GEOGEAPHIGAL APPENDIX. 



NOTE I. 



The Accounts op Gallego and Figueroa compaeed. — On caroMly comparing these 

 two accounts, I have no doubt that Figueroa derived almost all his information from the 

 journal of Gallego. He, to a great extent, employs his own phraseology ; but in the descrip- 

 tions of the islands and of the natives, the words and expressions employed are often 

 identical, and the mode and order of description are evidently supplied by the journal of 

 Gallego. An indirect proof of the source, whence Figueroa drew bis materials, is to be 

 found in the circumstance that, after the two vessels were separated during the voyage back 

 to Peru, he confines his account to the experiences of the " Capitana," which was Gallego's 

 vessel ; and here his account is substantially a condensed form of Gallego's journal which is 

 occasionally quoted literally. Figueroa, however, does not inform us of the source of his 

 information ; and he has evidently, in some measure, endeavoured to infuse his own method 

 of expression into the account. There are not wanting proofs, however, that he was assisted 

 from other sources, but only in a small degree. For instance, he occasionally intercalates a 

 circumstance to which Gallego does not allude ; and he varies in the accounts of the conflicts 

 with the natives : thus he refers to s )me of the Spaniards having died at Estrella Harbour, 

 to there being a foot and a half of water in the hold of one of the ships during the return 

 voyage, to the ships being heaved-down at St. Christoval, and to a few other similar 

 occurrences unrecorded by Gallego. The account of Figueroa differs in the date of the year 

 of the voyage. It contains only a bare reference to the cruise of the brigantine to St. 

 Christoval and its adjacent islands, whilst the vesssels lay at the Puerto de la Cruz on the 

 coast of Guadalcanar. It is from this cause that the names of all the islands visited and 

 named dm-ing this cruise of the brigantine are not given in Figueroa 's account, Herrera, 

 however, in his short description of these islands, gives a full list of the names of the 

 islands, and, in this respect, his description is superior to that of Figueroa. 



NOTE II. 



Discrepancies in the Dates of the Years.— There is a strange discrepancy in the 

 dates of the yearg during which this expedition was away from Peru. The year 1566, is 

 given on the title-page of the British Museum copy of Gallego's Journal ; and the author 

 expressly states that the expedition left Callao on November 19th, 1566 ; he carries this 

 year on, naming the following year, 1567 ; but in August he gives the year as 1568, and 

 makes the return to Peru to be in 1569. It is evident from the narrative that the ships were 

 absent from Peru about nineteen months, from November of one year to June of the 

 second ensuing year ; and it is highly probable that the year of their departure was 1566, 

 and that of their return 1568. . . . Figueroa differs strangely in the dates he gives.^ In the 

 first line of his account he says that the ships were dispatched in 1567 ; and in the succeed- 

 ing iDaragraph he gives January 10, 1568, as the date of their departure from Callao, thus 

 being quite at variance with Gallego, both as regards the day, the month, and the year. 

 The ships reached the coast of Slexico on their return voyage in January 1508, according to 

 Figueroa. From this inconsistency it may be inferred, that 1567 was intended as the date of 

 the departure from Peru. . . . Herrera,^ in his description of these islands, states that 

 they were discovered in 1567, which accords with the narrative of Gallego. . . . Arias^ in a 



' " Heches (le Don Carcia H. <le Mendoza," per el Doctor Christoval S. de Figueroa. Madrid, 1013. 



-' " Descriiicion'de las Indias Uccidentales." (Madrid, about l(iol.) 



„ " Karly Voyagis to Terra Australis," by K. H. Major (p. 1). Hakluyt Society, 1859. 



