The existence of the precolumbus maps were confirmed in M. Waldseemüller 1506-7 world map, the most important map of discovery. In the superior vignette we find two characters with their maps, one is Ptolemy but it's the other one who interests us because he shows us an impossible map for the time, specially because he shows America separated from Asia so complete and perfect that in that time no one could know it.
..... The mentioned character never traveled neither discover Central America and the Isthmus of Panama, also the Pacific Ocean.

Vignette of the Waldseemüller map 1506, Americo Vespusio with his map

..... The Patagonia, perfectly represented in the map wasn't possible in that date because it hadn't been navigated and traveled in its extension, not even by the own Americo Vespuccio that didn't pass the 25º south in Brazil and he is the other character in question. Americo, Amálrricus, Amérigo, Alberico, Américus, polemic character whom little or anything is known about his seafaring arts knowledge, no more than what he transmits without any modesty about himself, through doubtful writings, and in spite of his position no documents are conserved of those that he should surely have written for the Recruiting House. Only copies of his letters are known.
..... Several investigators as Vicente D. Sierra, had demonstrated that Vespuccio with Hojeda among 1497y 1499, are nonexistent, and the one carried out in 1501-2 as Vespuccio says in his story calculating the distances he describes, he doesn't even pass approximately 25º south the coast of South America (in Brazil) an then declares, he goes into in the Atlantic with direction south east, possibly 50º, then he goes back to Portugal without returning to the South American coasts. He contradicted himself with his letters where he says he arrived at the 32º (real 25º) south of the coast, he also contradicted himself again in his letters where in an acquaintance as Mundus Novus he doesn't recognize to have sighted land in his sailing on the south Atlantic and in another acquaintance as Lettera he lies and says to have followed for 20 leagues a brave coast, which he doesn't mention again and never returns to sum up in his discovery.
..... We know he was very loquacious on describing the coasts of Brazil but it's not the same with the south coasts on which he stays very hermetic in the letters he sent to his friends in Florence, having nothing to say of places he didn't travel.
..... Some tried to justify this hermetic attitude of Vespuccio, saying that he made it to maintain secretly his trip outside the jurisdiction of Portugal, but if in April 1502 he decides his return to Portugal, how was it possible he had facilitated the data so quickly so that they became public in the maps, that same year, simply because there wasn't secret to keep.
..... It's not a simple supposition to say that Vespuccio lies, it's demonstrated with the precolumbus maps of 1440, 1448 and 1470 where the landslide carried out in the maps, they locate the Australian continent island, the then called Trivalla Island, in the Atlantic west of Africa, where it didn't really exist.
..... If it wasn't because of these maps, it would surely be because of some similar one that was in Florentines possession, map that gave him the certainty of the existence of those Trivall lands in the south Atlantic. Lands that to the 25º south, of the South American coast, leaves to southeast direction until the 50º south in the Atlantic and although he doesn't find them, in his "Lettera" he denounces it's discovery, saying he had traveled during 20 leagues a brave bench mark, although he could never have seen it.
..... If we observe the maps of 1440, 1448 and 1470 we'll see that the Triballa island (Australia) is to the southeast of America and the west of Africa, such as Vespuccio describes in the course of his trips, but the destination's irony literally "played him a bad game ", those lands didn't exist in that place, he only trusted the map and anticipated a discovery that wasn't possible to him and nobody else to carry out, ¡Fraud!
It is suggestive that he supposedly carried out baptisms and maps of the Patagonian coasts and he didn't make baptisms neither maps, he didn't even left a position of that brave coast that he said have discovered, to legitimate the discovery.
..... The mentioned lands don't appear in the vignette of the Waldseemüller map where Vespuccio is with his map; neither they appear in Pedro Apiano 1521 map with the title that were made with Ptolemy and Vespuccio's maps.

