黑文婷 argues that ⿰土窊 is a variant of 坬/窊[1]. The earliest known evidence of ⿰土窊 dates back to late Ming while the form 窊 can be found in Five Dynasties text. The form 坬 is commonly used in Qing text.
According to the evidences of 𱷆, 𱷆 is used in Jiangxi province, bordered by Guangdong province where ⿰土窊 is used according to Evidence 1. Based on this and the semantic relationship between ⿰土窊 and 坬, I think ⿰土窊 could be a variant of 𱷆. If 𱷆 is also pronounced as wa, then ⿰土窊 is potentially unifiable to 𱷆.
I agree with John. On the bottom component, note that 𢍌 is a variant of 其 and 𢍌 is similar to ⿱甘廾. ⿱甘廾 is potentially unifiable to 其. Does SAT have more characters with the exact ⿱甘廾 component? If not I suggest we unify to 𠴩 and SAT can use register this shape as IVD.
It is interesting that although 泰和五音新改並類聚四聲篇（金刊元修本） gives the shape ⿰魚⿱𤇾交, the character is categorized as 魚部/14畫, which would make sense if it were ⿰魚熒. Since then editors of later revisions respected the current shape and moved to 魚部/17畫, which does not make sense either as it should be in 魚部/16畫.
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 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
In 成化丁亥重刊改併五音類聚四聲篇, the character was changed to ⿰⿱匕貝鳥, with its definition changed to "音田,鳥名". (I have checked the whole 鳥部 section and can't find ⿰貲鳥. And 張湧泉 would have quoted should it appear in 成化 or later revisions.)
This shape has been adopted by later 四聲篇海 editions since then. Since 貲 is well more than 8 strokes, the editors of 成化 might questioned the shape and revised it to ⿰⿱匕貝鳥.
▲ 成化丁亥重刊改併五音類聚四聲篇（明成化刊本） 鳥部/7畫 also gives 䳎, and the characters around 䳎 in 重刊詳校篇海 are not changed too much compared to 改併四聲篇海: ...𪀞𪁎𪁓𪀕(䳎)䳖鵛鵜... except that 䳎 printed as ⿰自鳥.
It also explains why the character is not found in 朝鮮本《龍龕》: Should it be quoted from 龍龕, it would be placed under the symbol ◓ （龍龕） instead of ◎ （搜真玉鏡）.
The character is not attested in other 南部新書 versions. Based on the earlier 南部新書 version, I believe it should have been ⿺鼠丰, which is a variant / error of 𪕅.
▲ 南部新書（文淵閣抄本）卷8 16b gives 魁⿺兒犬. 魁 is likely a one-off revision from some character X (⿺鼠丰 / ⿺鼠斗), but then the scribe realized that he had to change ⿺兒犬 to ⿺鬼犬 too, which is of course not a known character. So he stopped revising the radical.
Among all these versions, the 粵雅堂叢書 is likely the first one to notice that 兒 here is a corrupted form of 䑕/鼠 and the editors consistently changed 兒 to 鼠. The text is about tributes from Lanzhou to the Tang empire. We can cross check 唐書·地理志:
Fwiw the version presented by Conifier (https://nrs.lib.harvard.edu/urn-3:fhcl:4322345) is same as Yifan's (http://codh.rois.ac.jp/pmjt/book/200020612/), both are 康熙24年清畏堂刊本.
Although 成化丁亥重刊改併五音類聚四聲篇 claims that this character is from 搜真玉鏡, it is likely a misprint because 1) Should it from 搜真玉鏡, characters from 𪋘 to ⿱鹿黽 won't present in 新修絫音引证群籍玉篇 and 2) there is already a ◎ (搜真玉鏡) symbol before ⿸鹿引. So here ◎ before 𪋘 is misprint of ● and characters from 𪋘 to ⿱鹿黽 are quoted from 奚韻.
The baidu 百科 mentions that there is 西源峽谷 in 五洩. And the poem 造化鑿坤維，千巖闕空碧。有時雲雨開，殘陽落幽石 also depicts a valley scene.
Therefore, ⿰阝京 is very likely a misprint of 源. Here 氵 and 丿 combine into 阝 and 京 might be a corrupted form of 亰 (a variant of 原 without 丿). But given that we have multiple ⿰阝京 evidences, I suggest we encode it as-is.
The wikipedia page Andrew mentioned above actually cites 《皇明宗室宜川王府鎮國中尉守道公（朱惟熍）墓誌銘》，《新中國出土墓誌·陝西（叄）》上冊，文物出版社，2015年，第258頁. The《明孝宗實錄》卷208 is for 朱秉桔 only.
The image quality is very poor. Since I don't have the printed book, if anyone can provide a clearer printed evidence please reply and thank you. IMO, in the rubbing, the character looks like 𨮀 rather than ⿰金磨.
Anyway the original evidence is good enough to encode.
Hence we can conclude that 《汉语大字典》 miscopied the shape. I suggest China to update the glyph according to historical evidences. Otherwise UK should consider HE.
▲ 藝文類聚（宋紹興刊本）卷89 folio 4 (characters surrounded by the cyan rectangle) // 中華再造善本
In the new evidence, the first character is clearly ⿱毀木, the second character might look like ⿱⿰圼殳木 at the first glance but it should have been ⿱毀木 based on the context: the space is so limited that the component 臼 devolve into 日.
