284 ANIMAL FIGURES IN THE MAYA CODICES 



field practically untouched.* Forstemann in his various com- 

 mentaries on *the Maya codices (1902, 1903, 1906), Brinton 

 (1895), and deRosny (1876) have only commented briefly upon 

 this side of the study of the manuscripts. Seler (1904a) and 

 some others have written short papers on special animals. Dur- 

 ing the preparation of this paper there has appeared a brief 

 account by Stempell (1908) of the animals in the Maya codices. 

 The author has, however, omitted a number of species and, as 

 we believe, misidentified others. In making our identifications 

 we have given the reasons for our determinations in some detail 

 and have stated the characteristics employed to denote the 

 several species. 



We have not Umited ourselves entirely to the Maya manu- 

 scripts as we have drawn upon the vast amount of material 

 available in the stone car\dngs, the stucco figures, and the 

 frescoes found throughout the Maya area. This material has 

 by no means been exhausted in the present paper. In addi- 

 tion to the figures from the Maya codices and a comparatively 

 few from other sources in the Maya region, w^e have introduced 

 for comparison in a number of cases figures from a few of the 

 ancient manuscripts of the Nahuas and the Zapotecs to the 

 north. The calendar of these two peoples is fundamentally 

 the same as that of the Mayas. The year is made up in the 

 same way being composed of eighteen months of twenty days 

 each with five days additional at the end of the year. There is 

 therefore a more or less close connection as regards subject 

 matter in all the pre-Columbian codices of Mexico and Central 

 America but the manner of presentation differs among the differ- 

 ent peoples of this region. 



*Tlie first two parts of Dr. Seler' s Treatise, "Die Tierbilder der mex- 

 ikanischen und der Maya-Handschriften" published in the Zeitschrift 

 fiir Ethnologle, Vol. 41, have appeared during the time when this paper 

 was passing through the press. The most excellent and exhaustive 

 treatment by Dr. Seler would seem to render the present paper un- 

 necessary. It has seemed best,- however, to continue with its pubhca- 

 tion inasmuch as its field is narrower and more space is devoted to the 

 Maya side of the question to the exclusion of the Mexican. Dr. Seler, 

 on the other hand, while by no means neglecting the Maya, has spent 

 more time in explaining the Mexican figures. 



