The submitted evidence shows this character with the corresponding sentence are cited from 《本草汇言》, but it is incomprehensible that this character is used at this position. In other page of the same dictionary, the authors cited the same sentence, but the character is 韭. On the other hand, this is talking about how to cook 鳗鲡, so the previous words before the character are related to condiment, that it is unbelievable to use a kind of fish as the ingredient to cook other kind of fish, and 鮲 was treated as Japanese kokuji, which is not used in China.

This character should be withdrawn without additional evidence.


▲ 江苏新医学院: 《中药大辞典 下册》, 上海: 上海人民出版社, 1977.10, 统一书号: 14171·274, p. 2720


▲ 倪朱谟, 郑金生, 甄雪燕, 杨梅香: 《本草汇言》, 北京: 中医古籍出版社, 2005.2, ISBN 7-80174-285-0, p. 690


▲ 常敏毅: 《积健为寿 上册 益寿有道》, 北京: 中国医药科技出版社, 2012.8, ISBN 978-7-5067-5536-8, p. 333

I agree with Eiso that the character here should have been 韭. Here is the original evidence, which clearly gives 韭:



▲ 本草彙言（清順治2年大成齋刊本）卷19 folio 7a

> 鮲 was treated as Japanese kokuji, which is not used in China.

Actually 鮲 is also a GE character, here are an evidence of 鮲 in Chinese text:



▲ 賜綺堂集（清道光刊本）卷18 folio 1

No more evidence, withdraw.