATE 14]\n\n\nPLATE 15\n\nAVES\n\nHERONS[TN-21] FRIGATE BIRD\n\n   1. Heron, stucco ornament, Palenque, Palace, House B (Maudslay, IV,\n        Pl. 18).\n   2. Heron head-dress, Chichen Itza, Temple of the Tigers, Lower Chamber\n        (Maudslay, III, Pl. 45).\n   3. Head and neck of a heron, Dresden 37b.\n   4. Heron, Nuttall 74.\n   5. Heron with fish, Palenque, Temple of the Cross, West side panel\n        (Maudslay, IV, Pl. 71).\n   6. Heron[TN-22]\n   7. Heron with a fish as a head-dress, Dresden 36a.\n   8. Fork-tailed bird, probably a Frigate bird (_Fregata aquila_),\n        Tro-Cortesianus 34a.\n   9. Same, arranged for offering, Dresden 35a.\n\n[Illustration: PLATE 15]\n\n\nPLATE 16\n\nAVES\n\nOCELLATED TURKEY (_Agriocharis ocellata_)\n\n   1. Turkey in trap, Tro-Cortesianus 93a.\n   2. Turkey, Tro-Cortesianus 10b.\n   3. Turkey snared, Tro-Cortesianus 91a.\n   4. Tro-Cortesianus 4a.\n   5. Tro-Cortesianus 95c.\n   6. Tro-Cortesianus 37b.\n   7. Vaticanus 3773, 14.\n   8. Tro-Cortesianus 36a.\n   9. Whole turkey as offering, Dresden 26c.\n  10. Head of turkey as offering, Dresden 34a.\n  11. Same, Tro-Cortesianus 12b.\n  12. Same, Tro-Cortesianus 105b.\n  13. Dresden 20a.\n  14. Head of turkey as offering, Dresden 41c.\n  15. Same, Tro-Cortesianus 107b.\n  16. Same, Dresden 29c.\n  17. Same, Dresden 28c.\n\n[Illustration: PLATE 16]\n\n\nPLATE 17\n\nAVES\n\nKING VULTURE (_Sarcorhamphus papa_)\n\n   1. Tro-Cortesianus 67a.\n   2. Tro-Cortesianus 22c.\n   3. God with head of King Vulture, Dresden 19a.\n   4. King Vulture and Ocellated Turkey, Tro-Cortesianus 85a.\n   5. Glyph, showing head, Dresden 39c.\n   6. Same, Tro-Cortesianus 107c.\n   7. Same, Dresden 38b.\n   8. Same.\n   9. King Vulture, tearing out entrails of deer, Tro-Cortesianus 40a.\n  10. _Tun_ period glyph (Maudslay, IV, Pl. 89).\n  11. Tro-Cortesianus 94c.\n  12. Tro-Cortesianus 26c.\n  13. Glyph, Chichen Itza, Monjas, east (Maudslay, III, Pl. 13).\n\n[Illustration: PLATE 17]\n\n\nPLATE 18\n\nAVES.\n\nKING VULTURE (_Sarcorhamphus papa_), BLACK VULTURE (_Catharista urubu_)\n\n   1. Glyph of head of King Vulture, Dresden 11b.\n   2. Glyph for Nahua day sign, _Cozcaquauhtli_, Nuttall 5.\n   3. Same as fig. 2, Nuttall 41.\n   4. Same as fig. 2, Nuttall 5.\n   5. Same as fig. 2, Nuttall 4.\n   6. Same as fig. 2, showing considerable conventionalization. Nuttall\n        2.\n   7. Same as fig. 2, Nuttall 3.\n   8. Same as fig[TN-23] 2, further reduced, Nuttall 18.\n   9. Same as fig. 2, Nuttall 3.\n  10. Same as fig. 2, Nuttall 20.\n  11. Probably a Black Vulture, Tro-Cortesianus 95c.\n  12. Black Vulture, Tro-Cortesianus 70a.\n  13. Same, Dresden 17b.\n  14. Possibly a Black Vulture, Chichen Itza, Monjas, east (Maudslay,\n        III, Pl. 13).