Date | Description |
---|
Source Reference | Glyph |
---|---|
UK-20086 | ![]() |
group | UK |
a) Source reference | UK-20086 |
b) PUA Code of TTF | EBE5 |
c) KangXi Radical Code (Primary) | 142.0 |
d) Stroke Count (Primary) | 11 |
e) First Stroke (Primary) | 4 |
f) Secondary KX Radical Code | N/A |
f) a. Secondary Stroke Count | N/A |
f) b. Secondary First Stroke | N/A |
g) Total Stroke Count | 17 |
i) IDS | ⿰虫産 |
j) Similar/ Variants | N/A |
k1) References to evidence documents | 《河北通志稿》 卷0 folio 12 |
k2) Images Filenames | UK-20086-001.jpg |
l) Other Information | N/A |
m1) Previous IRG WS | N/A |
m2) Sequence No. | N/A |
Review Comments
▲ 新城縣志(民國24年刊本)卷21 folio 25.
Both 新城縣志 and 河北通志稿 are authored by 王樹枏, so the text is identical to each other.
BTW the source should be corrected as 《河北通志稿》 方言篇卷下 folio 12.
I searched 螇 in 爾雅|説文解字|方言 from the 四部叢刊 texts:
説文解字(四部叢刊景日本岩崎氏靜嘉堂藏北宋刊本) has 螇鹿.
方言(四部叢刊景江安傅氏雙鑑樓藏宋刊本) has 螇螰
爾雅(四部叢刊景常熟瞿氏鐵琴銅劍樓藏宋刊本) has 螇螰
爾雅(四部叢刊景常熟瞿氏鐵琴銅劍樓藏宋刊本) also have 螇蚸, but that is not the name of cicada.
Based on these evidences, I agree with Andrew that ⿰虫産 is an error for 螰. But since we have two evidences, better just encode it.