In this case, even characters around 𩸧 (and their annotations) in 四聲篇 are preserved in 直音篇 in their original ordering：「𩹅，音英(字)；𩸧，音泥；𩸅，音甫.」
And 𩸧 is not included in 直音篇 elsewhere if I read correctly. Therefore, ⿱浞魚 here is likely a misprint of 𩸧. But given that ⿱浞魚 has been included in 漢字海, which quotes 直音篇, better just encode it as-is.
▲ 大明萬曆乙亥重刊改併五音類聚四聲篇 卷4 folio 10a（⿰⿱䒑夭鳥，烏道切，鳥名）鳥部/6畫 *improved from the previous version.
In 新刻洪武元韻勘正切字海篇群玉, 「⿰⿱䒑夭鳥」is normalized to ⿰关鳥 otherwise it would have been placed under 鳥部/7畫.「音倒」is likely derived from「鳥道切」where 鳥 reads as 島. But now we know originally, it was「𪁾，烏道切」, then misprints accumulate over time.
The first evidence is from 字學指南（明萬曆刊本）卷1 folio 45b, under the section 異體同音同義/三字仝. Based on the fanqie 敵德, here ⿱牧虫 is likely misinterpretation of the cursive form of 𧎬, a variant of both 𧎢 and 蟘.
Here ⿱牧虫 is in the last section of the 虫部337, as mentioned in the preface:「今於諸篇韻等搜集四萬三千餘字成篇……元篇有音無註者三千餘字今亦收之」.
In this section, all characters(𧋟𧈧𧊭𧊽蚫⿱隴虫⿱牧虫𧊪𧈦⿱⿰虫口口𧓁𧕸𧏫蟦⿰虫⿱雨灬⿰虫叔(WS2021-03553)䗮⿰虫⿳龷冖虫𧈹⿰虫任⿱猒虫𧒼), except ⿱牧虫, can be found in 四聲篇海, which implies that 直音篇 is heavily influenced by 四聲篇海. However, 四聲篇海 includes a character very similar to ⿱牧虫
Although ⿲⿱𠃊一丨又 can be considered as an intermediate form between 牧 and 收. The fact that this character is placed in 平聲 rules out that it is ⿱牧虫. It might well be ⿱收虫, or even misprint of an encoded character, such as 𧉭 (since 龍龕 does not include this character anyway).
The third evidence provided in #3045 is a syllable compiled by Paul Georg Von Mollendorff in 1901. It is not intended to be a dictionary containing rare characters, the ⿱牧虫 here is likely a misprint of 蝥.
In all, current evidences are somehow questionable. But since we have three of them, I suggest to encode it as-is.
Reply to comment #12981: Yes. I am not questioning the evidence, in fact I have provided a new one before. The comment #2600 is to confirm that 九史同姓名略 correctly copied the character from a well-known 宋史 version. I have no idea why it is postponed.
> the relevant chapters have been scattered in the Yuan Dynasty versions
Yes, but luckily the 宋史（朝鮮刊本）survive. In this version the 宗室表 text preserves the original line arrangement of 宋史（至正本）. It reveals what the character ⿳艹羽金 / ⿳艹羽余 may actually be:
From evidences above, a probable transition is 蓁 -> ⿳艹羽余 （朱英本） -> ⿳艹羽金 （武英殿本）. Per new evidences, I suggest encode it as-is. We may note that ⿳艹羽金 is an error of 蓁.
Both of them are 例貢. If 陳其⿰月景, a 監生 according to the original evidence, is related to them, then ⿰月景 might be a misprint of 暻. But since we have two new evidences, better just encode it.
In the first evidence, the meaning of ⿰石片 seems to be copied from 成化丁亥重刊改併五音類聚四聲篇 or later revisions, as it is well known that 新刻洪武元韻勘正切字海篇群玉 is influenced by 四聲篇海/五音集韻. If the character were indeed ⿰石片, 片 is presumably the phonetic component, and it should not be pronounced as 亭.
The new evidence in comment #12875 is actually 𭱙. The top-left dot sticks to the component 广 which is then combined with the other two dots so it looks like ⿸疒⿱丷帀. Obviously 𭱙 here is a variant of 㴑.
IRG Working Set 2021v4.0
Source: HUANG Junliang
Date: Generated on 2023-03-21
Unification
黑文婷 argues that ⿰土窊 is a variant of 坬/窊[1]. The earliest known evidence of ⿰土窊 dates back to late Ming while the form 窊 can be found in Five Dynasties text. The form 坬 is commonly used in Qing text.
According to the evidences of 𱷆, 𱷆 is used in Jiangxi province, bordered by Guangdong province where ⿰土窊 is used according to Evidence 1. Based on this and the semantic relationship between ⿰土窊 and 坬, I think ⿰土窊 could be a variant of 𱷆. If 𱷆 is also pronounced as wa, then ⿰土窊 is potentially unifiable to 𱷆.
[ {{WS2017-03214}} ]
[1] 黑文婷,党怀兴,黑维强.黄土高原地名中“坬”的音义及来源[J].语文研究,2022(02):58-65. (PDF is attached below)
Attached PDF file
I agree with John. On the bottom component, note that 𢍌 is a variant of 其 and 𢍌 is similar to ⿱甘廾. ⿱甘廾 is potentially unifiable to 其. Does SAT have more characters with the exact ⿱甘廾 component? If not I suggest we unify to 𠴩 and SAT can use register this shape as IVD.