\n  15. Head of Black Vulture, Nuttall 32.\n  16. Glyph of head of same, Dresden 54b.\n  17. Black Vulture, Tro-Cortesianus 36b.\n  18. Head of same, Tro-Cortesianus 26c.\n  19. Same, Dresden 39c.\n  20. Same, Nuttall 19.\n  21. Same, Nuttall 34.\n  22. Same, Dresden 37c.\n  23. Same, Nuttall 27.\n  24. Same, Nuttall 1.\n  25. Same, Nuttall 34.\n  26. Same, Nuttall 9.\n  27. Same, Tro-Cortesianus 19b.\n\n[Illustration: PLATE 18]\n\n\nPLATE 19\n\nAVES.\n\nVULTURES\n\n   1. Vulture (probably a King Vulture) tearing at entrails of an animal,\n        Tro-Cortesianus 42a.\n   2. Nuttall 69.\n   3. Nuttall 74.\n   4. Possibly a Black Vulture, Tro-Cortesianus 35b.\n   5. Tro-Cortesianus 26d.\n   6. Tro-Cortesianus 26d.\n   7. Dresden 3a.\n   8. Glyph, Copan (Maudslay, I, Pl. 16).\n   9. Glyph, Copan, Altar K (Maudslay, I, gl. 73).\n  10. Glyph, Tikal, House 9 (Maudslay, III, Pl. 79).\n  11. Black Vulture and snake, Dresden 36b.\n  12. Probably vultures, Tro-Cortesianus 100b.\n  13. Probably a vulture, Tro-Cortesianus 18b.\n  14. Same, Temple of the Tigers, Lower Chamber, Chichen Itza (Maudslay,\n        III, Pl. 46).\n\n[Illustration: PLATE 19]\n\n\nPLATE 20\n\nAVES\n\nHARPY EAGLE (_Thrasaetos harpyia_)\n\n   1. Glyph, Copan (Maudslay, I, Pl. 16, gl. 3).\n   2. Nuttall 53.\n   3. Glyph, Copan (Maudslay, I, Pl. 16, gl. 13).\n   4. Tro-Cortesianus 88c.\n   5. Part of a head-dress, Dresden 14c.\n   6. Peresianus 2.\n   7. Dresden 14b.\n   8. Eagle with crest feathers tipped by flints, Nuttall[TN-24]\n   9. Glyph, Tro-Cortesianus 107c.\n  10. Stone carving, Chichen Itza (Maudslay, III, Pl. 52).\n  11. Dresden 23c.\n  12. Possibly an eagle's head, Dresden 43c.\n  13. Possibly an eagle, Dresden 74.\n  14. Bologna 7.\n\n[Illustration: PLATE 20]\n\n\nPLATE 21\n\nAVES\n\nYUCATAN HORNED OWL (_Bubo virginianus mayensis_)\n\n   1. Owl in flight, Stucco ornament, Palenque, Palace, House E\n        (Maudslay, IV, Pl. 43).\n   2. Stone carving of owl, Yaxchilan, Stela 4 (Peabody Museum Memoirs,\n        II, Pl. 70).\n   3. Owl in flight, carved in wood, Tikal, House C, lintel (Maudslay,\n        III, Pl. 78).\n\n[Illustration: PLATE 21]\n\n\nPLATE 22\n\nAVES\n\nYUCATAN HORNED OWL (_Bubo virginianus mayensis_)\n\n   1. Bologna 7.\n   2. As a head-dress, Tro-Cortesianus 95c.\n   3. Borgia 7.\n   4. On end of staff carried by warrior, Chichen Itza, Temple of the\n        Tigers, Lower Chamber (Maudslay, III, Pl. 49).\n   5. Aubin 13.\n   6. Head highly conventionalized, Palenque, Temple of the Sun\n        (Maudslay, IV, Pl. 88).\n   7. Screech-owl (_chiqu\u00e0tli_), Aubin.\n\n[Illustration: [PLATE] 22[TN-25]]\n\n\nPLATE 23\n\nAVES\n\nYUCATAN SCREECH OWL or _Moan-bird_ (_Otus choliba thompsoni_)\n\n   1. Dresden 7c.\n   2. Tro-Cortesianus 66a.\n   3. Dresden 11a.