Pedro Apiano's maps title 1521

..... With regard to these Florentine pseudo-discoveries I should clarify that I differ, with those that say that Cananea-Cananor was moved towards south but that the authentic one is at 25º in the coasts of Brazil, opposed to this I can say that it was moved towards the north putting it within reach of Vespuccio, locating it at 25º south at the southern point of the Vespuccio's trip, at the South American coast, before going in southeast direction in the Atlantic, but as we'll see, the historians didn't suspect that they would discover the proofs that the true Cananea was more to the south in Chubut, approximately to 43º south as it appears in maps of 1502, with a toponymy that accompanies it, also the existence of stones carved with writings presumably of cananian origin would complete the environment to be able to affirm that the true River and Port of Cananea is in Chubut approximately 43º south and not at 25º south, place where some geographers continued locating it in their maps, creating a well-known duality, two Cananeas.
..... Others accepted the true location of Cananea at 43º south and they opted to extend the Florentine trips in the South American coast putting it at their free will. I find not very convincing the extensive defense developed by R. Leviller, and E. De Gandía to demonstrate the Florentine trips in the Patagonia, and to make him responsible of a false baptism, of places he hadn't navigated, to justify a toponymy so far south in that time, thrusting him the discovery and baptism of the Jordan River (Rio de la Plata) at 35º south, and Cananea to the already mentioned 43º south in the Patagonian coast.
..... To me and other authors we find it incredible that Vespuccio has baptized places with Chinese names in the Caribbean and others with Semitic names in the south, in Patagonia, in times of full inquisition, when the Jews in Spain were condemned to conversion or death, and De Gandía asks defiant, believing that there wasn't another option, if these names weren't put by the Florentine; who did?.
..... R. Leviller and De Gandía attribute Vespuccio of the baptism of Pariah and Lariab (Lamriab) in 1497 in Mexico and recognize that these names belong to Chinese cities; we know that the Chinese or Asian origin toponymy in Meso-America is more extensive, and it's not related with Vespuccio.
It can be deduced and confirmed that those names were in the precolumbus maps, of which Vespuccio had surely one in his possession. The discovery of all America in the maps of 1440, 1448 and 1470 confirm this hypothesis.
..... The history we know tells us that the Rio de la Plata was discovered by Juan Dias Solís in 1516 and baptized with the name of Mar Dulce, and later rebaptized as Rio de la Plata, but these toponymycs aren't found in the old maps. Although it appears practically in all the old maps drawn by the main geographers from Europe during more than thirty years from 1502, as Jordan River, 1502 Kunstmann ll.

1504 Caneiro (Nicolo Caveri)
1506 Waldseemüller Martín
1508 Ruysch Juan
1513 Waldseemüller Martin
1516 Waldseemüller Martin
1516 J. D. de Solís supposed discovery
1519 Maggiolo
1526 Castiglione
1529 Verrazano
1531 Oroncio Fineo
1533 Schöner J
1534 Rivero D. y Ramusio B.
1535 Globo dorado de París

