The events of the voyage, and the description of the coast visited by Vespucci as given in his letter, furnish no evidence whatever for or against the authenticity of the expedition; but if it be admitted from outside evidence that the voyage was actually made, and was distinct from that of Ojeda, while the narrative has nothing except the occurrence of the name Paria in favor of a South American destination, from it may be gathered the following points in support of the theory that a more northern coast was the one explored. The course sailed from the Canaries, W. ¼ SW.; the time thirty-seven days; the distance 1,000 leagues, taking the distance from Lisbon to the Canaries, 280 leagues, as a scale of measurement; the latitude of the landing 16°, and longitude 75° west of the Canaries; and the arrival by sailing up the coast at a province situated in about 23°, and near the tropic of Cancer, are worthy of consideration, since a series of blunders such as these is hardly probable. The natives of Lariab were of different language from and hostile to the nations passed further south, as the Huastecs of the Pánuco region are known to have been with respect to the Mexicans. Moreover, Lariab has a slight claim to being a Huastec word, since Orozco y Berra gives three names of places in that language containing an _l_ and ending in _ab_; but of course this would interfere sadly with the theory that Lariab is a misprint of Caria. Vespucci's description of the natives, criticised by Navarrete as incorrect when applied to the people of Paria, agrees better, as M. Varnhagen thinks, with the aborigines of Honduras. Other parts of Vespucci's vague and rambling descriptions apply well enough to the North American coasts, or in fact to any part of tropical America, north or south.