was named _Puerto de la Cruz_; and the locality where the third sojourn
was made, and where the brigantine was abandoned, is marked by the No. 3.

The island thus marked, bears no name on the map; it is the southernmost
large island, however, and corresponds therefore with _San Christobal_,
where the third and last sojourn was made, and where, at a later period,
a colony was to have been founded.

The island bearing the name _Nombre de Jesus_, is misnamed, evidently as
the result of interference on the part of the cartographer, for,
according to the narrative, it lies at many days' sail from the first
land sighted in the Solomon Group, and has been identified, as I have
said before, with Nukufetau in the Ellice Group.

Other mistakes of the map-maker are, _Amacifre_ instead of _Arecifes_
reefs; and _Maiulata_ for _Malaita_. Malaita, however, is a mistake of
the Spaniards, for the natives call their island Mala and ita means
"here"; as one might say, "here is Mala."

The curious mistake alluded to on page 63 is this:

In most of the old maps that were made prior to the identification of
Sarmiento's and Mendana's discoveries, the Solomon Islands were placed
much too close to New Guinea, occupying, in fact, the position of New
Britain and New Ireland. This was owing to the belief on the part of the
Spaniards, that they had reached the region where their predecessors,
Saavedra, Retez and Gaspar Rico, had made their discoveries: so that, New
Britain, New Ireland, and all the other islands, of the Bismark
Archipelago were once believed to be the Solomon and Guadalcanal the
extreme east end of New Guinea.