What possible reason can be assigned for this action? It is anybody’s guess; no one can now determine what Clark thought, but following is a rational hypothesis: In the close of the year 1811, Andrew Henry and his men returned from their trapping venture in the Upper Snake River basin. They had skirted the western border of Wonderland along the line of the Madison and Gallatin rivers and explored the sources of Henrys Fork of the Snake River. Yet, Henry had not seen any hot springs, geysers, or great lakes. No doubt Henry had heard trappers joke about “Colter’s Hell.” Personally, he showed no confidence in it. Evidently both he and Clark considered that Henry’s and Colter’s journeys overlapped. Actually, the Gallatin Range intervened between them. It is reasonable, therefore, that Henry’s report and attitude affected Clark’s original belief in Colter’s story. Where he first believed he now doubted. Perhaps Clark concluded that Colter’s terrible experiences had deranged his mind. It is certain that Clark sent his new knowledge of the Henrys Fork country to Biddle in 1812 because it appears on the Map of 1814.[360] It was undoubtedly at this time that Clark sent in his redrawn, guesswork version of the western portion of Colter’s map. No one knows exactly what changes Clark made, but the Map of 1814 proves conclusively that Clark did not depict the “Colter’s Hell” country which contains the wonders of Yellowstone Park as it was originally presented to him. It was a valid reaction for Clark to have become suspicious of Colter’s reliability, and the substitution of his own geographical speculation for Colter’s Yellowstone sketch was probably sincere. Clark was too honest to depict the delusions of an “insane” man. Also he was very anxious to have a reasonably complete and integrated map. The only alternatives were to allow the Colter marvel sheet to appear or else to mark a considerable area “unexplored.” He was caught in the bonds of uncertainty and made a compromise. The result was a sheet of bogus geography which is entirely incongruous, not only with the facts, but with Clark’s uniformly excellent map work.[361]