M. de BufFon's principal arguments in favour of the American 

 claim are the following : 



Hernandez, who wrote the Natural Hiftory of Mexico, hath 

 mentioned this bird under the name of Huexolotl. 



Now it is much wifhed that Hernandez had explained what 

 is the meaning of this Mexican term, as I ftrongly fufpect it 

 ijgnifies The New, The Ra/iern bird, or of the like import, in- 

 timating that it was brought to America by the Spaniards. 



But I mufl not difmifs this earliefr. and principal authority 

 of M. BufFon's, without dwelling upon fome material circum- 

 ftances, to the decifion of the point in conteft. 



Hernandez's work was rirft printed at Rome in 1 65 1 ; and 

 I cannot difcover at what time he compiled it but by the Dedi- 

 cation, in which it is ftated that Philip II. had fent this phy- 

 lician to Mexico. 



Now this King of Spain began his reign in 1555, and died in 

 1598; and if we therefore allow twenty-one years as the half of 

 his life, after Charles V. gave up his crown, it feems to be 

 a fair conjecture, that Hernandez took notice of this bird in the 

 neighbourhood of Mexico about the year 1576, when he fpeaks 

 of it alfo as known to every one under the name of Gallus Indicus^ 

 which I hope foon to prove means the Eaftern, and not the 

 Weftern Indies. 



This fame year alfo, of 1576,- was but fifty-one years after 

 the conqueft of Mexico by Oortez; and rf this bird was in that 

 time fo difperfed over Europe, as to be known to every one, could 

 the natural hiftorian of this part of America have omitted fo 

 material a circumftance in relation to the animals of the country 

 which he was defcribing. 



As for Columbus's difcovery of the iflands in the Gulf of 

 Mexico, neither M. Buffon, or any other writer, hath ever pre- 

 2 tended 



