194 DAHLGREN, THE DISCOVERY OF THE HAWAIIAN ISLANDS. 



This table, however, cannot be explained in quite the same way as, for example, 

 that of the Volcano and Bonin Archipelagos. Doubling on the basis of the pilot' s observa- 

 tions had certainly not taken place, except possibly as regards the group which in most 

 charts is called Los Jardines — a name, which, however, has certainly arisen through 

 transfer from a group due south thereof and belonging to the Carolines. The other islands 

 are situated at too great a distance from the Mariannes to permit us to suppose that 

 confusion with them might have been based on an actual observation. I have shown 

 above how the Los Monges group came into existence: it remains to explain the origin of 

 the twice-repeated group between them and Los Jardines — the groups in which we find 

 the names La Mira, Volcan, and Desierta. 



In my opinion, we have here the same islands as Ortelius calls Laniem, Volcan del 

 fuego, and La far fana, that is to say in reality the Bonin Islands, which were wrenched 

 from their proper position by some to us unknown cartographer and placed once f urther to 

 the west and another time f urther to the east; in consequence of which a låter copyist was 

 led to draw the islands twice. Laniem is in all probability a clerical error for La Mira; 1 and 

 the signification of LaFarfana (Huerfana), "the Solitaiy", almost coincides with La 

 Desierta, "the Desolate". We find some support for this hypothesis in Robert Dudley, 

 who, in his "Arcano del Mare" placed a group east of the Mariannes with the appellation 

 /. Tre Solitarie, which in its turn originated Delisle's Les olsles désertes tirées de Rob. Dudley 

 (25° lat.) and his La Solitaire (18° lat.), the former on his "Carte des Indes et de la Chine" 

 (1705), the latter on his "Hémisphére Septentrional" (1714). When such an eminent 

 geographer as Delisle was guilty of such a, to all appearance, arbitrary removal, it is not 

 at all unreasonable to assume a similar procedure in the far less critical cartographers of 

 earlier times. 



That which above all things attracts our attention in the above review is the island 

 of La Mesa, a name which, in our attempt at explanation, we have so far ignored, although 

 we have seen that it is on its meaning that the hypothesis of the Spanish discovery of 

 Hawaii largely rests. 



It must first of all be pointed out that the name La Mesa occurs only on the Anson 

 and La Pérouse charts, that is to say on those charts which were demonstrably altered 

 in the redaction and which furnish the most and the worst mistakes in the reproduction 

 of the names, 2 while the incontestably authentic sources, Cabrera Bueno and the Stockholm 

 chart, have Mira instead of Mesa; both names alike seem to be missing on the Seville 

 chart. From this verv fact one may feel drawn towards a surmise that the name Mesa 

 arose through a clerical error. It is now impossible to determine whether the mistake 

 should be ascribed to the editor of the Anson chart or whether it alreadv existed in the 



1 The identification of Laniem and La Mira has already been proposed by Ph. F. von Siebold; see 

 GeschicJite der Entdecknngcn im Seegebiefe von Japan, Leiden 1852, p. 41. 



- Among the mistakes in the Anson chart, which are made obvious by the above tabular view, may be 

 mentioned Camira for La Mira, Bcseo Nasida for Desconocida, Baijro for Bajo or Baxo, not to mention less 

 distorted forms. The names in the southern part of the chart, the explanation of which has no bearing on 

 this work, furnish numerous mistakes, e. g. Lagurfanes for La huerfana, Casbobas for Las bobas, Arrcsitas 

 for Arrecifes, S n Baravel for San Bernabe, etc. etc. 



