NOTE V.
The Latitudes of Gallego in the Solomon Group.—On making fourteen comparisons of the latitudes obtained by Gallego with the latitudes of the same places in the most recent Admiralty [charts], places about which there can be no doubt as to their identity, I find that all but two are in excess of the true latitude. The excess varies between 11′ and 1° 7′ (about); and since seven of the twelve latitudes vary between 38′ and 46′ in excess, we may take 40′ plus as about the probable and average prevailing error of Gallego’s observations of latitude in this group. A constant error points to some constant defect of observation; whether it may be instrumental or otherwise, I must leave to the judgment of my nautical readers. . . . . It may be inferred from his journal that Gallego did not endeavour to make his latitudes by observation accord with his bearings, as they are so often at variance. This circumstance should be borne in mind in order to explain the discrepancies that occur.
NOTE VI. ([Page 206].)
The Isle of Ramos and the Island of Malaita.—On referring to the account of Figueroa in the original Spanish, I find that, like Gallego, he applies the name of Ramos to Malaita. Pingré, who published a translation of Figueroa’s account in 1767 at Paris,[402] associates the two names together. Dalrymple[403] in his translation, published in 1770, laid the ground for future misconception, by so pointing the sentence that the name of Ramos might be taken as intended for one of the “two islets” in the middle of the passage between Malaita and Isabel. Fleurieu,[404] in his translation of Figueroa published in Paris in 1790, applies the name of Ramos to Malaita. Burney,[405] in his version (1803), apparently applies this name to one of the islets above referred to. The authority of Dalrymple and Burney would appear to supply an explanation of the circumstance that in the present Admiralty charts this name of Ramos is applied to an islet between Malaita and Isabel; but Dalrymple’s version is susceptible of two meanings, and may be urged with equal justice on either side. Gallego and Figueroa both apply the two names to the same island; so that circumstance alone is sufficient to justify the restoration to Malaita of the Spanish name of “The Isle of Ramos.” The original cause of the mistake is to be attributed to the first discoverers, who gave their own name and were not content with the native name. Herrera[406] has fallen into the opposite error, since, in distinguishing between Malaita and Ramos, he gives the latter a circuit of 200 leagues.
[402] “Mémoire sur le choix et l’état des lieux où le passage de Vénus du 3 Juin, 1769.” (Paris, 1767.)
[403] “Hist. Coll. of Voy. and Discov.,” London, 1770.
[404] “Discoveries of the French in 1768 and 1769.”
[405] “Chronol. Hist. Voy and Discov.,” vol. i.
[406] “Descripcion de las Indias Occidentales.”