This document contains explanatory notes and background information on various island names. Click on any Table button to view the appropriate entry in the Table of Island Names.

David Porter originally described “ … two rocks that lie off the north end of Porter's Island which we have called Bainbridge's Rocks.” According to the Hooker map in Porter's book, these rocks were in fact east of the present Isla Santa Cruz. These rocks are now known as Gordon Rocks (Rocas Gordon) and this name appears for the first time on a map drawn by G. W. P. Edwardes, H. M. S. Daphne. Porter's original designation was subsequently applied to other rocks off the coast of Isla San Salvador.

Contrary to some reports, the name is not an acronym derived from Base Aerea para Logística y Transporte (or similar) bestowed by the American armed forces during their WW II occupation of the island. At present, the earliest known appearance of the name is in Part III of the 1927 edition of South America Pilot (p. 358):

The previous (1915) edition does not show the above information. The Hydrographic Office copy does however bear this handwritten notation: “Names. __ Baltra I. & Puerto Nuñez H 214/15.” This is an indication that these names are to be added to the next edition, and H 214/15 indicates a document containing source information. Unfortunately, the document cannot be located, and is presumed to be lost. And so therefore, is the origin of this name.

Charts: The 1942 chart issued by the U. S. Hydrographic Office is the first edition in a sequence of charts of Islas Baltra, Mosquera and Seymour Norte. It lacks the details (airstrips, roads, etc.) found on the subsequent 1943 chart issued by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. This chart was first printed with Seymour Island label. At a later date, “Seymour” was crossed out and “Baltra” printed above the cross-out. See “Study of the U. S. Air Forces' Galapagos Islands Base” for explanation.

In all three logs of H. M. S. Beagle, the entry for Saturday, 10th October 1835 includes the following three bearings (numbered here for reference purposes:

Although the Beagle's approximate location on that date is known, its exact position is uncertain, as indicated by these three interpretations:

• View A: If Bearing 1 is interpreted as the westernmost part of James Island that could be seen at that time, then Bearings 2 and 3 pass through Bartolomé and Daphne Major respectively. However, it was FitzRoy himself who named Bartholomew (now, Bartolomé) Island in honor of Lt. Bartholomew Sulivan, H. M. S. Beagle, as shown on an inset on Admiralty Chart 1375. It would therefore be unlikely for the log to refer to the same island as Breakfast Isle.
• View B: If Bearing 1 is interpreted as a westerly peak on James Island, then Bearings 2 and 3 pass through the Beagle Islets and Daphne Major, respectively. This interpretation is also unlikely, because the Beagle log consistantly refers to other volcano bearings as “peak” or “summit.” However, this does allow Bearing 2 to agree with FitzRoy's statement described immediately below.
• View C: If the “West Extreme of James Island” bearing should have been written as East, then “Breakfast Isle” is in fact one of the current Beagle Islands, and the “Rocky Islet” is one of the Guy Fawkes islands. This agrees with FitzRoy's statement in his Documents Sent to the Hydrographer of the Admiralty Sept 16, 1844, where he writes (ms. p. 8) that “Four miles East of Jervis Islet [ie, Rábida], are the little Breakfast Islets.” A detail map shows the modern Islas Beagle are in that location.

To further confuse the issue, some whalers had actually applied “Breakfast Isle” to the modern Isla Rábida, as cited in the log of the whaler Hector, Capt. Thomas Norton.

This section offers evidence to support the claim that Cowley's “King Charles the Second's” Island is in fact the present Isla San Cristóbal.

According to most, if not all, post-Cowley/Hacke/Moll charts, the island that Cowley called King Charles the Seconds, is the present-day Isla Santa María/Floreana. Yet in reading Cowley and Dampier, one is struck by the fact that it would be almost impossible for them to have seen this island first. In fact, using nothing but their own descriptions of the voyage, it appears quite likely that they never even came close to the island now said to be the early Charles.

Cowley's “Your Grace” letter is the first recorded description of their arrival:

About the end of the month we saw an island bearing southwest of us. But there ran so great a current that seteth to the northward that I could not fetch it. … This island I gave the name of King Charles the Second's Island, by reason that it was the first that I saw. I judge that the body of that island may lie near one degree south latitude … ”

In Sloane Ms. 1050 (and others), Cowley states that . . .

The first island that we saw lay near the latitude of 1°30' South. We, having the wind at South & we being on the North side thereof, that we could not get to it to discover what was upon it. This island maketh high land, lying in the longitude of 278°[87°] or there about. This [island] I named King Charles the Second's Island.

We seeing many more to the westward, we made to them & we got in and …

If their ship were on the north side of the present Santa María, there would be no point in attempting to reach it since, given the “wind at South,” it would have been easier to reach the present Santa Cruz. Also, his report of “seeing many more [islands] to the westward” suggests he was off the present San Cristóbal, where there are indeed islands to the westward.

Dampier's description further supports this claim. He writes that . . .

… the ship that I was in … anchored on the East-side of one of the Eastermost Islands, a Mile from the shoar, in sixteen Fathom Water, clean, white, hard sand.

Modern detail charts show that only the eastern extremity of Isla San Cristóbal agrees with his description of the anchorage. The soundings off Santa María are far greater, and the bottom is rocky—not clean white hard sand.

