e _Arbre Sec_," whilst in ch. cci. of
the same (infra, Bk. IV. ch. v.) it is called "_L'Arbre Sol_, which in the
Book of Alexander is called _L'Arbre Seche_" Pauthier has here "_L'Arbre
Solque_, que nous appelons _L'Arbre Sec_," and in the later passage
"_L'Arbre Soul_, que le Livre Alexandre apelle _Arbre Sec_;" whilst
Ramusio has here "_L'Albero del Sole_ che si chiama per i Cristiani
_L'Albor Secco_," and does not contain the later passage. So also I think
all the old Latin and French printed texts, which are more or less based
on Pipino's version, have "The _Tree of the Sun_, which the Latins call
the _Dry Tree_."

[G. Capus says (_A travers le roy. de Tamerlan_, p. 296) that he found at
Khodjakent, the remains of an enormous plane-tree or _Chinar_, which
measured no less than 48 metres (52 yards) in circumference at the base,
and 9 metres diameter inside the rotten trunk; a dozen tourists from
Tashkent one day feasted inside, and were all at ease.--H. C.]

Pauthier, building as usual on the reading of his own text (_Solque_),
endeavours to show that this odd word represents _Thoulk_, the Arabic name
of a tree to which Forskal gave the title of _Ficus Vasta_, and this Ficus
Vasta he will have to be the same as the Chinar. _Ficus Vasta_ would be a
strange name surely to give to a Plane-tree, but Forskal may be acquitted
of such an eccentricity. The _Tholak_ (for that seems to be the proper
vocalisation) is a tree of Arabia Felix, very different from the Chinar,
for it is the well-known Indian Banyan, or a closely-allied species, as
may be seen in Forskal's description. The latter indeed says that the Arab
botanists called it _Delb_, and that (or _Dulb_) is really a synonym for
the Chinar. But De Sacy has already commented upon this supposed
application of the name Delb to the _Tholak_ as erroneous. (See _Flora
Aegyptiaco-Arabica_, pp. cxxiv. and 179; _Abdallatif, Rel. de l'Egypte_,
p. 80; _J. R. G. S._ VIII. 275; _Ritter_, VI. 662, 679.)

The fact is that the _Solque_ of M. Pauthier's text is a mere copyist's
error in the reduplication of the pronoun _que_. In his chief MS. which he
cites as A (No. 10,260 of Bibl. Nationale, now _Fr_. 5631) we can even see
how this might easily happen, for one line ends with _Solque_ and the next
begins with _que_. The true reading is, I doubt not, that which this MS.
points to, and which the G. Text gives us in the second passage quoted
above, viz. _Arbre_ SOL, occurring in Ramusio