Cognate examples:
𭀚 = 充
𭠐 = 抁
𢼠 = 敓 = (⿰兊攵, B01473-007)
𠡌 = 𠡜
𤴴 = 𤵔 = 㽸 = 𤴺
I agree with Eiso that UK should consider HE for 𡧾.
The 𡧾 in GHZ is quoted from 四聲篇海:
However, both 泰和四聲篇海 and 成化四聲篇海 give the shape ⿱宀𮕜.
▲ 泰和五音新改併類聚四聲篇（金元遞修本） 7:4b
▲ 成化丁亥重刊改併五音類聚四聲篇（明成化刊本）7:6b
And the remaining stroke count of this character is 7 in 四聲篇, consistent with the shape 𮕜, but not ⿱乛皿 given in the GHZ as it has only 6 strokes.
Potentially unifiable to 𱤶 if we change NUCV #403 火灬 to UCV.
[ {{WS2017-01808}} ]
Attributes
Evidence
▲ 泰和五音新改並類聚四聲篇（金刊元修本） 大部（⿱大？，音爻）, quotes 搜真玉鏡.
▲ 成化丁亥重刊改併五音類聚四聲篇（明成化刊本） 卷4 folio 30b 大部（⿱大𮌇+VS18，音父）
▲ 泰和五音新改並類聚四聲篇（金刊元修本）卷5 folio 9a 竹部/20+畫, quotes 會玉川篇.
▲ 泰和五音新改並類聚四聲篇（金刊元修本）卷3 folio 11b，魚部/14畫, quotes 搜真玉鏡
▲ 成化丁亥重刊改併五音類聚四聲篇（明成化刊本）卷3 folio 17b，魚部/17畫.
It is interesting that although 泰和五音新改並類聚四聲篇（金刊元修本） gives the shape ⿰魚⿱𤇾交, the character is categorized as 魚部/14畫, which would make sense if it were ⿰魚熒. Since then editors of later revisions respected the current shape and moved to 魚部/17畫, which does not make sense either as it should be in 魚部/16畫.
I have checked three versions, all of them give 翯.
▲ 史記（集解、索隱）（宋乾道七年蔡夢弼東塾刻本）卷117 folio 9a // 中華再造善本
▲ 史記（集解、索隱）（宋淳熙三年張杅桐川郡齋刻八年耿秉重修本）卷117 folio 8b // 中華再造善本
▲ 史記（三家注）（南宋建安黃善夫家塾刊本）卷117 folio 14a
▲ 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
▲ 泰和五音新改並類聚四聲篇（金刊元修本）卷4 folio 7b, 鳥部/8畫, quotes 搜真玉鏡.
▲ 張湧泉. 漢語俗字叢考（2000）pp. 1162
▲ 泰和五音新改並類聚四聲篇（臺北故宮藏金刊元修補本. 故善004077-004086）卷4 folio 7b，鳥部/8畫, quotes 搜真玉鏡, 音賢.
▲ 改併五音類聚四聲篇（臺北故宮藏明刊本. 故善012362-012371）卷4 folio 8a.
In 成化丁亥重刊改併五音類聚四聲篇, the character was changed to ⿰⿱匕貝鳥, with its definition changed to "音田,鳥名". (I have checked the whole 鳥部 section and can't find ⿰貲鳥. And 張湧泉 would have quoted should it appear in 成化 or later revisions.)
▲ 成化丁亥重刊改併五音類聚四聲篇（明成化刊本）卷4 folio 12b.
This shape has been adopted by later 四聲篇海 editions since then. Since 貲 is well more than 8 strokes, the editors of 成化 might questioned the shape and revised it to ⿰⿱匕貝鳥.
▲ 新修絫音引证群籍玉篇（金刊本）卷24 folio 23a, 鳥部/5畫, quotes 類篇.
鴞 is already included in this dictionary (folio 22b), so ⿰另鳥 is placed here intentionally. I suggest to encode it as-is.
▲ 泰和五音新改並類聚四聲篇（金刊元修本）卷7 folio 14b. 馬部/20+畫, quotes 搜真玉鏡.
▲ 成化丁亥重刊改併五音類聚四聲篇（明成化刊本） 鳥部/7畫 also gives 䳎, and the characters around 䳎 in 重刊詳校篇海 are not changed too much compared to 改併四聲篇海: ...𪀞𪁎𪁓𪀕(䳎)䳖鵛鵜... except that 䳎 printed as ⿰自鳥.
▲ 泰和五音新改並類聚四聲篇（金刊元修本）卷4 folio 9b, 鳥部/12畫, quotes 搜真玉鏡.
▲ 婺源縣志（民國刊本）卷11 folio 19b
I agree with Eiso that in evidence 1 ⿰虫亞 is a variant of 瘂. Can China provide the full page of evidence 2.
▲ 重修琴川志（明汲古閣刊本）卷9 folio 10b
In this evidence, ⿰虫貞 and 橫魚 are different species.
▲ 龍龕手鑑（江安傅氏雙鑑樓藏宋刊本）卷2 folio 10a
▲ 大明成化丁亥重刊改併五音類聚四聲篇卷13 folio 5b 虫部/6畫 （長隆切）, quotes 會玉川篇.
叔 has 8 strokes. Maybe the character was normalized from ⿰虫尗 or it is misprint of some known character.
▲ 蠕范（清同治刊本）卷8 folio 28a
The evidence also presents an unencoded character ⿰虫野 (surrounded by a blue rectangle), presumably a variant of 𧐓.
▲ 成化丁亥重刊改併五音類聚四聲篇（明成化刊本）卷13 folio 6b, 虫部, quotes 玉篇.
An earlier revision gives 蠦:
▲ 泰和五音新改並類聚四聲篇（國立故宮博物院藏金刊元修本）卷13 虫部. So ⿰虫庐 is derived from 蠦.
▲ 正德乙亥重刊改併五音類聚四聲篇（明正德刊本）卷13 folio 6b gives 蝾. So I agree with Andrew, ⿰虫縈 here is misprint of 蠑/蝾.
▲ 成化丁亥重刊改併五音類聚四聲篇（明成化刊本）卷1 金部/17-24畫, (⿰金𣡸) quote 搜真玉鏡
I can't find a UCV for 𣡸/欝. If we don't have one, please also consider add such UCV so ⿰金𣡸 can be unified to ⿰金欝.
▲ [萬曆]江西省大志（明萬曆刊本）卷3 folio 30b (Lineage: 朱磐烑/奠埦/覲鈭/宸澻/拱欆/多㷿/謀𡊀/統⿱𡖅金)
It is probable that ⿱𡖅金 represents an intermediate form between ⿱死金 and ⿱夗金.
▲ 《新中國出土墓誌·陝西（叄）》上冊，文物出版社，2015年，pp217-218 //《皇明宗室宜川王府輔國中尉愛田君（朱懷垗）墓誌銘》
▲ 泰和五音新改並類聚四聲篇（金刊元修本）卷2 folio 6a, 金部/11畫, quotes 搜真玉鏡.
▲ 精刻海若湯先生校訂音釋五侯鯖字海（明刊本）卷3 folio 40a, 言部/15畫
In the full page we can also find ⿰言錦 (in the blue rectangle)：「稅說二音，䜛也」. ⿰言錦 might be a variant of ⿰金䛲.
Here are some new evidences:
▲ 泰和五音新改並類聚四聲篇（金刊元修本）卷3 folio 8a, 言部/15畫, quotes 搜真玉鏡.
▲ 明神宗顯皇帝實錄（紅格鈔本）卷584 folio 7a （萬曆47七月七）
▲ 明神宗實錄校勘記（中央研究院歷史語言研究所）p2722 (Also shows ⿰金諱/𲇠(WS2017-04454))
▲ 明熹宗哲皇帝實錄（紅格鈔本）卷72 folio 11b （天啓6六月十一）
From 明實錄 evidences, we can conclude that 𲇠/⿰金諱 is misprint of ⿰金䛲.
▲ 成化丁亥重刊改併五音類聚四聲篇卷2, 金部/8畫, quotes 搜真玉鏡.
It also explains why the character is not found in 朝鮮本《龍龕》: Should it be quoted from 龍龕, it would be placed under the symbol ◓ （龍龕） instead of ◎ （搜真玉鏡）.
▲ 泰和五音新改並類聚四聲篇（金刊元修本）卷2 folio 5a, 金部/9畫, quotes 類篇.
▲ 泰和五音新改並類聚四聲篇（金刊元修本）卷2 folio 6a, 金部/11畫, quotes 搜真玉鏡.
▲ 龍龕手鏡（高麗本）卷1 folio 10b, 金部/入聲.
▲ 成化丁亥重刊改併五音類聚四聲篇（明成化刊本）卷12 石部/14畫, quotes 類篇.
▲ 龍龕手鏡（高麗本）卷4 folio 45b, 足部/平聲.
▲ 江西省大志（明萬曆刊本）卷3 folio 80b (Lineage: 朱奠堵/覲鏑/宸浫/拱槪/多㷩/謀堈/統⿰金夙,朱謀㙔's nehpew)
▲ 盱眙朱氏八支宗譜（民國務本堂刊本）卷5 folio 107b
▲ 南部新書（明刻本）卷辛 folio 14a gives ⿺兒丰⿺兒犬
▲ 南部新書（商務印書館，1936） pp. 86 also gives ⿺兒丰⿺兒犬.
▲ 南部新書（文淵閣抄本）卷8 16b gives 魁⿺兒犬. 魁 is likely a one-off revision from some character X (⿺鼠丰 / ⿺鼠斗), but then the scribe realized that he had to change ⿺兒犬 to ⿺鬼犬 too, which is of course not a known character. So he stopped revising the radical.
Among all these versions, the 粵雅堂叢書 is likely the first one to notice that 兒 here is a corrupted form of 䑕/鼠 and the editors consistently changed 兒 to 鼠. The text is about tributes from Lanzhou to the Tang empire. We can cross check 唐書·地理志:
▲ 唐書（宋紹興刊本）地理志30 folio 8b gives 𪕅鼥鼠, which according to 李時珍, is what he called 土撥鼠 in Ming:
So ⿺兒丰⿺兒犬 is corrupted form of ⿺鼠丰鼣, which is variant / error of 𪕅鼥. As for ⿰鼠斗, I suggest pending more evidences.
Here is an older version:
▲ 正字通（康熙10年白鹿書院刊本）亥集中 鳥部 64b gives 註.
