what we find in the plate.

This will enable the reader to follow up the names and numbers on the
table as I will now give them from _Caban_ (No. 36), in the manner above
shown, remembering that the movement on the plate is around the circle
toward the left, that is, up the right side, toward the left on the top,
down the left side, &c., and that, on the tables, after one column is
completed we take the next to the right.

From _Caban_ (No. 36) we go next to _Ezanab_ No. 37 (the single dot is
here effaced); then down the row of dots to _Oc_, No. 38, over which is
the numeral for 13; then to _Chuen_, No. 39, immediately to the left
(the single dot is dimly outlined immediately above it); then up the row
of large dots to _Akbal_ No. 40 (the numeral character for 13 is
immediately to the right); then to _Kan_ No. 1, immediately to the left
(the single dot adjoins it on the right); then to the left along the
border row of dots to _Cib_ No. 2, in the upper left-hand corner,
immediately under which we find the numeral character for 13.

[Illustration: FIG. 2.--Scheme of the Tableau des Bacab.]

Without following this further, I will now give a scheme or plan of the
plate (Fig. 2), adding the names of the effaced characters, which the
table enables us to do by following it out in the manner explained. I
also give in Plate II another figure of the plate of the Cortesian
Codex, with the effaced characters inserted, and the interchange of
_Caban_ and _Eb_ which will be hereafter explained. This plate
corresponds with the plan or scheme shown in Fig. 2.[4]

In this we commence with Kan, numbered 1, in the top row, moving thence
toward the left as already indicated, following the course shown by the
numbers.

By this time the reader, if he has studied the plate with care, has
probably encountered one difficulty in the way of the explanation given;
that there are usually _twelve_ large dots instead of _eleven_, as there
should be, between the day signs; as, for example, between Kan No. 1 and
Cib No. 2, in the upper row. This I am unable to explain, except on the
supposition that the artist included but one of the day signs in the
count, or that it was not the intention to be very exact in this
respect. The fact that the number of dots in a row is not always the
same, there being in some cases as many as thirteen, and in others but
eleven, renders the letter supposition probable. In the scheme the
number of dots in the lines