Quarterly Bulletin be positive, at this time, who painted it, or whether it was painted in this country or in Holland. He thought that Peter may have been sixty years old. You will remember that after he lost his leg in Curacao, he returned to Holland for treatment, married there and remained for several years before coming to New Amsterdam as governing head of the Dutch West India Company who owned and operated the city. Was our painting made during his stay in Holland and was Van Dyck the artist, as an early engraving states, or was it painted here perhaps by Jacobus Gerritsen Strycker or Henri Couturier? It is painted upon an oak panel. If it is European oak it may have been painted in either place, as European oak panels were brought over here for use by American artists. But suppose it is an American oak panel. Then Mr. Sawitzky thinks in all likelihood it was painted here shortly after Stuyvesant's return, as no American oak panels were carried abroad. This is something we are bound to look into in the light of Mr. Sawitzky's observation and maybe we will settle for once and all the question of who painted the only known portrait from life of Peter Stuyvesant. Take another instance, and remember that the students in this class are hearing them by the dozen. Cardinal birds are plentiful in Virginia; they are unknown in Europe. Paintings by Charles Bridges, an English painter, have been identified as executed in the Colonies because of the presence of these birds in the landscape—after years of uncertainty. Probably allusions to the many inaccuracies of attribution in the Thomas B. Clarke Collection of early American painters could be left out of this article. But it may be a year before Mr. Sawitzky's observations and criticisms are published so just a suggestion should be made now as perhaps a guide to institutions who stand for the proprieties and who want to exercise care in the information they impart to the public. The inaccuracies, misstatements or whatever they are consist briefly, and only