"On the 17th of April, 1732, the order was, therefore, sent from the privy Cabinet to the Senate, which thereupon inquired of the Academy of Sciences of St. Petersburg what and how much had as yet been found out about Kamschatka, the surrounding countries and waters. The Academy confided the making of the report to Mr. Delisle, who prepared a chart upon which Kamschatka, Jeso, according to the description of the crew upon the Castricom, the Staten island, Company island, and the coast of Gama were designated. This chart was supplemented by a memoir in which he described the discoveries already made and suggested various routes for making new ones. He expressed himself in regard to those routes in the following manner: 'If one have attained the northern boundary of Asia, and at the same time the eastern limits, as far as Captain Bering went on his first voyage, one cannot fail to arrive in America, and might even choose the route, either northeast or southeast, whichever he prefers, as he would have, at most, only 600 miles to pass over. 2. Or, without venturing so far, it would perhaps be better and more comfortable to sail from the east coast of Kamschatka, go directly east, to look for the neighboring country which Bering found traces of in his first voyage. 3. Finally, he thought that if they should sail southeast from Kamschatka they would perhaps more speedily and more certainly discover the country seen by Juan de Gama.'" Can the inconsistency between the dates, as given by Müller and Adelung on the one hand, and by de l'Isle on the other, be reconciled, or is it apparent rather than real? As Bering, according to the Russian marine officer (Waxel?) returned to St. Petersburg on March 1, 1730, it is reasonable to suppose that de l'Isle, {215} whose duties were those of a cartographer, had finished within the next year and a half his reproduction of Bering's working chart. The fact that the order of inquiry about the results of the voyage did not leave the privy council until April 17, 1732, does not necessarily indicate that the map at least, if not the memoir, was not already prepared, even if not in possession of the Academy of Sciences. It appears probable that the map may have been drawn by de l'Isle in 1731, but it is quite certain that it was not made public until 1732. Lauridsen speaks of a map in Moscow in 1731, and, as it is evident from "Lettre d'un" that there was no difficulty in persons of influence procuring copies from the Senate, it is likely that the Moscow chart was a copy of the map of de l'Isle, and that the date of 1731 is correct; but this theory must rest on Lauridsen producing evidence that such a map existed in Moscow in 1731. The Russian officer speaks with authority as to the map of 1732. Commenting on de l'Isle's account of the circumstances under which he compiled the map of 1732, he continues as follows: