132 LECTURES. 



have, at different times, had a very different signification. The name 

 Canada, for instance, formerly covered much more, and that of the 

 United States much less, ground than now. 



No arrangement^ however, that we can adopt will enahle us^ in all 

 instances, to find under one head every map that is explanatory of a 

 given country. We can only expect to find the jirincipal things 

 united under it, and must always he prepared to search somewhat in 

 the neighhoring divisions. Thus, if a person would study, with the 

 help of our collection, the geographical history of the La Plata river, 

 he must consult, hesides the maps placed under that head, those also 

 which are contained in the divisions of Brazil, Patagonia, Chile, and 

 Peru ; hecause, if not the whole, at least some branches of the river 

 may at times have been represented under those heads. It cannot he 

 expected that a collection like o^irs should altogether do away with 

 trouble, study, and research, but only that research should be made 

 easier, or rather we should say, in many instances, possible. 



For the beginning, and for a limited historical collection of Ameri- 

 can maps, the divisions named would perhaps suffice. Whether 

 these different classes should again be subdivided, and how far the 

 subdivisions should be carried, whether to the history and chartogra- 

 phy of every province, county, port, and town, would depend on the 

 development given to the collection. That in many parts of America, 

 at least, we might come down in a useful and satisfactory manner to 

 very small divisions, there is not the slightest doubt. It might be 

 useful to provide, at the very beginning, a special receptacle for the 

 maps of some very important points, such as the harbors of Boston, 

 New York, Havana, or Rio Janeiro. 



A further question arises with respect to the place to be assigned to 

 maps commonly known as physical, geological, zoological, tidal, cur- 

 rent, wind, &c. Shall they be mixed up according to time and place 

 with all the rest of the maps, or shall we make of them separate divi- 

 sions ? Shall, for instance, a geological map of Peru of the year 1830 

 be placed along with the topographical and political maps of that 

 country of the same period ? 



If the geographers of America had, from the beginning, made 

 geographical, geological, and all other descriptions of physical as well 

 as historical and political maps, and if they had all been developed 

 in equal degrees, and in parallelism with each other, then I would say 

 that all the different species of maps of each part of the continent 

 might be strictly arranged together according to chronology, as such 

 an arrangement would give a better and fuller view than could other- 

 wise be obtained of the whole growth of knowledge respecting that 

 country. 



But as the case actually stands, I believe it would be better to col- 

 lect the physical maps separately — at least the greater part of them. 

 Natural history is a very recent science^ and the chartography of 

 natural history is newer still — is only in its childhood. Political and 

 so-called topographical maps we have in great numbers. Physical 

 maps are still very few and scarce. They would be in a manner lost, if 

 we were to combine them with the overwhelming bulk of the former. 

 We have, for instance^ some hundreds of topograj^hical and political 



