It is not on print editions of the qurʾān.
Just on a twitter thread by a Leiden scholar, a brilliant linguist.
If you think: "typo, don't be so strict!"
van der Put published it a week ago, published it a second time unchanged in "Thread reader" and there are two years 1934 and 1950. In my view there are both wrong.
Anyhow, I am too young: For me Flügel's sorry effort was only laughingstock. I am astonished that Marijn van Putten devotes time to it. On Twitter he calls "Flügel's well-intentioned mess ... Schlimmbesserung ... 'correcting' [the Arab texts that he finds in the mss.] in his print edition.
From what he writes it is obvious, that he is not aware that Bobzin wrote that the verse numbers are not his, but those of Hinkelmann.
And he ignores "Die Divergenzen zwischen dem Flügel- und dem Azhar-Koran" by Arne A. Ambros in Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes Vol. 78 (1988), pp. 9-21
His ignorance is helpful. Otherwise, he would not have devoted a fresh ‒ an unnecessary ‒ look at the book.
What is even stranger:
He dismisses Karl Vollers' Volkssprache und Schriftsprache im alten Arabien (1906)
although Vollers comes to conclusions that resemble his in "The Language of the Uthmanic Codex"
I thought he is a bright linguist, who stupidly writes about things he does not understand. After this thread I know better.
Postscriptum
After he was alerted to the mistake, he tweeted "lol" ‒ by now deleted.
I do not believe that it was a typo, I am convinced that van der Put believed in what he wrote. Why?
Because almost everything he writes about printed copies is wrong.
In his thread on niʿmat allāh ‒ unlike the conference held in Berlin and the twitter thread, in his by now published article he is correct: "niʿmat allāh/rabbi-ka", some of his Grace of God-places are in fact Grace of your Lord-places -- he compares early manuscripts which the Cairo Edition although here ALL standards (Maghrib, Gizeh24, Turkey, India, Indonesia) agree completely.
In his iǧtabā-hu-thread
he speaks of "modern print editions" although HERE there are two different standard groups: Africa vs. Asia. ‒ Each time he gets it wrong.
Like most Arabist/linguists he has not studied modern editions: he writes about a field he largely ignores. So, I take it that he did not know a thing about the Flügel edition.
But because his article is very important, I annotate it where it talks on modern editions.
van Putten writes "Sadeghi[(& Bergmann 2010] defines the Uthmanic text type as agreeing with the text of the 1924 Cairo Edition of the Quran" (p.272) without giving a quote or the page. ‒ I can' find it.
Several times he mentions "the Sanaa palimpsest" when he means to say "the lower text of ..."
More serious:
"the Uthmanic text type have been accurately transmitted up until the Cairo edition." (p. 280)
There has been no accurate transmission from century to century, from muṣḥaf to muṣḥaf, but the Cairo edition of 1924 claims to be a reconstruction on the basis of the literature on the rasm, the ḍabṭ ...
When you have a manuscript from the 8th century and a print from the 20th, you know nothing about transmission; for that you have to study mss. from the centuries between.
A last point, although I know that many find it niggling, but I love correct language.
"ā is written plene" (three times) ‒ words can be written plene, sounds are written.