In 《〈正字通〉版本及作者考》(see attachment below)，古屋昭弘 argues that 白鹿書院刊本 is the earliest version. So I suggest withdrawing this character.
Attached PDF file
▲ 新修絫音引证群籍玉篇（金刊本）卷23 folio 17a, 鹿部, quotes 奚韻
▲ 成化丁亥重刊改併五音類聚四聲篇（明成化刊本）卷15 鹿部, quotes 搜真玉鏡
Although 成化丁亥重刊改併五音類聚四聲篇 claims that this character is from 搜真玉鏡, it is likely a misprint because 1) Should it from 搜真玉鏡, characters from 𪋘 to ⿱鹿黽 won't present in 新修絫音引证群籍玉篇 and 2) there is already a ◎ (搜真玉鏡) symbol before ⿸鹿引. So here ◎ before 𪋘 is misprint of ● and characters from 𪋘 to ⿱鹿黽 are quoted from 奚韻.
▲ 新修絫音引证群籍玉篇（金刊本）卷23 folio 17a (⿸𢉖國 = ⿸鹿國 by UCV 443), 鹿部, quotes 奚韻.
I agree with Lee that ⿸鹿國 is related to ⿸鹿囯. The fanqie 苦君切 suggests that ⿸鹿國、⿸鹿囯、⿸鹿苦 might all be variants of 麕.
▲ 成化丁亥重刊改併五音類聚四聲篇（明成化刊本）卷15 鹿部, quotes 搜真玉鏡
▲ 成化丁亥重刊改併五音類聚四聲篇（明成化刊本） 卷15 鹿部, (⿸鹿𫀄) quotes 搜真玉鏡.
The shape was then normalized to ⿸鹿戚 in later revisions:
▲ 正德乙亥重刊改併五音類聚四聲篇（明正德刊本）卷15 鹿部
▲ 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
Among the 21 evidences, 2 of them give 臻 and the others give 至.
Suggest pending more evidences.
▲ 宋史（朝鮮刊本）卷236 folio 17a
▲ 資治通鑑（宋紹興二年至三年兩浙東路茶鹽司公使庫刻本）卷260 folio 13b gives 汭. See also 新唐書·成汭
▲ 漢字海 p. 1563
If we change NUCV #403 火灬 to an UCV, ⿰矛㸑 can be unified to ⿰矛⿱&P15-01;㷊.
See also
▲ [康熙]浙江通志（清康熙刊本）卷14 folio 4b gives 粞.
▲ 成化丁亥重刊改併五音類聚四聲篇（明成化刊本） 卷7 folio 23a, 皿部, 羊益切, quotes 搜真玉鏡.
▲ 成化丁亥重刊改併五音類聚四聲篇（明成化刊本）卷15 folio 26b, 耳部/4畫, quotes 搜真玉鏡.
▲ 成化丁亥重刊改併五音類聚四聲篇（明成化刊本） 卷7 folio 24a, 米部/4畫, quotes 搜真玉鏡.
▲ 四川鹽法志（清光緒刊本） 卷3 folio 43b
Note: 勘子 can be found in 曾祥其《画家黎雄才的五通桥往事》：「笔者了解到，原来的巴盐生产、保管、运输、销售都不是使用麻袋包装，而是使用“勘子”（一种竹子锤破编制的筐，因为巴盐不会撒、漏）。」
Therefore 勘 is the phonetic component, thus the rationale of ⿱竹勘 is reasonable.
▲ 杭州府志（清乾隆刊本）卷15 folio 33b
⿰𦈢𡭽 is unifiable to ⿰缶𡭽 by UCV #390.
I agree with Eiso that ⿰缶𡭽 is a mixed form from 罅隙.
▲ [寶慶]會稽續志（明正德刊本）卷4 folio 2a
▲ 諸暨縣志（清乾隆刊本）卷3 folio 15a
The [嘉泰]會稽志 mentions that 《五洩山十題》is included in 《掇英》:
▲ [寶慶]會稽續志（明正德刊本）卷4 folio 2a
《掇英》 should be short for 《會稽掇英總集》, here it gives 源:
▲ 會稽掇英總集（明山陰祁氏淡生堂鈔本）卷4
The baidu 百科 mentions that there is 西源峽谷 in 五洩. And the poem 造化鑿坤維，千巖闕空碧。有時雲雨開，殘陽落幽石 also depicts a valley scene.
Therefore, ⿰阝京 is very likely a misprint of 源. Here 氵 and 丿 combine into 阝 and 京 might be a corrupted form of 亰 (a variant of 原 without 丿). But given that we have multiple ⿰阝京 evidences, I suggest we encode it as-is.
▲ 《新中國出土墓誌·陝西（叄）》下冊，文物出版社，2015年，pp215
Here is the original rubbing:
Attached PDF file
▲ 《新中國出土墓誌·陝西（叄）》上冊，文物出版社，2015年，pp258.
The image quality is very poor. Since I don't have the printed book, if anyone can provide a clearer printed evidence please reply and thank you. IMO, in the rubbing, the character looks like 𨮀 rather than ⿰金磨.
Anyway the original evidence is good enough to encode.
▲ 龍龕手鏡（高麗本）卷4 立部去聲.
⿱知立 is likely a variant of 智.
