In several studies of the Spanish and Dutch voyages in the Pacific in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries it has been suggested that an apparent consistency in errors of latitude determined by the navigator in question can be used as evidence in the identification of island discoveries, and can be regarded as confirming the identification of one or the rejection of another possibility. I am extremely doubtful about the validity of using such apparent consistency of error, even as secondary evidence combined with other indications, and have no doubts about its invalidity as primary evidence.

Andrew Sharp, for instance, when considering the identification of the Los Bajos de la Candelaria of Mendaña's voyage of 1568 in his The Discovery of the Pacific Islands, remarks that whilst both Ontong Java and Roncador Reef in the Northern Solomons are possible identifications: ‘The steady southerly error in Gallego's latitudes … points to Ontong Java’.