But further, if we attribute to such supposed falsification, the ulterior object of claiming for the Portuguese the honour of a prior discovery, whence comes it that that object has never been carried out? It is not till now that the fact is made known, and those most interested in the ancient glory of the Portuguese nation are ignorant of the discovery which this map declares to have been made. That it never became matter of history, may be explained by the comparatively little importance which would at the time be attached to such a discovery, and also by the fact that the Portuguese, being then no longer in the fulness of their prosperity, were not keeping the subject before their attention by repeated expeditions to that country, as the Dutch shortly afterwards really began to do. Again, the speculation might be hazarded that, as this map is a copy, the date of the discovery may have been carelessly transcribed; as, for example, 1601 may easily have been written in the original 1610 and erroneously copied. Fortunately, the correctness of the date can be proved beyond dispute. It is distinctly stated that the voyage was made by order of the Viceroy Ayres de Saldanha, the period of whose viceroyalty extended only from 1600 to 1604, thus precluding the possibility of the error suggested, and terminating before the period of the earliest of the Dutch discoveries. But yet, again, it may be objected that a country so vaguely and incorrectly laid down may not have been Australia. The answer is equally as indisputable as that which fixes the date. Immediately below the legend in question is another to the following effect: “Terra descuberta pelos Holandeses a que chamaraō, Enduacht, (_sic_) au Cōcordia” (land discovered by the Dutch, which they called Endracht or Concord). Eendraghtsland, as we all know, was the name given to a large tract on the western coast of Australia, discovered by the Dutch ship the Eendraght, in 1616. Moreover, if the legend in question were not a genuine copy from a genuine ancient map, how came the modern falsifier to be acquainted with the name of a real cosmographer who lived at Goa at a period which tallies with the state of geographical discovery represented on the map, but none of whose manuscript productions had been put into print at the time when the supposed fictitious map was made or the legend fictitiously inserted? I think these arguments are conclusive in establishing the legitimacy of the modern copy from the ancient map. As regards the discoverer, Manoel Godinho de Eredia (or rather Heredia, as written by Barbosa Machado and by Figaniere), I find the following work by him; “Historia do Martyrio de Luiz Monteiro Coutinho que padeceo por ordem do Rey Achem Raiamancor no anno de 1588, e dedicada ao illustrissimo D. Aleixo de Menezes, Arcebispo de Braga;” which dedication was dated Goa, 11th of November, 1615; fol. MS. with various illustrations.