▲ [嘉慶]成安縣志（清道光刊本）卷2 folio 8a
▲ [光緒]廣平府志（清光緒刊本）卷58 folio 41b
IMO the second evidence is clear enough.
▲ 漢語大字典（1986）《汉语大字典主要引用书目表》 pp.4872
So I checked the 明崇禎 version, which still gives ⿱宀𮕜:
▲ 萬曆己丑重刊改併五音類聚四聲篇（明崇禎己巳年金陵園覺庵釋新仁重刊萬曆己丑本）卷7 folio 6b
Hence we can conclude that 《汉语大字典》 miscopied the shape. I suggest China to update the glyph according to historical evidences. Otherwise UK should consider HE.
▲ 藝文類聚（宋紹興刊本）卷44 folio 8b (surrounded by the blue rectangle)
▲ 藝文類聚（上海古籍出版社，1999）pp789
I agree with Yifan that this is likely a misprint of 蠵 or more specifically 𮕐. I suggest postponing this character.
▲ 藝文類聚（宋紹興刊本）卷52 folio 10a
▲ 藝文類聚（上海古籍出版社，1999）pp948
All new evidences are related to 藝文類聚. I agree that it is probably 珠 and we should postpone this character.
▲ 藝文類聚（宋紹興刊本）卷82 folio 11 (characters surrounded by cyan rectangle) // 中華再造善本
In the new evidence, I think the bottom left component is clearly 木 and the middle part 叔 is reasonably clear.
▲ 藝文類聚（宋紹興刊本）卷89 folio 4 (characters surrounded by the cyan rectangle) // 中華再造善本
In the new evidence, the first character is clearly ⿱毀木, the second character might look like ⿱⿰圼殳木 at the first glance but it should have been ⿱毀木 based on the context: the space is so limited that the component 臼 devolve into 日.
▲ 藝文類聚（宋紹興刊本）卷91 folio 7a // 中華再造善本 (in cyan rectangle)
▲ 淵鑑類函（清康熙刊本）卷426 folio 14a
New evidences give the normalized form.
▲ 中華再造善本 // 藝文類聚（宋紹興刊本）卷97 folio 4b (look for green rectangle)
▲ 全上古三代秦漢三國六朝文（清刊本）全晉文卷100 folio 8b
⿰口塋 might be a variant of 𡃅, which is also sourced from 寒蟬賦 according to GHZ. ⿰口營 might be a phonetic variant of 𡃅.
▲ 宋史（明成化朱英刊本）列傳248 folio 11b
▲ 宋史（朝鮮刊本）列傳248 folio 14b
▲ 宋史（中華書局，1974）pp. 14086
The current 宋會要 version (extracted from 永樂大典) gives ⿰口思:
▲ 宋會要（吳興嘉葉堂抄本）454冊
So it is probable that ⿰田思 is error of ⿰口思. But given that the form ⿰田思 have been stable across different 宋史 versions. I suggest to encode it as-is.
▲ 《明朝的宗室困局与北疆危机——以嘉靖朝朱充灼叛乱为例》[1] pp102
▲ 饒宗頤. [民國]潮州志叢談志. 事部 folio 9a (also presents his younger brother, 充⿰火𦖠)
References:
[1]顾锦春.明朝的宗室困局与北疆危机——以嘉靖朝朱充灼叛乱为例[J].华东师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2016,48(02):99-105+170.DOI:10.16382/j.cnki.1000-5579.2016.02.012.
▲ 考古圖（元大德刊本）卷3 folio 17b
▲ 欽定日下舊聞考（清乾隆刊本）卷2 folio 2b
Suggest encode it as-is now that we have two new evidences.
▲ 甬言稽詁（天一閣藏稿本）卷3
Hence 應鐘 stated the rationale of this character:「⿸疒秀者，即瘜之轉音。瘜从息聲，古音爲之，類之幽聲近，長言轉平，故音如秀」
▲ 泰和五音新改並類聚四聲篇（金崇慶刊本）卷12 folio 3a, 尸部, quotes 會玉川篇.
kFanqie 布典切
▲ [道光]瓊州府志（清光緒刊本）20:15a
▲ 八閩通志（明弘治刊本）卷25 folio 14a
▲ 淳熙三山志（明晉安謝氏小草齋鈔本）卷42 folio 6b
Other
If U+31DC6 𱷆 is also related to 凹, 洼, 坬, it will support that 𱷆 is a variant of ⿰土窊 as in 黑文婷's paper, 凹/洼/坬/窊/⿰土窊 are all related.
⿱雨乳𩃱 and ⿱雨泘𩃱 sound similar and both are used in place names of 陝西 / 甘肅 province.
⿱雨乳𩃱 and ⿱雨泘𩃱 sound similar and both are used in place names of 陝西 / 甘肅 province.
▲ 重訂直音篇（練川明德書院明萬曆34年刊本）卷6 folio 85b
Here ⿱浞魚 is in the last section of the 魚部336, as mentioned in the preface:「今於諸篇韻等搜集四萬三千餘字成篇……元篇有音無註者三千餘字今亦收之」.
