Evening star., 1933-01-05
WILKES DISCOVERY
CLAIMS SUPPORTED
Australian Explorer Reports
Seventh Continent in
Antarctic Zone.
BY THOMAS r. HENRY.

| Wilkes Land was reality.
/ The disputed claim of Admiral
Charles Wilkes, founder of the Naval
Observatory and long a resident on the
present site of the Cosmos Club, to the
discovery Of a seventh continent is
sbundantly sustained by the latest dis
coveries in the Antarctic of the Aus
tralian explorer, Sir Douglas Mawson,
as the maps of Mawsons 1881 eXpedi-
ton are analyzed by DR.. William H.
Hobbs, noted Arctic explorer, of the
University of Michigan.
| Hobbs comes to the defense OF the
! former Washingtonian in the current
| journal of the American Geographical
Society after an intensive study of
Mawson'S maps. Few events in history
have been more misrepreSented. both
| by accident and design he holds.
Wilkes was the commander of an
American exploring expedition which
sailed in 1888 for exploration Of the
South Seas He sailed into the Ant
arctic, and as he records in his log, at
about am. January 10, 1840, saw land
in the distance which, from various con-
siderations he believed to be the coast
of large island or of a continent.
The land could not be reached because
Then Wilkes sailed along for nearly
1900 miles, noting frequent sights of
| the distant coast which he could not
reach, but which he was confident from
its extent was of continental proper
tionS.
Failed to Correct Calendar
1t so happened that there was
French expedition, under command of
an Admiral d'Urville. in approximately
the same waters at the same time
DUrville sighted land, as he recorded
in his log, on January 10, short time
before wilkes. Hobbs points out that
examination of d'Urvilles claim to
priority shows he had failed to correct
his calendar by dropping one day when
crossing the international time line, SO
that he actually did not sight land un-
til January 20. The French sailor
made the time correction in his log,
but only at the end Of the voyage He
allowed his journal to be published
with the erroneous dates.
A year later a well equipped British
expedition, under command of Sir
James Ross, entered the Antarctic.
Wilkes, as courtesy, supplied Ross
with a hastily constructed map, Show
ing the locations of the land he had
sighted. The British explorer on his
return claimed "he had sailed right
over Wilkes Land" He insisted no
land existed over a large part Of the
area where Wilkes claimed he saw it,
Ross himself claimed to have discov-
cred the Antarctic Continent
Wilkes was court -martialed on his
return to Washington. Among the
charges were that he had falsified his
records, claiming discoveries he had not
made. Although he was acquitted, his
reputation never was cleared, especially
in view OF Sir James Ross charges
Here, Hobbs says, it must be remem-
bered that the map Wilkes furnished to
Ross was not the same as the map he
prepared for his report to the Navy
Department. 1t was drawn hastily,
merely as rough guide to the British
explorer.
The conflicting claims of Wilkes.
o'Urvllle and Ross to discovery of the
Antarctic Continent, he points out, all
rest only on the fact that they sighted
land from distance. 1t was not until
nearly so years later that anybody
actually landed on the coast of Ant
arctica. This would have been impos-
s1ble with the sailing ships Of the ear
lier explorers.
MAPS
But Mawson, he says, followed ap-
proximately the course of Wilkes in
his 1881 voyage, and mapped the land
he saw. His map corresponds with
that of the Washington explorer for
three-fourths of the distance. The
correspondence is far too close, he be-
lieveS, for Wilkes to have faxed" his
discovery. The maps do not correspond
over the easternmost fifth of the course
This was where Sir James Ross sailed
right over Wilkes Land" They also
do not correspond in the extreme west
Generally the land charted by Wilkes
is about 40 miles to the north of that
seen by Mawson. The Australian
explorer, Hobbs says, was much
better equipped, and certainly is
by far the most accurate. But the
miracle is, he points out, that Wilkes
could have judged distances as we'll as
he did, since Mawson himself made
mistakes of as much as 70 miles, which
afterward were corrected. The per-
spective is distorted, he says, both by
the dense clouds of snow which blow
| over the sea from the mountains of
Antarctica or by the heavy fogs which
veil the land. Mirages are frequent,
making distant objects appear near.
a Az w e3~AiAA4S IOl4 tApAOltI, IlS USuGN6S,
has been especially badly used by
American geographers.
Ross Is Defended.
At the same time, from the other
side of the Atlantic, comes a spirited
defense of the reputation of Sir James
Ross himself. Among the claims he
made was discovery of the approximate
location of the South Magnetic Pole.
The site still is given approximately as
given by the British commander.
But recently Capt. T. j. See mathe-
matics professor of the United States
Navy made the claim that from math-
ematical considerations and from re-
cent observations of the Carnegie In
stitute of Washington the Pole was at
! least 1000 miles west Of the location
given by Ross.
This is answered by the official pub
hcation of the Royal Geographic So
ciety with the magnetic charts Of the
Royal Observatory, which also took into
consideration the Carnegie observa-
tionS cited by Capt. See. This shows the
Magnetic Pole about where Ross 10
Gated it.