\n   4. As a head-dress, Tro-Cortesianus 94c.\n   5. As a head-dress, Dresden 18b.\n   6. Glyph associated with Moan-bird, Dresden 7c.\n   7. Same, Dresden 7c.\n   8. Dresden 10a.\n   9. Peresianus 10.\n  10. Peresianus 5.\n  11. Glyph representing head, Dresden 38c.\n  12. Same, Dresden 8b.\n  13. Same, Dresden 53b.\n  14. Same, Dresden 16c.\n  15. Glyph possibly representing Moan-bird, Dresden 38c.\n  16. Glyph of head, Dresden 53b.\n  17. Glyph associated with Moan-bird.\n  18. Tro-Cortesianus 73b.\n  19. As a head-dress, Dresden 16c.\n  20. As a head-dress, Tro-Cortesianus 95c.\n  21. Glyph associated with Moan-bird, Dresden 7c.\n\n[Illustration: PLATE 2[3][TN-26]]\n\n\nPLATE 24\n\nAVES\n\nCOPPERY-TAILED TROGON or QUETZAL (_Pharomacrus mocinno_)\n\n   1. Head-dress with crest feathers shown as knobs, Dresden 7c.\n   2. Head-dress, Dresden 13b.\n   3. Same, Dresden 16c.\n   4. Tro-Cortesianus 100b.\n   5. Tro-Cortesianus 70a.\n   6. Head-dress, Tro-Cortesianus 94c.\n   7. Nuttall 33.\n   8. Conventionalized tail as a head ornament, Dresden 20c.\n   9. Vaticanus 3773, 17.\n  10. Glyph, Palenque, Temple of the Sun (Maudslay, IV, Pl. 89, gl. O,\n        9).\n  11. Trogon descending on a sacrifice, Bologna 8.\n  12. Tro-Cortesianus 36b.\n  13. Glyph, Copan (Maudslay, I, Pl. 111, gl. 54).\n  14. Glyph apparently representing a trogon's head, Dresden 20c.\n  15. Same, Dresden 9b.\n  16. Same, Dresden 3a.\n  17. Head, Nuttall 43.\n  18. Tro-Cortesianus 26c.\n  19. Figure with head ornament resembling a trogon glyph, Dresden 20c.\n\n[Illustration: PLATE 24]\n\n\nPLATE 25\n\nAVES\n\nBLUE MACAW (_Ara militaris_)\n\n   1. Figure with macaw head and holding firebrands, Dresden 40b.\n   2. Head-dress, Dresden 16c.\n   3. Tro-Cortesianus 12a.\n   4. Glyph, Copan, Stela 11 (Maudslay, I, Pl. 112, gl. 12).\n   5. Same, Copan, Stela B (Maudslay, I, Pl. 38).\n   6. Glyph used in connection with fig. 1.\n   7. Glyph.\n   8. Stone carving of upper mandible and head, Copan, Stela B (Maudslay,\n        I, Pl. 37).\n   9. Head, probably of a turtle, month sign _Kayab_, Quirigua, Stela A\n        (Maudslay, II, Pl. 7, gl. 14).\n  10. Head, probably of a macaw, Copan, Altar Q (Maudslay, I, Pl. 93).\n  11. Tro-Cortesianus 37b.\n  12. Head, probably of a macaw, Copan, Stela A (Maudslay, I, Pl. 30,\n        gl. 19).\n  13. Tro-Cortesianus 94c.\n\n[Illustration: PLATE 25]\n\n\nPLATE 26\n\nAVES\n\nPARROTS, TURKEYS\n\n   1. Macaw as a head-dress, Tro-Cortesianus 26c.\n   2. Bird of sacrifice, doubtless an Ocellated Turkey (_Agriocharis_)\n        Dresden 25c. (Compare also Dresden 26c[TN-27] 27c, 28c.)\n   3. Head-dress, probably a macaw, Copan, Altar Q (Maudslay, I, Pl. 92).\n   4. Possibly a parrot (_Amazona_), Nuttall 4.