Ah!  That might have been what I was thinking of as it turns out I've already bought that.  Just not added it to bibliography yet (I'm a bit behind).  So thank you for that.

I really can't come up with anything older or more 'canon' which I'd initially thought was the case, so this must be it.

James Catchpole wrote:

>There's also the (unexplained) link to the writeup of Victoria in the following issue of TAS.

Yes, I'd spotted that but thank you for mentioning it.  If I develop the 'backstory' further, I'll at least make mention of this if not make a thing of it.

cheers

tc