Several coincidences between the narratives of this voyage and that of Ojeda have led many writers to conclude that both describe the same expedition, the dates having been accidentally or intentionally changed. Humboldt, after a careful examination, was convinced that the two voyages were identical. But when we consider that Humboldt, Navarrete, and Irving formed their conclusions without a suspicion of a voyage to North America, and before that question had ever once arisen; that Navarrete severely criticises Vespucci's narrative as applied to Ojeda's voyage; that two of the strongest coincidences—the mention of Paria as the coast visited, and the discovery of a town built over the water like Venice—have no weight in view of the new theory, since the province is called Lariab in the original edition, and that method of building was not uncommon in all the tropical regions of America, it must be admitted that this argument has by itself little force against the authenticity of Vespucci's voyage. The right granted to private individuals by the Spanish government in April, 1495, to make voyages of discovery at their own expense, subject to certain regulations, was partially revoked in June, 1497, after Vespucci's claimed departure. All authorities agree that during this time such private voyages, or even clandestine expeditions, may have been and probably were made, of which no records have been preserved. It is argued that Vespucci's voyage may have been of this number, although claimed to have been made under royal patronage, and by no means clandestine. It is even suggested that the revocation of the right of private navigation, brought about by the influence of Columbus, was purposely delayed until after Vespucci's departure—all of which proves, if it proves anything, simply that there was nothing to prevent Vespucci from making the voyage.