\n   5. Head-dress, head of a macaw, Tro-Cortesianus 89a.\n   6. Head-dress, possibly representing a parrot, Dresden 12b.\n   7. Possibly a parrot (_Amazona_), Nuttall 71.\n   8. Glyph representing a macaw's head, Tikal, Temple C (Maudslay, III,\n        Pl. 78).\n   9. Parrot-like head-dress, Dresden 19a.\n  10. Possibly a macaw, Tro-Cortesianus 37b.\n  11. Parrot-like head-dress, Dresden 11b.\n  12. Bird of sacrifice, probably an Ocellated Turkey or a Chachalaca,\n        Nuttall 22.\n  13. Parrot-like head-dress, Dresden 11a.\n  14. Head of Ocellated Turkey or a Chachalaca, Nuttall 5.\n\n[Illustration: PLATE 26]\n\n\nPLATE 27\n\nAVES\n\nMISCELLANEOUS\n\n   1. Bird of sacrifice, an Ocellated Turkey or a Chachalaca, Nuttall 2.\n   2. Same, Nuttall 16.\n   3. Same, Nuttall 19.\n   4. Same, Nuttall 1.\n   5. Woodpecker possibly _Campephilus imperialis_, Nuttall 74.\n   6. Same, Nuttall 71.\n   7. Possibly a Raven (_Corvus corax sinuatus_), Nuttall 48.\n   8. Parrot (_cocho_), Aubin 11.\n   9. Same, Aubin 13.\n  10. Turkey-cock (_uexolot_),[TN-28] Aubin 11.\n  11. Same, Aubin 13.\n\n[Illustration: PLATE 27]\n\n\nPLATE 28\n\nVARIOUS ANIMALS\n\n   1. Earthenware vessel representing a tapir (_Tapirella_) with a\n        necklace of Oliva shells (Seler, 1904b, p. 106, fig. 23).\n   2. Stone carving, possibly of a King Vulture (_Sarcorhamphus papa_),\n        Copan, Altar T (Maudslay, I, Pl. 96).\n   3. Stone carving, possibly a lizard, Copan, Stela 6 (Maudslay I, Pl.\n        107).\n   4. Stone carving, probably a jaguar (_Felis onca hernandezi_), Copan,\n        Stela 2 (Maudslay, I, Pl. 102).\n   5. Stone carving of a Black Vulture (_Catharista urubu_), Copan, Stela\n        D (Maudslay, I, Pl. 48).\n   6. Lizard (?) attacked by two birds (?) perhaps vultures, Quirigua,\n        Altar B (Maudslay, II, Pl. 15).\n\n[Illustration: PLATE 28]\n\n\nPLATE 29\n\nMAMMALIA\n\nARMADILLO AND MISCELLANEOUS\n\n   1. Nine-banded Armadillo (_Tatu novemcinctum_), Tro-Cortesianus 103a.\n   2. Same, Tro-Cortesianus 92d.\n   3. Same, Tro-Cortesianus 103a.\n   4. Armadillo captured in a pitfall, Tro-Cortesianus 48a.\n   5. Undetermined animal, Dresden 14c.\n   6. Undetermined animal, possibly a frog or a marsupial,\n        Tro-Cortesianus 33a.\n   7. Rodent, Nuttall 11.\n   8. Undetermined animal, Tro-Cortesianus 24d.\n\n[Illustration: PLATE 29]\n\n\nPLATE 30\n\nMAMMALIA\n\nDEER, HARE\n\n   1. Yucatan deer, caught in a snare, Tro-Cortesianus 48b.\n   2. Yucatan brocket (_Mazama pandora_) caught in a pitfall,\n        Tro-Cortesianus 92a.\n   3. Glyph for hare or rabbit, Nuttall 16.\n   4. Same, Nuttall 5.\n   5. Yucatan deer, Dresden 60a.\n   6. Same, Tro-Cortesianus 30b.\n   7. Hare or rabbit, Nuttall 22.