In some of the editions this name is Vanduara, and is considered by Chalmers to have been Paisley, and he has been followed by all subsequent writers. His reasons are very inconclusive, viz. that there are said to have been Roman remains at Paisley, and that Vanduara is probably derived from the Welsh Gwendwr or White water, and the river at Paisley is called the White Cart. But rivers do not change their names. If it had ever been called Gwendwr, it would have borne the name still; and to rest the identity of Vanduara with Paisley upon a mere conjectural etymology is the reverse of satisfactory. The best editions give Vandogara as the form of the name, which obviously connects it with Vindogara or the bay of Ayr; and Ptolemy’s position corresponds very closely with Loudon Hill on the river Irvine, where there is a Roman camp. What confirms this identity is, that the towns in the territory of the Damnonii appear afterwards to have been all connected with Roman roads, and there are the remains of a Roman road leading from this camp to Carstairs. Footnote 68: All editions agree in placing Devana in the interior of the country, at a distance of at least thirty miles from the coast. Its identity with the sea-port of Aberdeen rests upon the authority of Richard of Cirencester alone. Footnote 69: Mr. Burton, in stating his disbelief in the genuineness of Richard and its results, adds, among other things to be abandoned, ‘the celebrated Winged Camp; the Pteroton Stratopedon can no longer remain at Burghead in Moray, though a water tank there has become a Roman bath to help in its identification, and it must go back to Edinburgh or some other of its old sites.’—(Vol. i. p. 62.) He is, however, mistaken in supposing that its identification rests upon Richard. Ptolemy is in reality the authority for Alata Castra and its position on the shore of the Moray Firth. It is of course absurd to recognise Roman remains there at that early period, but there can be no question that a native strength existed on that headland. See _Proc. Ant. Soc._ vol. iv. p. 321, for an account of the remains. Footnote 70: