lands filled
with tules. Toward the upper end of these, on the maps, is shown fresh
water. After attempting to penetrate the rivers, and running aground on
sand bars, Canizares returned to Angel Island before embarking for a
reconnaissance of the southern area of the Bay. His description of the
lower delta region is too confusing to be of value. He evidently did not
fully understand the relations of the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers
at their junction.

Cutter (1950, p. 113) states, regarding vegetation, that Canizares found
the north shore of the Bay covered with trees and the south shore arid
and dry. Canizares says the vegetated shore was "east" and the arid
shore was "west." Both maps depict trees on both shores, but with the
heavier concentration on the south side. The 1781 map uses for "Bosques
de buenas Maderas" the symbol "Q." The latter appears at the southeast
end of San Francisco Bay, in the vicinity of Oakland and Alameda, on the
south side of the rivers at the head of Suisun Bay, and on the north
side, well above Suisun Bay. Small groups of trees appear on both maps
at each entrance of Carquinez Strait, in the vicinity of Pinole and of
Martinez. There is no real evidence that there were trees on the north
side of Carquinez Strait.

Although the data in the letter are scanty, the distribution of Indian
population indicated by Crespi and Font is substantially confirmed. The
text of the letter mentions only one rancheria, the one at or near
Pinole or Selby, to which Canizares (on the strength of four visits)
ascribes a population of 400. This is the exact value given by Font, and
seems to constitute very reliable evidence. Other villages are shown on
the 1776 map, under the symbol "q." as "Rancherias de Indios Amigos,"
one on the north side of Southampton Bay, one near Martinez, one
apparently near Bay Point (or Port Chicago), and one somewhere near
Pittsburg. The same number of symbols (here "O") is shown on the 1781
map, but those on the south side of the strait are displaced several
miles to the west. We can be reasonably sure therefore that Canizares
found four rancherias, including the one described in the letter, three
on the south shore, one on the north. In view of the vague placement on
the maps it is scarcely worth while to insist upon the precise location.
As far as population is concerned, what information can be derived from
Canizares lends support to the conclusions based upon Crespi and Font