Here are all 22 characters in this section:
鮕鮔𩵯𩶖𩼂𩸐𩸃𩸹䲏𱇁⿺免𩺰𩶸⿰魚升𩷂𩷵𩹅⿱浞魚𩸅䱯⿰魚⿶𫼃⿱亠丷鯚𩽡
Among them, 18 share the exact shape with 成化丁亥重刊改併五音類聚四聲篇:
鮕鮔𩵯𩶖 5畫 / 𩷂𩸐 6畫 / 𩷵𩸃 7畫 / 𩸹𩹅𩸅䱯鯚 8畫 / 䲏𩼂 12畫 / 𩽡 17畫 / ⿰魚⿶𫼃⿱亠丷⿺免𩺰 after 併了部頭.
3 are normalized: ⿰魚升 ~ ⿰魚⿸⿶廾丶丶 5畫 / 𩶸 from 𩸟 8畫 / 𱇁 from ⿰魚⿱旧里 14畫
The only exception is ⿱浞魚.
This implies that 直音篇 is heavily influenced by 四聲篇海. However, 四聲篇海 includes a character 𩸧, very similar to ⿱浞魚:
▲ 成化丁亥重刊改併五音類聚四聲篇（明成化刊本）卷3 folio 15a, 𩸧，音泥. quotes 類篇.
In this case, even characters around 𩸧 (and their annotations) in 四聲篇 are preserved in 直音篇 in their original ordering：「𩹅，音英(字)；𩸧，音泥；𩸅，音甫.」
And 𩸧 is not included in 直音篇 elsewhere if I read correctly. Therefore, ⿱浞魚 here is likely a misprint of 𩸧. But given that ⿱浞魚 has been included in 漢字海, which quotes 直音篇, better just encode it as-is.
The character is quoted from 陰祐《餘文》.
▲ 新修絫音引证群籍玉篇（金刊本）卷24 folio 35b, 魚部/14畫
▲ 泰和五音新改並類聚四聲篇（金刊元修本）卷3 folio 11b，魚部/14畫, the bottom 关 component emerged.
▲ 成化丁亥重刊改併五音類聚四聲篇（明成化刊本）卷3 folio 17a, the horizontal stroke of 大 was shorten and merged with the upper grass 艹.
▲ 正德乙亥重刊改併五音類聚四聲篇（明正德刊本）
卷3 folio 17a. ⿰⿱关关⿹勹魚 became stable. Then the shape is copied by other later dictionaries.
「雁字作⿸厂⿸虍鳥从厂⿸虍鳥，⿸虍鳥，疑鳥之古文奇字也。」
「雁字作⿸厂⿸虍鳥从厂⿸虍鳥，⿸虍鳥，疑鳥之古文奇字也。」
Here we can see how 𪁾 shifts to ⿰关鳥:
▲ 泰和五音新改並類聚四聲篇（金刊元修本）卷4 folio 6b （𪁾，烏道切，鳥名）鳥部/6畫
▲ 大明成化丁亥重刊改併五音類聚四聲篇（明成化刊本）卷4 folio 8a（⿰⿱䒑夭鳥，鳥道切，鳥名）鳥部/6畫
大明正德重刊 gives the same shape / text with 成化重刊.
▲ 大明萬曆乙亥重刊改併五音類聚四聲篇 卷4 folio 10a（⿰⿱䒑夭鳥，烏道切，鳥名）鳥部/6畫 *improved from the previous version.
In 新刻洪武元韻勘正切字海篇群玉, 「⿰⿱䒑夭鳥」is normalized to ⿰关鳥 otherwise it would have been placed under 鳥部/7畫.「音倒」is likely derived from「鳥道切」where 鳥 reads as 島. But now we know originally, it was「𪁾，烏道切」, then misprints accumulate over time.
See for another ⿰关鳥 evidence in 陳明卿太史考古詳訂遵韻海篇朝宗. Now that we have more than one evidences, better just encode it.
▲ zi.tools: cursive script examples of 特
Here is the complete page of the second evidence:
▲ 重訂直音篇（練川明德書院明萬曆34年刊本）卷6 folio 96b
Here ⿱牧虫 is in the last section of the 虫部337, as mentioned in the preface:「今於諸篇韻等搜集四萬三千餘字成篇……元篇有音無註者三千餘字今亦收之」.
In this section, all characters(𧋟𧈧𧊭𧊽蚫⿱隴虫⿱牧虫𧊪𧈦⿱⿰虫口口𧓁𧕸𧏫蟦⿰虫⿱雨灬⿰虫叔(WS2021-03553)䗮⿰虫⿳龷冖虫𧈹⿰虫任⿱猒虫𧒼), except ⿱牧虫, can be found in 四聲篇海, which implies that 直音篇 is heavily influenced by 四聲篇海. However, 四聲篇海 includes a character very similar to ⿱牧虫
▲大明成化丁亥重刊改併五音類聚四聲篇卷13 folio 5b. 虫部/6畫, quotes 龍龕. （⿱⿲⿱𠃊一丨又虫，音𢪛）
▲ 大明萬曆乙亥重刊改併五音類聚四聲篇卷13 folio 5b（⿱⿲⿱𠃊一丨又虫，音𭣣）
Here is a 龍龕 evidence:
▲ 龍龕手鑑（江安傅氏雙鑑樓藏宋刊本）卷2 folio 9a（虫部，平聲）
Although ⿲⿱𠃊一丨又 can be considered as an intermediate form between 牧 and 收. The fact that this character is placed in 平聲 rules out that it is ⿱牧虫. It might well be ⿱收虫, or even misprint of an encoded character, such as 𧉭 (since 龍龕 does not include this character anyway).
