Here is the full evidence:


▲ 陳明卿太史考古詳訂遵韻海篇朝宗（明崇禎刊本）卷7 23b/24a

As we can see, ⿰世鳥 is categorized as 鳥部/六畫, which does not make sense because 世 has only 5 strokes and in the very same book, 泄 is categorized as 水部/五畫, so if ⿰世鳥 were indeed ⿰世鳥, it should have been placed after 鳥部/五畫.

Here is 鳥部/六畫 from 成化丁亥重刊改併五音類聚四聲篇（明成化刊本）卷4 folio 9b/10a:



Here is a summary by comparing the characters in 泰和五音新改並類聚四聲篇 (abbr. SSP) with all 鳥部/六畫 characters in 陳明卿太史考古詳訂遵韻海篇朝宗 (abbr. HPCZ):

Characters in HPCZ but not in SSP: ⿰关鳥、⿰世鳥、⿰鳥麦、⿰召鳥.
Characters in SSP but not in HPCZ: 𪁾、䳄、𩿮、𪀺、⿰𡰪鳥.

Here ⿰世鳥、⿰召鳥 have 5 strokes, ⿰鳥麦 has 7 strokes. ⿰召鳥 is misprint of ⿰𡰪鳥, ⿰鳥麦 is misprint of 𪀺. ⿰关鳥 is likely variant of 𪁾. And by exclusion, ⿰世鳥 is likely a misprint of 䳄, otherwise HPCZ would not have removed 䳄, a common character imo.

I am worried about the overall quality of 海篇朝宗. Should it happen to have correct strokes I may not find out that it is likely a misprint of another character. I suggest we treat 海篇朝宗 like 中華字海, it should not be the only supporting evidences without evidences from other dictionaries or running text.

Appendix:

Characters in HPCZ/鳥部/六畫: 𪀢,鴿,鵃,鴶,𪀖,鵧,鴻,鴰,鴷,䳑,鴛,䳋,鵀,𪀓,鵂,䳏,⿰𣅀鳥(鴲),鵅,⿰幵鳥(鳽),𪁋,鴸,鵁,𪁉,鴜,䳐,鴯,𪀣,𪀸,𪀽,𪀠,鴴,鴹,𪀟,𪀔,鴺,𪀚,𩿩,𪀝,鴳,⿰关鳥(WS2021-04707),𪁑,鵄,鴽,鵏,鴾,䳌,𪀤,𪁖,鴼,𪀒,翵,𪀕,𪁠,𪀡,𪀛,⿰世鳥,𪀹,𪀥,䳃,䳍,鴭,鴵,⿰夹鳥(鵊),𪀫,⿰鳥麦,𪀬,⿰㞪鳥,𪀼,鴲,䙚,𪀿,鵢,𪁥,⿰⿱䒑𫜹鳥(𩿮),𪀭,𪁀,䳂,𪀨

Characters in SSP/鳥部/六畫: 𪀢,𪀖,鴿,鵃,鴶,鴻,鴛,鴰,鵧,鴷,䳋,䳑,鵀,鵂,䳏,⿰𣅀鳥(鴲),鵅,⿰幵鳥(鳽),𪀓,鴸,鵁,𪁉,鴜,䳐,𪀣,𪀸,𪀽,𪀠,鴯,鴴,鴹,𪀟,𪀔,𪁋,𪀚,鴺,𩿩,𪀝,鴳,𪁾,𪁑,鴽,鵄,鵏,鴾,䳌,𪁖,𪀤,鴼,𪀒,翵,𪀕,𪁠,𪀡,𪀛,䳍,䳄,𪀹,𪀥,䳃,鴭,鴵,⿰夹鳥(鵊),𩿮,𪀩,𪀺,𪀬,⿰㞪鳥,𪀼,鴲,裊(䙚),𪀿,鵢,𪁥,⿰⿱䒑𫜹鳥(𩿮),𪀫,𪀭,𪁀,⿰𡰪鳥,𪀨

The ordering of 鳥部/六畫 in 海篇朝宗 is much more similar to 新校經史海篇直音 than their distant ancestor 四聲篇海.

Here we can see 䳄 is between 𪀛 and 𪀹 in 新校經史海篇直音, while ⿰世鳥 is between 𪀛 and 𪀹 in 海篇朝宗.


▲ 新校經史海篇直音（明經廠刊本）卷2 folio 8b


▲ 陳明卿太史考古詳訂遵韻海篇朝宗（明崇禎刊本）卷7 23b/24a

Their entries are very similar, too.