.....Some other ones could be added to this list. Looking through the old maps deeply, in any way I believe it is enough to demonstrate that those names are previous to their supposed discovery and continued calling them this way later.
..... Except for some punctual cases they appeared with another name, for example the case of Diego García with Aos River, with which was sought the origin of the Jordan or in other cases as Solis River or San Cristóbal and some other names that weren't transcendental.
..... The demonstration of this hypothesis against Vespuccio is that the names of the rivers of the basin of Plata, where we know he didn't go it is accompanied in its precolumbus meaning by the "Jordan River" that is to say it was already baptized and that those names were accepted by the conquest and not named by Vespuccio.
.....The Paraná River was denominated in indigenous language "Rio Pity" that means pine in Greek and Phoenician, in allusion to the Parana's pine or Brazilian pine which is abundant in it, (see Pityusa Island in the Mediterranean that is Pines Island); the "Rio Teuco" or rather "Teucho" (Greek term for Volume-book) as the natives call, in allusion to the Pentateuco, the five books of the Sacred Texts of the Old Testament or Torá; "Bermejo River", allusion to the Red Sea, origin of the sailings; "Pilcomayo River" would in fact be Philco-Mayum, Philco in reference to the Phoenicians weavers and tinters (according to B. Graiver), Mayum water that runs, river in Arameo; "Apa River" of Apu, Abu Patriarch. In the region other names exists that accompany this toponymy. In Corrientes Province there is a place called in indigenous language "Lito Cará" (Square Stone) but it's evident that Lito is stone in Greek, others as "Overá" in Misiones Province, "Avería" repeatedly in the Northwest or Palmira and Carmelo in the Uruguayan coast that are cananeos names of the Middle East or Carios (Guarani) Indian.
..... Concerning to Chubut River or "River of the Cananea" or wrongly named "Cananor", it is accompanied by the interior of the region's toponymy, where evidently Vespuccio hadn't been neither he had baptized. Hill "Calfú Kir" walled establishment of Calfú; Cacique Caffarenna, "Pampas of Marrauf"; "Sierra of Garraf" names of Arabic origin: "Pampas of Sacanan" house of Canaan; "Sierra of Jalalaubat" this toponymyc is found about fifteen times in Iran, Syria, Pakistan, India and Afghanistan; "Cerro de la Cicuta" poison used by Socrates; "Yanquetruz"; "Yankenao Hill" already explained in Red Jews; "Cacique Malikeo" means King; "Apas Mountains" means patriarch etc. etc. is evident that these toponymycs aren't of American origin.
..... It's also possible that in the map that Alberico Vespuccio facilitated M. Waldssemüller it was written "Americ or Amerique" that, according to Ricardo Palma in "Peruvian Traditions" Ed. Espasa-Calpe 1951, pages 28 to 30, they would be some mounts denominated this way from where gold was extracted in precolumbus times in the Chontales Province in Nicaragua, it would mean mountains or place where the wind blows.
..... According to Alfredo Cardona Peña in "Conversaciones y semblanzas" Editorial Universidad a Distancia, from Costa Rica 1988, Amérika is a Tolteca voice that means Country with mountains in its center. Name that could confuse Waldssemüller in the first edition of his maps of 1506, carrying out a second edition immediately where this name is suppressed. Being this way possible that the name of the continent is of indigenous origin.
..... On the etymology of the name of America we have in 1837 the opinion of Alexander V. Humboldt that says: "The Vespuccio's contemporaries, translated erroneously the Italian name Amerigo to the latin Alberico. The correct translation should be Amalrricus. The proof can be seen in a Latin edition of Jehan Lamberts trip in 1501 and in the Itinerarium Portugallensium published in 1508"
..... "... This was far from having anything to do with a name since in that time, the name Americo or America for man or woman in Europe didn't exist...,"
.....
This way Humboldt demonstrates that "Amerigo Vespuccio" was known in this time like "Alberico Vespuccio" and that his name was changed to "Americo" after Waldseemüller names America and not Albérica in his map of 1506.
.....
It's unavoidable to reproduce a paragraph of Fray de Espinosa in his book of 1623 "Summarize and description of the western Indies" Chapter V-24:
".... As the significant D. Juan of Solórzano says, a most worthy judge of the Council of Indies, of Indiarum iure, fol. 38 and 39, lib. 1, ca. 4, everything must be called Colon's Colony, and not America, and I don't know with what arguments it has been usurped from Americo Vespuccio, a seafaring poor person that neither passed nearby those parts, neither made a remarkable thing to make his name eternal with the glory of such discovery, because he wasn't the one who made it."

Nobody could know what wasn't discovered.
.....This proves us that Vespuccio was one happily possessor of a precolumbus map that was facilitated by Waldseemüller, and he copied it with the name of America (Americ or Amerique) that was a toponymyc of the map, although he carries out a second edition of the same map suppressing the name America, but in spite of this the name was everlasting. After such incredible discovery Vespuccio doesn't publish his map but rather he facilitates it to others so they draw theirs. See also the titles of the P. Apiano map in 1520.
..... It is possible that in contacts with the School of Florence, A. Vespuccio got maps of America from some German monks that worked there. It's a possibility, but there are no proofs of it.
..... It seems that in spite of having put in his vignette, Vespuccio in his map, and having put the toponymycs that were in them, including America, Waldseemüller seems not to trust Don Americo totally, and below, in the map North America is drawn separated from South America, already conserving the tendency of the maps published in 1502 by Cantino and Caneiro. These last ones shows South America separated from North America with a nurtured toponymy from what would be the south of Brazil 42º south, Cananea River (Chubut River), impossible in 1502, since nobody had navigated in those latitudes.
As "the Learned Juan de Solórzano" says I don't believe it would be worthwhile to extend more about Americo Vespuccio.