\n   8. Same, Dresden 61[TN-29]\n\n[Illustration: PLATE 30]\n\n\nPLATE 31\n\nMAMMALIA\n\nYUCATAN DEER (_Odocoileus yucatanensis_)\n\n   1. Doe, Dresden 45c.\n   2. Same, F\u00e9gerv\u00e1ry-Mayer 26.\n   3. Same, Tro-Cortesianus 29c.\n   4. Same, Nuttall 50.\n   5. Same captured in snare, Tro-Cortesianus 86a.\n   6. Head-dress of god M, Tro-Cortesianus 50b.\n   7. Same, Tro-Cortesianus 51c.\n   8. Doe, Tro-Cortesianus 2b.\n   9. Head of same, Nuttall 43.\n  10. Head of doe as sacrifice, Tro-Cortesianus 77.\n  11. Same, Peresianus 10.\n  12. Haunch of venison as a sacrifice, Dresden 35a.\n  13. Same, Tro-Cortesianus 105b.\n  14. Same, Dresden 28c.\n  15. Same, Tro-Cortesianus 108a.\n\n[Illustration: PLATE 31]\n\n\nPLATE 32\n\nMAMMALIA\n\nYUCATAN PECCARY (_Tayassu angulatum yucatanense_)\nYUCATAN DEER (_Odocoileus yucatanensis_)\n\n   1. Peccary, Nuttall 79.\n   2. Same, Dresden 68a.\n   3. Combination, a peccary's head and forefoot, with long tail and\n        hindfoot without hoofs, Tro-Cortesianus 66a[TN-30]\n   4. Peccary, Dresden 45b.\n   5. Man with peccary head, Copan, Sela[TN-31] D, cast (Maudslay, I, Pl.\n        46).\n   6. Combination animal, with hoofs and dorsal crest of a peccary and\n        scales of a reptile, Dresden 75.\n   7. Peccary, Nuttall 9.\n   8. Yucatan deer, with conventionalized antler, glyph for Nahua day\n        sign, _Ma\u00e7atl_, Nuttall 26.\n   9. Same, Peresianus 5.\n  10. Glyph for Nahua day sign _Ma\u00e7atl_, Aubin 10.\n  11. Same, Nuttall 5.\n  12. Deer, Copan, Stela N, East (Maudslay, I, Pl. 79).\n\n[Illustration: PLATE 32]\n\n\nPLATE 33\n\nMAMMALIA\n\nYUCATAN PECCARY (_Tayassu angulatum yucatanense_)\n\n   1. Peccary caught in a snare, Tro-Cortesianus 49c.\n   2. Glyph, Chichen Itza, Monjas, East (Maudslay, III, Pl. 13).\n   3. Head as a head-dress, Chichen Itza, Temple of the Tigers, Lower\n        Chamber (Maudslay, III).\n   4. Peccary caught in a snare, Tro-Cortesianus 93a.\n   5. Tro-Cortesianus 30b.\n   6. Dresden 62.\n   7. Glyph representing a peccary's head, Dresden 45b.\n   8. Same, Dresden 43b.\n   9. Peccary caught in a snare, Tro-Cortesianus 49a.\n\n[Illustration: PLATE 33]\n\n\nPLATE 34\n\nMAMMALIA\n\nJAGUAR, PUMA\n\n   1. Jaguar (_Felis hernandezi_), Nuttall 24.\n   2. Man seated in the open mouth of an animal, possibly a jaguar,\n        Tro-Cortesianus 20a.\n   3. Nahua day sign, _Oceolotl_, Aubin 9.\n   4. Pot representing a jaguar or puma (Gann, 1897-1898, Pl. 34).\n   5. Probably a puma (_Felis bangsi costaricensis_), Chichen Itza,\n        Temple of the Tigers, Painted Chamber (Maudslay, III, Pl. 40).\n   6. Chichen Itza, Temple of the Tigers, Lower Chamber (Maudslay, III,\n        Pl. 50).\n   7. Probably a puma, Dresden 47.\n\n[Illustration: PLATE 34,[TN-32]]\n\n\nPLATE 35\n\nMAMMALIA\n\nCOYOTE, BEAR, JAGUAR\n\n   1. Probably a coyote (_Canis_), Nuttall 6.