THE SUPPLEMENTARY SERIES. 561 
Finally, it is even possible that these deities presided over still longer periods 
like the lunar groups of 177, 178, or 148 days. In this connection, R. K. Morley 
has recently called the writer’s attention to a significant characteristic of the 
Glyphs C in Pair 6 and Triplet 5, the two aberrant groups above. The coefficients 
of Glyph C in Pair 6 are 1 (Naranjo, Stela 24) and 6 (Naranjo, Stela 29), and in 
Triplet 5 they are again 1 (Yaxchilan, Stela 1 and Copan, Stela N) and 6 (Quirigua, 
Stela F). In other words, where the heads in Glyph C differ for Supplementary 
Series accompanying the same Initial Series, the corresponding coefficients—in the 
only five examples available for comparison—are either 1 or 6. The most obvious 
explanation of this phenomenon is that these differing deities presided over the 
larger lunar periods of which the coefhcients of Glyph C denote the subdivisions, 
that 1s, over the periods of 177, 178, or 148 days, if we may follow the parallel 
afforded by pages 51 to 58 of the Dresden Codex. 
This explains why these deities could differ, and yet belong to Supplementary 
Series accompanying the same Initial Series, since under this explanation the head 
of God E in Pair 6 (Naranjo, Stela 29) with its coefficient of 6 indicates that God E 
was the deity who presided over the lunar period of 6 months ending on the day 
g.12.10.5.12 (Initial Series of Stela 29), and the sign of God M (Naranjo, Stela 24) 
with its coefficient of 1 indicates that God M was the deity who would preside over 
the following lunar period of 5 or 6 months, which began on the same day. 
Again, in the case of Triplet 6, the head of God E (Quirigua, Stela F) with its 
coefhicient of 6 would indicate that God E presided over the lunar period of 6 months 
ending on the day 9.16.10.0.0 (Initial Series of Stela F), and the signs for God M 
(Yaxchilan, Stela 1, and Copan, Stela N) with their coefficients of 1 would indi- 
cate that God M presided over the following lunar period of 5 or 6 months, which 
began on the same day. 
These two groups, comprising five examples in all, are, of course, too insufficient 
to establish this point, but Morley's hypothesis here, that the deities shown in 
Glyph C presided over the longer lunar periods of 177, 178, or 148 days as the case 
might be, satisfactorily explains both the agreements and the disagreements ob- 
served in this element of Glyph C, and fits the archeological evidence better than 
the day or lunar month hypotheses. On the basis of this assumption the deities 
indicated by this element in Glyph C might possibly be called Eclipse Gods, since 
the eclipse phenomenon would appear to be associated with these 5-month and 6- 
month lunar groups. 
It would be premature to accept this hypothesis as proved, but the important 
fact in connection with this element now is that in it we probably have the sign of 
the deity who presided over the period in which the accompanying Initial Series 
date fell, hardly the day, or the lunar month, but more probably one of these 
larger lunar groups, or even some as yet unknown period. 
Returning to the Supplementary Series, the next sign, Glyph D (see figure 79, 
q-v), is the fourth from the left and immediately precedes Glyph C. It only occurs 
in about half of the texts under observation and therefore could hardly have been 
essential to the meaning of the count. 
When present, however, it is extremely constant, being composed of 4 elements, 
as follows: 
1. A hand always present and never changing in form. 
2. A variant of the moon-sign, always present and never changing in form. (Note 
that these two elements of Glyph D are identical with the corresponding ele- 
ments in Glyph C.) ; 
3. A bar-and-dot coefficient varying from 2 to 19 inclusive and no coefficient at 
all, which is probably to be interpreted as I, 
4. A subfix, probably unessential, 
