>>I don't think it shows Patagonia very well.<<

Quite the contrary, it shows Patagonia amazingly well considering how corrupted it is. If not, then perhaps you could tell me what it is showing. Don't say the coast of Brazil. It looks FAR more like Patagonia than the coast of Brazil.

>>It appears to assert that the coast of South America blends into the landmass of Antarctica -- or else that there is some unknown, assumed massif at the bottom of the world for balance.<<

It's not blended in. It's showing what looks to be pack ice. The Sandwich Islands appear there too although they are not at the right longitude but, again, this map is a copy of a copy, etc, so obviously mistakes will get made. After all, we don't know what kind of chronometers if any that the original voyagers had. You seem to dismiss it because it's not perfect. Christ, Megellan USED a copy of it to find the straits (which demonstrates that it IS showing those straits). Obviously, it worked well enough. The question is, who did the original and when?

>>In the link which I corrected, above, the analysis of why the map is not a good one seems to be quite detailed and specific.<<

It's detailed but it's a waste of time. The map depicts Patagonia and it is being shown way out of scale with Africa. What more proof do you need that it's not an accurate map?? Slam dunk. But then I'm just an embellishing fool, so what do I know?