That we had been fortunate in the moment of reaching the summit was apparent next day. The spectacle was, indeed, repeated at sunrise and for a short period thereafter, though the general design was markedly different, and less intricacy of pattern was discernible, while the general effect was comparatively vague; perhaps the shadow of Sierra Seri was too heavy, or, more probably (as was my impression at the time), our position was not favorable for that direction of illumination. In full light during the day up to the hour of our departure in late afternoon, no hint or vestige of the current design remained. It was evident that the lines were brought out with especial clearness by the favorable illumination and comparative stillness of air; and it was particularly evident that the lines marked movements in the water, even if there were corresponding air-currents, since they harmonized perfectly with the configuration of the shores and with the trend of spits and bars and offshore markings seen through the shallow waters, especially toward the northern end of the strait. The accord between shore curves and the current lines seen in the evening indicated a southward motion much more vigorous than the reverse movement witnessed next morning; for the marked variation in the design noted in the morning was of a character strongly suggesting a reversed movement of the water, while the faintness of the markings then may perhaps have been due to comparative feebleness of current rather than to unfavorable lighting. Certainly the close agreement between the elaborate system of markings, so clearly revealed in the evening, and the prevailing curves of the shores would seem to indicate unmistakably that, whatever the direction and strength of flow, the markings were a product of current motion.” [16] Publication No. 56, U. S. Hydrographic Office, Bureau of Navigation, 1880, p. 142. [17] Op. cit., p. 143.