In my mind somewhere there's the story that Quito actually was the first WHS, but Galapagos got the ID #1 (and Quito #2). Does anybody have a reference / source for that? So I can add Ecuador to the Connection "First Inscriptions"

Quote from this UNESCO site celebrating the 40th Anniversary (that doesn't make it 100% certain of course!!)
http://whc.unesco.org/en/40years/
You get to it by following the "Timeline" to 1978
"The World Heritage Committee develops selection criteria for inscribing properties on the World Heritage List, and draws up Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention, setting out among other principles those of monitoring and reporting for properties on the List. Ecuador''s Galápagos Islands becomes the first of twelve sites to be inscribed on the World Heritage List."

For what it's worth, I recently visited the Wieliczka Salt Mine in Poland and there was a UNESCO logo sculpture clearly stating that Quito and Galapagos were both inscribed in 1978 and it does not make any distinction between the two.

When I read more about Quito, it's often said that it's the first city or the first cultural site that became a WHS. That seems to imply that Galapagos actually came first.

Does anybody else remember the story about the two having been switched afterwards? I got an e-mail from Norway from people who did think so, and this also was in the back of my mind.

National Geographic - re Galapagos
"But this first of all World Heritage sites has experienced some positive changes in recent years"
Then elsewhere in the same article
"The Galápagos Islands were among the first group of sites added to the World Heritage List in 1978."
Which is correct?!!
http://travel.nationalgeographic.com/travel/world-heritage/galapagos-islands/

If you actually read the published minutes of the WHC the 12 sites are listed alphabetically by country but with no clear logic for the sequencing WITHIN country (ie it isn't by alpha or Cultural/Natural). Indeed Canada comes first with L'Anse aux Meadows

The minutes indicate that discussion took place first of all on 3 sites for deferral (E.g Ichkeul)and THEN the 12 other sites were all inscribed. But no indication is given that I can divine regarding the sequence in which they were discussed. I suspect those early WHCs didn't operate like the recent WHCs we have seen on webcasts with lots of debate and politics! They may not even have actually "discussed" anything but just taken what the earlier "Bureau" meeting had given them. The 1978 Bureau was in Paris in May and the 1978 WHC in Washington on 5-8 September.

The Minutes of the Bureau are here http://whc.unesco.org/archive/1978/cc-78-conf010-3e.pdf
It is interesting that they discussed Natural and Cultural sites separately (as they still do) -with Cultural sites apparently getting "first bite" at the Bureau anyway

So -did they discuss them in
a. Cultural or Natural sequence
b. Alphabetic Country sequence
c. ID sequence (With Galapagos apparently No 1)
d. Not at all but just taking the 12 recommended by the Bureau as a block in a "done deal"?
Who knows? But UNESCO's 40th Anniversary document didn't HAVE to nominate just one site as the very first.