Dampier further reinforces the case for being nowhere near Santa María/Floreana, by mentioning a later voyage of Captain Edward Davis, who “went to other Islands on the West-side of these. There he found also plenty of Brooks of good Fresh-water.” In 1712, Captain Woodes Rogers also writes in his A Cruising Voyage Round The World of Captain Davis, and of “the Island S. María de l'Aquada, reported to be one of the Gallapagos, where [according to Davis] there is Plenty of good Water.” The description fits the present Santa María, which is indeed west of San Cristóbal. West of Santa María is the barren southern end of Isabela/Albemarle, an island known to Cowley and Dampier, although they did not reach this end of it.

This examination of Cowley and Dampier suggests that Charles is none other than the present San Cristóbal, and that it could not possibly be Santa María. The subsequent mix-up came about as an inadvertent error introduced by Captain James Colnett, who visited the area in the merchant ship Rattler in June, 1793. In his Voyage to the South Atlantic and Round Cape Horn into the Pacific Ocean, Colnett clearly describes and positions the islands known today as San Cristóbal/Chatham and Española/Hood. However, he does not realize that San Cristóbal is in fact Cowley's Charles: “As I could not trace these isles, by any accounts or maps in my possession, I named one Chatham Isle, and the other Hoods Island” and for those who have trouble following things, he helpfully adds “after the Lords Chatham and Hood.” A 1798 Galápagos chart by Aaron Arrowsmith is found in Colnett's book, and this may mark the first place in which Cowley's Charles is applied by mistake to the present Santa María/Floreana.

The mix-up did not escape the attention of James Burney. In Volume IV of his 1816 A Chronological History of Voyages and Discoveries in the South Seas, he writes of an island (Santa María) that Colnett “appears to have mistaken for the King Charles's Island of Cowley's chart. On comparing Captain Colnet's [sic] chart with Cowley's, it is evident that Captain Colnet has given the name of Lord Chatham's Isle to Cowley's King Charles Island.” To reinforce the point, Burney inserts an island to the lower center of Cowley's chart. A note below the chart states that “The Island Santa María de l'Aquada, according to the situation from Albemarle [Isabela] Island, is added from the Chart published by Mr. Arrowsmith.” The general outline is identical to the Charles Island group seen in the Arrowsmith chart. To summarize, Burney has correctly placed the island of Santa María, and restored Charles to its rightful place.

In bestowing names on various islands, Colnett writes (p. 60) that:

I named one Chatham Island [Isla San Cristóbal] and the other Hood's Island [Isla Española], after the Lords Chatham and Hood.

The identity of “Lord Chatham” has been stated to be one of the following:

• William Pitt, the elder—First Earl of Chatham (1708-1778)
• William Pitt, the younger (1759-1806)

Note that the elder Pitt was never a Lord, and had died some fifteen years before Colnett visited Galápagos. At the time of that visit, the younger Pitt was Prime Minister and recently appointed (1792) Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports. It is therefore assumed here that Colnett's “Chatham Island” was named in honor of William Pitt the younger.

Darwin, California (2000 population 54) is named after Army Physician Dr. Erasmus Darwin French (1822-1902), who may have been named after Charles' grandfather Erasmus. Each year a Charles Darwin enthusiast arranges for envelopes or postcards to be postmarked on Charles' birthday of February 12th. The 1830 date on the “Harriet the Tortoise” envelope is the approximate year of her birth, according to those who claim she was collected by Darwin in 1835. The 2005 postcard has no Galápagos connection, but is included here as part of the series. Others (if any) have not yet been located.

Although popular legend has it that the Spaniards dubbed the islands Las Encantadas, the only known records of this name and its variations are as follows:

There are no known maps by Ortelius or any other cartographer (except as noted above) on which this name appears.

See Bainbridge's Rocks.

Although the island formerly known as Albemarle was officially designated Isabela in 1892, note that the name appeared more than a century earlier on these maps:

• 1775 map by Sayer: “Isabel.”
• 1794 map by Laurie & Whittle: “Isabella.”

Their sources for the name are unknown.

Woodes Rogers refers to a “Remarkable Rock,” a “Rendevouz Rock,” and “the Rock,” which in context are the same rock (pp 151, 152, 153 in 1928 Dover reprint edition). He starts (p. 151) that it is “… about 2 Leagues (6 miles) off Shore.” Given his description of other locations in the vicinity, and its distance off shore, it seems likely that this “rock” is the modern Isla Daphne Chica (or Daphne Minor).

The 1815 Fyffe chart listed below displays the first appearance of the name Dowers's for the island now known as Genovesa/Tower. This chart also identifies the present Isla Santa Cruz as Porters Isle, so it is clear that Fyffe knew of David Porter's earlier visit on the American frigate Essex. He therefore may have also known that Lieutenant John Downes of the Essex reported the position of this island to Captain Porter, and if so he may have assigned the Lieutenant's name (but mis-spelled as “Dowers”) to the island.

The Hooker chart in the second edition of David Porter's Journal of a Cruise shows the same island but with no name assigned to it. A note on the chart states that the island is “ … situated agreeably to the reports of several Whalemen, and corresponds to the position in which it was seen by Lieut. Downes.” Presumably, Porter himself left the island un-named because the whaler reports known to him did not include a name, and he had already given the name Downes to the island now known as Pinzón.

The island appears on the 1827 Vandermaelen map with the name “I. Dowers” next to it, which may either be a misinterpretation of Porter's reference to Lt. Downes or a repetition of Fyffe's usage. Benjamin Morrell may have mis-read Fyffe or Vandermaelen's Dowers as Tower's, and thus the sequence becomes: