Although the wing has a wavy form, which we recognize as characteristic of some glyphs in GD11, I have not included these glyphs among the GD11 glyphs. Obviously GD23 and GD11 depict the same type of bird ('character') seen from different views, and a wavy wing form on a bird in GD23 does not motivate the same glyph to be included also in GD11.

The tail of GD23 birds often is drawn in a way resembling '3 fingers' (Aa3-26):

That is, though, far from always the case - see examples earlier above - and also the peculiar form in Aab-54:

Furthermore, the lower part of the beak is a site for signs, as seen in Aa3-17 and Aa5-26:

Also the 'male member' is a site for different signs (Ab8-77 and Ab7-47):

Although GD54 is characterized by birds with heavily bent heads I have chosen to include Aa1-73 and Aa6-17 also under GD23. These are abnormal GD54 glyphs which may include signs of GD23:

Similarly, these glyphs (Aa5-82, Aa8-36 and Ab6-43) have been classified as GD23 :

The head forms and body postures are OK for GD23, but the beaks are wrong. In GD11 we include birds with different kinds of beaks and therefore different kinds of beaks should be acceptable also here in GD23.

These three glyphs do not belong to GD42, because the bottom part of such 'birds' is without the features seen here. Moreover, in the GD42 'birds' there is a 'knee' pointing either right or left. No such 'knee' is seen in these glyphs.

Aruku Kurenga (B)

In Aruku Kurenga another convention seems to have been used (compared to the norm in Tahua). Bb10-23 and Bb2-39 can serve as examples:

The 'three finger' tail and a head like in normal GD11 glyphs is recognizable, but the general impression is different. Even more so when we look at other examples (Ba1-35, Ba1-37 and Bb2-12) with aberrant beaks:

I have included also Bb4-36, because it is alluding to GD23 (though clearly the figure is GD54):

Mamari (C)

Unusual is Ca6-28, which because of the general impression and the open beak I decided to classify as GD23:

Special is also Ca9-7, but the wing-arm backwards and possibly 'three-finger tail' made me choose GD23 as an appropriate place:

Ca9-12 and Ca9-14 have marks inside the perimeter of the body:

Cb5-13 and Cb13-17 maybe are questionable, but the best location seems to be GD23:

Échancrée (D)

Da8-101 seems to resemble Ca6-28 (see above):

Db5-106 has a triangular sign inside the outline of the glyph:

Keiti (E)

Ea2-11 have marks (head form, wing at the back) which are characteristic of GD23:

The bottom part of the bird, on the other hand, suggests GD74. But GD74 glyphs should have both wings visible, and therefore the classification becomes GD23.

Several other glyphs with a similar construction (as Ea2-11) differ more from the norm of GD23, e.g. Ea1-14 and Ea2-22:

Yet we can see only one wing and therefore the classification must be GD23.

The rest of the texts

The texts above have been used as a kind of 'test ground' to see if the definitions could be used.

For the rest of the texts the same principles have been used, although less stringently. The experiences gained have been relied upon rather than what is written above about what characterizes the glyph type.

There may be a few extra glyph added, which would not have been so with a strict application of the written definitions. On the other hand there has been no attempt to ignore glyphs which according to the written definitions ought to belong to the glyph type.