\n   2. Same, Nuttall 26.\n   3. Possibly a bear (_Ursus_), Dresden 37a.\n   4. Same, Chichen Itza, Temple of the Tigers (Maudslay, III, 38).\n   5. Jaguar (_Felis hernandezi_), Dresden 8a.\n   6. Glyph, probably of a jaguar head, Copan, Stela 4 (Maudslay, I, Pl.\n        104).\n   7. Copan, Altar F (Maudslay, I, Pl. 114).\n   8. Jaguar, Tro-Cortesianus 28c.\n   9. Stone carving of jaguar head, Palenque, Palace, House C (Maudslay,\n        IV, Pl. 24).\n  10. Jaguar, Tro-Cortesianus 30b.\n  11. Glyph, probably of a jaguar.\n  12. Head of jaguar in fresco, Santa Rita (Gann, 1897-1898, Pl. 31).\n  13. Same, Tro-Cortesianus 2a.\n  14. Same, Nuttall 27.\n\n[Illustration: PLATE 35]\n\n\nPLATE 36\n\nMAMMALIA\n\nDOG (_Canis_)\n\n   1. Dog and crab, Tro-Cortesianus 88c.\n   2. Tro-Cortesianus 37b.\n   3. Tro-Cortesianus 66b.\n   4. Head, Nuttall 34.\n   5. Nuttall 72.\n   6. Head, Nuttall 20.\n   7. Probably a dog, Nuttall 3.\n   8. Aubin 9.\n   9. Glyph for day sign _Oc_.\n  10. Same.\n  11. Same.\n  12. Tro-Cortesianus 91d.\n  13. Glyph for Nahua day sign _Itzcuintli_, Aubin 9.\n  14. Tro-Cortesianus 27d.\n\n[Illustration: PLATE 36]\n\n\nPLATE 37\n\nMAMMALIA\n\nDOG (_Canis_)\n\n   1. Dog bearing firebrands, Dresden 40b.\n   2. Same, Dresden 39a.\n   3. Same, Dresden 36a.\n   4. Tro-Cortesianus 88a.\n   5. Dresden 21b.\n   6. Tro-Cortesianus 24c.\n   7. Dresden 13c.\n   8. Tro-Cortesianus 37a.\n   9. Dresden 30a.\n  10. Dresden 7a.\n  11. Glyph supposed to represent a dog's ribs, Dresden 13c.\n  12. Dresden 29a.\n  13. Head, Tro-Cortesianus 91d.\n\n[Illustration: PLATE 37]\n\n\nPLATE 38\n\nMAMMALIA\n\nLEAF-NOSED BAT (_Vampyrus spectrum_ or _Phyllostomus hastatus\npanamensis_)\n\n   1. Glyph, Chichen Itza, Akat 'Cib (Maudslay, III, Pl. 19.)[TN-33]\n   2. Glyph, Copan (Maudslay, I, Pl. 8).\n   3. Bat god, drawn as glyph, Copan, Stela D (Maudslay, I, Pl. 48).\n   4. Glyph, Copan (Maudslay, I, Pl. 8).\n   5. Glyph, Palenque, Temple of the Inscriptions (Maudslay, IV, Pl. 60,\n        gl. Q 1).\n   6. Glyph, Tikal (Maudslay III, Pl. 74, gl. 41).\n   7. Bat gad used as decoration on pottery, Chama (Dieseldorff, 1904).\n\n[Illustration: PLATE 38]\n\n\nPLATE 39\n\nMAMMALIA\n\nMONKEY AND MISCELLANEOUS\n\n   1. Capuchin monkey (_Cebus capucinus_), Nuttall 1.\n   2. Same, Nuttall 5.\n   3. Head of same, Nuttall 38.\n   4. Nondescript animal, possibly a combination of monkey and peccary,\n        Tro-Cortesianus 88c.\n   5. Glyph, possibly representing a monkey, found in connection with\n        fig. 4.\n   6. Glyph of head of monkey, Nuttall 1.\n   7. Head of long-nosed god, Tro-Cortesianus 30a.\n   8. Head of monkey, glyph for Nahua day sign, _O\u00e7omatli_, Aubin 9.\n   9. Long-nosed god, Tro-Cortesianus 30b.