53 
where willows are known to have stood ages since — is it not nat- 
lu'al to suppose that both belonged to the same species ? Such 
is the view Sir R. Porter has taken, whatever variety the trees 
may belong to. He supposes them to be the same which shaded 
the captives of Israel. Altogether, after readmg the passage of 
this distinguished traveller, one feels some misgivings lest the 
claim of the weeping willow, in connection with the ISVth Psalm, 
prove unfounded. One would like to see the proofs clearly made 
out in behalf of the weeping willow. Tlie assertion, that it is the 
tree of the Psalmist is universally made, but we have never yet 
seen a full and complete account of the grounds for this opinion ; 
and, so far as we can discover, no such statement has yet been 
published. Probably, however, the question may be very easily 
settled by those who have learning and books at command. 
Oziers are incidentally made mention of by very ancient authors 
in connection with Babylon. The framework of the rude boats, 
described by Herodotus, was of ozier. This at least is the word 
given in the translation, and many modern travellers assure us 
that oziers are now apphed to the same purpose by the boatmen 
of Mesopotamia. Another evidence that this kind of willow was 
formerly common on that ground, is found in the ruins them- 
selves. M. Beaucharap, in the account of his investigations of the 
remains of Babylon, during the last century, says : " The bricks 
are cemented with bitumen. Occasionally layers of oziers in bitu- 
men are found." Other travellers speak of reeds also in the bitumen ; 
so that the plant, and the tree, named by Sir R. Porter, as now 
found on the banks of the Euphrates — the ozier and the reed — 
are thus proved, by the most clear and positive evidence, to have 
also existed there in ancient times. 
