"Seeing then that the coast in question, and that of New Guinea are in the same latitude, that they greatly resemble each other in position, that several names upon them are similar, and that the similar names follow each other in both cases in the like consecutive order, and the same direction from west to east, I think we may safely come to the conclusion that the coast in question is identically that of New Guinea, and that the assumption of Viscount Sa de Bandeira and others following him, or whom he has followed, is an error."
From these observations of Dr. Martin, the editor forms the following conclusions; that the tract laid down on Vaz Dourado's map as discovered by Magalhaens, is in fact a memorandum or cartographical side-note of the real discovery by Magalhaens of Terra del Fuego, and that from its adopted false position on the vellum it was subsequently applied erroneously to New Guinea by Mercator. But even if this surmise be incorrect, the only alternative that remains is that the tract laid down is New Guinea, and clearly not Australia, as assumed by the claimants to whom we have referred. The editor submits that this claim is alike untenable from the account of Magalhaens' voyage and from the evidence of the map^itself on which that claim is founded.
But we now pass to a more plausible indication of a discovery of Australia by the Portuguese in the early part of the sixteenth century, which ranges between the years of 1512 and 1542. It occurs in similar form on six maps, four of them in England and two in France, on which, immediately below Java, and separated from that island only by a nar-