\n  10. God with head-dress, Dresden 5c.\n\n[Illustration: PLATE 39]\n\n\n\n\nTranscriber's Note:\n\nThe following typographical errors were noted in the original text:\n\n  TN-1  279  \"Yucatan Horned Ow\" should read \"Yucatan Horned Owl\"\n  TN-2  281  \"Mandslay\" should read \"Maudslay\"\n  TN-3  284  \"deRosny\" should read \"de Rosny\"\n  TN-4  299  \"connnection\" should read \"connection\"\n  TN-5  299  \"signifiance\" should read \"significance\"\n  TN-6  299  \"lightening\" should read \"lightning\"\n  TN-7  340  \"indicatd\" should read \"indicated\"\n  TN-8  344  \"Kayae\" should read \"Kayab\"\n  TN-9  353  \"(Dresden 44b, 45b, (Pl. 32, fig. 4)\" Has an extra ( before\n             Pl.\n  TN-10 366  \"C. hypoleucus Auct.)\" should read \"Auct.).\"\n  TN-11 Footnote 327-[+]  \"coasa\" should read \"cosas\"\n  TN-12 Footnote 349-*    \"for\" should read \"por\"\n  TN-13 371  \"Espa\u00f1ales\" should read \"Espa\u00f1oles\"\n  TN-14 371  \"l'Am\u00e9irque\" should read \"l'Am\u00e9rique\"\n  TN-15 371  \"Biblioth\u00e9que\" should read \"Biblioth\u00e8que\"\n  TN-16 372  \"1895. republished\" should read \"1895. Republished\"\n  TN-17 372  \"und Maya-Handschriften:\" colon should be a semi-colon\n  TN-18 Plate 2 caption  \"4, 6\" should have a . following\n  TN-19 Plate 8  Plate number was not printed on the page\n  TN-20 Plate 13 caption  \"Pl. 82, gl. 0, 4\" should read \"O, 4\"\n  TN-21 Plate 15 caption  \"HERONS FRIGATE\" should read \"HERONS, FRIGATE\"\n  TN-22 Plate 15 caption  \"6. Heron\" should have a . at the end\n  TN-23 Plate 18 caption  \"8. Same as fig\" should read \"fig.\"\n  TN-24 Plate 20 caption  \"flints, Nuttall\" should end with a .\n  TN-25 Plate 22  The word \"Plate\" was incompletely printed\n  TN-26 Plate 23  \"23\" was missing the second digit\n  TN-27 Plate 26 caption  \"Dresden 26c 27c,\" should have a , after 26c\n  TN-28 Plate 28 caption  \"uexolot\" should read \"uexolotl\"\n  TN-29 Plate 29 caption  \"Dresden 61\" was missing the . at the end\n  TN-30 Plate 32 caption  \"Tro-Cortesianus 66a\" was missing the . at the\n                          end\n  TN-31 Plate 32 caption  \"Sela\" should read \"Stela\"\n  TN-32 Plate 34  \"PLATE 34,\" should not end with a comma\n  TN-33 Plate 38  \"Pl. 19.)\" should read \"Pl. 19).\"\n\n\nThe following words had inconsistent hyphenation:\n\n  Blow-fly / Blowfly\n  cross-hatched / crosshatched\n  pit-fall / pitfall\n\n\nThe following words had inconsistent spelling:\n\n  dechiffrement / d\u00e9chiffrement\n  F\u00e9gerv\u00e1ry-Mayer / Fej\u00e9rv\u00e1ry-Mayer / Fejervary-Mayer\n  R\u00e9lacion / Relacion\n  r\u00f4le / role","title":"Animal Figures in the Maya Codices","tradition":"myth-cosmogony","translated_text":null,"word_count":37420}