Page 231, note 3.  Instead of Yuche, read Juche.

XLVI., p. 232.

KARACATHAYANS.

“There seems to be no doubt that Kerman in South Persia is the city to which the Kara-Cathayan refugee fled from China in 1124; for Major Sykes, in his recent excellent work on Persia, actually mentions [p. 194] the Kuba Sabz, or ‘Green Dome,’ as having been (until destroyed in 1886 by an earthquake) the most conspicuous building, and as having also been the tomb of the Kara-Khitai Dynasty.  The late Dr. Bretschneider (N.  China B. R. As.  Soc.  Journal, Vol.  X., p. 101) had imagined the Kara-Cathayan capital to be Kermine, lying between Samarcand and Bokhara (see Asiatic Quart.  Rev. for Dec., 1900, ’The Cathayans’).  Colonel Yule does not appear to be quite correct when he states (p. 232) that ’the Gurkhan himself is not described to have extended his conquests into Persia,’ for the Chinese history of the Cathayan or Liao Dynasties distinctly states that at Samarcand, where the Cathayan remained for ninety days, the ’King of the Mohammedans’ brought tribute to the emigrant, who then went West as far as K’i-r-man, where he was proclaimed Emperor by his officers.  This was on the fifth day of the second moon in 1124, in the thirty-eighth year of his age, and he then assumed the title of Koh-r-han” (E.H.  Parker, Asiatic Quart.  Rev., Jan., 1904, pp. 134-5.)

XLVI., p. 236.

KERAITS.

“In his note to Vol.  I., p. 236, M. Cordier [read Mr. Rockhill], who seems to have been misled by d’Avezac, confuses the Ch’ih-leh or T’ieh-leh (who have been clearly proved to be identical with the Toeloes of the Turkish inscriptions) with the much later K’eh-lieh or Keraits of Mongol history; at no period of Chinese history were the Ch’ih-leh called, as he supposes, K’i-le and therefore the Ch’ih-leh of the third century cannot possibly be identified with the K’e-lieh of the thirteenth.  Besides, the ‘value’ of leh is ‘luck,’ whilst the ‘value’ of lieh is ‘leet,’ if we use English sounds as equivalents to illustrate Chinese etymology.  It is remarkable that the Kin (Nuechen) Dynasty in its Annals leaves no mention whatever of the Kerait tribe, or of any tribe having an approximate name, although the Yuean Shi states that the Princes of that tribe used to hold a Nuechen patent.  A solution of this unexplained fact may yet turn up.” (E.H.  PARKER, Asiatic Quart.  Rev., Jan. 1904, p. 139.)

Page 236, note [dagger] Instead of Tura, read Tula. (PELLIOT.)

LI., pp. 245, 248.

DEATH OF CHINGIZ KHAN.