2. A continuous surface of ice extends from the one land to the other. At the time of our exploration, this expanse was formed of ice, for the most part not more than a year in growth, but crossed in many places with fissures and broad barriers of piled-up ice. Throughout its whole extent we saw many icebergs, which we never did in the Novaya Zemlya seas; whence it is to be inferred that they sail away in a northerly direction.[39] Our track lay over this ice-sheet. As long as it remains unbroken, every fiord might serve as a winter harbour; but if it should break up, not a single locality suitable to form one presented itself along the coasts we visited, which had no small indentations.[40] 3. The map of this country, which we present, was designed and constructed from fifteen observations of latitude, from many observations made with the azimuth compass, from drawings, and from a system of triangulation, which, from the nature of the circumstances under which it was formed,[41] makes no pretensions to absolute exactitude. The heights of the mountains were determined by the aneroid barometer. Near the ship a base of 2170·8 metres was measured by Weyprecht and Orel, and connected trigonometrically with the nearest promontories. This work of theirs formed the basis of my surveys. 4. It has always been a principle and a practice with Arctic explorers to name their discoveries either after the promoters of their special expeditions, or after their predecessors in the work of discovery. Though they are never likely to become important to the material interests of mankind, the naming the lands we discovered after those who promoted our expedition, was, we considered, the most enduring form by which we could express our gratitude for their efforts in furtherance of a great idea. The localities, I may add, were named during the work of surveying.