This fragment of description is meagre enough; but it is all that we can boast of possessing. It is further remarkable that those who have spoken of the part of the coast visited by Tasman in this voyage, have led their readers into a misconception by attributing the discovery of the Gulf of Carpentaria to Carpenter, and of the northern Van Diemen’s Land to the governor so named. So soon after the voyage as the year 1663, we find Thevenot printing as follows: “We shall, in due course, give the voyages of Carpenter and Diemen, to whom is due the principal honour of this discovery. Van Diemen brought back gold, porcelain, and a thousand other articles of wealth; which at first gave rise to the notion that the country produced all these things: though it has been since ascertained that what he brought was recovered from a vessel which had been wrecked on these coasts. The mystery which the Dutch make of the matter, and the difficulties thrown in the way of publishing what is known about it, suggest the idea that the country is rich. But why should they shew such jealousy with respect to a country which produces nothing deserving so distant a journey?” La Neuville also, in his _Histoire de Hollande_ (Paris, 1703, tom. ii, p. 213), speaking of Van Diemen, says: “This latter not only examined the coasts of this great land, but had two years previously sailed as far as 43 degrees towards the antarctic pole, and discovered, on the 24th of November 1642, a new country in the other continent, which now bears the name of Van Diemen’s Land.” Here the very details clearly expose the nature of the mistake, since the maps and the instructions to Tasman shew his second voyage to have been in 1644, and the discovery of Van Diemen’s Land in 1642 is known to be his beyond all dispute. The fact is moreover confirmed by the identity of the names given to the tracts discovered in these two voyages, viz. those of the principal members of the council and of Marie van Diemen, to whom Tasman is supposed to have been attached.