i888.] Hardy 07i the Great Auk. ^8 1 



dence, lies in the fact that Lescarbot had travelled extensively in 

 this country, being as he said himself "temoin oculaire d'une 

 partie des choses ici i-ecitees" ; and so able from his own experi- 

 ence to correct any misprint in Cartier's work ; and moreover 

 would not have hesitated to do this, as anyone who is acquainted 

 with the calm way in which these early travellers appropriated 

 each other's observations will admit. The extract is as follows : 



"... .et approchames de trois iles, desquelles y en avoit deux 

 petites droites comme un mur, en sorte qu'il estoit impossible 

 d'y monter dessus, et entre icelles y a un petit escueil. Ces iles 

 estoient plus remplis d'oiseaux que ne seroit un pre d'herbes, 

 lesquels faisoient la leur nids. et en la plus grande de ces iles y 

 en avoit un monde de ceux que nous appellions Margaux, qui 

 sont blancs et plus grands qu' Oysons, et estoient separez en un 

 canton, et en I'autre part y avoit des Godets ; mais sur le rivage y 

 avoit de ces Godets q.\. grands Apponaths semblables a ceux de 

 cette ile dont nons avons fait mention [probably his He des 

 Oyseaux, No. 3 of his chart ; this lie des Margaux is No. 46]. 

 Nous descendimes au plus bas de la plus petite, et tuames plus 

 de mille Godets et Apponaths et en mimes tant que souloumes 

 en noz barques, et en eussions plus en moins d'une heure remplir 

 trente semblables barques. Ces iles furent appellees du nom de 

 Margaux." (Lescarbot, Histoire de la Nouvelle France, Vol. I, 

 p. 231 et seq., ed. 1609; p. 233 et seq., Tross edition.) 



It is extremely improbable that the same verbal error should 

 find its way into the three different versions of Cartier and also into 

 the four editionsof Lescarbot published duringthe latter's lifetime. 

 Hence if Hakluyt, quoting a translation, said "great Apponatz," 

 and Lescarbot, quoting Cartier either directly or indirectly, said 

 "grands Apponaths," the chance that Cartier ever said or meant 

 to say "grasse" is exceedingly small. Whatever the bird was, 

 we must admit that it impressed the French as being large ; and 

 we must remember that this is an absolute, not a relative term. 



In one or two places Mr. Lucas writes "Great Apponatz," 

 beginning the adjective with a capital, as if there might be a 

 'Lesser Apponatz,' in comparison with which this was large. 

 That this could not have been the case, may be seen from the 

 fact that Apponatz, or Apponath, was an Indian name, not yet 

 naturalized, so that any adjective attached must have been purely 

 descriptive, never distinctive in its use. For any other bird some- 