The third evidence provided in #3045 is a syllable compiled by Paul Georg Von Mollendorff in 1901. It is not intended to be a dictionary containing rare characters, the ⿱牧虫 here is likely a misprint of 蝥.
In all, current evidences are somehow questionable. But since we have three of them, I suggest to encode it as-is.
▲ 玉篇（元刊本）：「錊，子對切，錬也」
▲ 成化丁亥重刊改併五音類聚四聲篇（明成化刊本）卷2 金部/9畫
Since there are no special symbols between the section 九 and 鎡, 鎡 is sourced from 玉篇.
大廣益會玉篇 gives 錤:
▲ 大廣益會玉篇（元刊本）卷18 (pp39)
The issue was then fixed by a later revision:
▲ 大明正德乙亥重刊改併五音類聚四聲篇卷2 5a changed ⿰金箕 to 錤.
> the relevant chapters have been scattered in the Yuan Dynasty versions
Yes, but luckily the 宋史（朝鮮刊本）survive. In this version the 宗室表 text preserves the original line arrangement of 宋史（至正本）. It reveals what the character ⿳艹羽金 / ⿳艹羽余 may actually be:
▲ 宋史（朝鮮刊本）卷225 folio 10b gives 必蓁.
Note also 良𠆼 became 良侍 in 武英殿宋史.
From evidences above, a probable transition is 蓁 -> ⿳艹羽余 （朱英本） -> ⿳艹羽金 （武英殿本）. Per new evidences, I suggest encode it as-is. We may note that ⿳艹羽金 is an error of 蓁.
▲ 南昌府志（清乾隆刊本）卷8 folio 9b
Alternative forms:
⿰氵𧶘:
▲ 西江志（清康熙刊本）卷8 folio 9b
The pronunciation suì looks suspicious, since the right component 䍜 reads as zhao4. Is ⿰金䍜 a variant of 𦉎? (It reads as sui1).
▲ [嘉慶]成安縣志（清道光刊本）卷1 一行 folio 3a
▲ [嘉慶]成安縣志（清道光刊本）卷1 選舉 folio 3a (also 晧 printed as 𭾵)
Both of them are 例貢. If 陳其⿰月景, a 監生 according to the original evidence, is related to them, then ⿰月景 might be a misprint of 暻. But since we have two new evidences, better just encode it.
In the evidence provided in comment #12874, ⿸疒申 is probably a variant of 𤶉.
▲ 龍龕手鏡（高麗本）卷4：「以主反，病憂心～也」, 𤶉 is variant of 𤵵 so the dot stroke is significant.
However, in the first evidence, the phonetic element is 申. Obviously in this case ⿸疒申 is not cognate with 𤶉.
The text 《王會圖賦》 is authored when 龔瑨 attended the 元統3年江西鄉試. Here is an older evidence:
▲ 新刊類編歷舉三場文選（朝鮮密陽府李崇之刊本）古賦卷8 folio 15a
We can't tell whether it is 髼 or ⿱髟奉 now.
Error of 𥑈?
▲ 泰和五音新改併類聚四聲篇（金刊元修補本）臺北故宮藏本. 卷12 folio 37b: 石部/5畫. 「他丁切，平，庁也」, quotes 陰祐餘文.
▲ 成化丁亥重刊改併五音類聚四聲篇（明成化刊本）卷12 folio 58b:「他丁切，玉～也」. Here the text 玉～也 seems to be error of 「平，庁也」.
Also Kangxi Dictionary: 「【午集下】【石字部】 【集韻】湯丁切，音㕔。𥓓材也。 又【篇海】玉𥑈。」
In the first evidence, the meaning of ⿰石片 seems to be copied from 成化丁亥重刊改併五音類聚四聲篇 or later revisions, as it is well known that 新刻洪武元韻勘正切字海篇群玉 is influenced by 四聲篇海/五音集韻. If the character were indeed ⿰石片, 片 is presumably the phonetic component, and it should not be pronounced as 亭.
Alternative names: 菠𧀺（淳熙三山志萬曆刊本卷42）、菝葜（重修政和證類本草卷8）。
Alternative names: 朗晃 （弘治興化府志卷14）、螂𮔫（正德福州府志卷8）、螂𫊶（閩中海錯疏卷下）、朗光（萬曆興化府志卷1）。
It is probable that ⿱鼓心 is a variant of 懿.
The original evidence shows a person name. He is from 福州.
▲ 淳熙三山志（明萬曆刊本）卷32 folio 28a (pp. 92) gives 懿.
From 四聲篇海 and 碑別字新編, we can infer that ⿱皷心 is a variant of 懿:
▲ 泰和五音新改併類聚四聲篇（金崇慶刊本）卷10 folio 9b. 心部/15畫, quotes 搜真玉鏡.「⿱⿰⿱土豆皮心，于俻切」. Also ⿱皼心：「新藏作㦤」
▲ 成化丁亥重刊改併五音類聚四聲篇（明成化刊本）卷10 folio 14a 「⿱皷心，音⿰壹⿱㳄心(懿)」
See MOE dictionary for the 碑別字新編 evidence.
From Kangxi dictionary we know that 皷 is a variant of 鼓: 「【午集中】【皮字部】 【正字通】俗鼓字。」
Therefore, based on references to both characters in various historical texts, ⿱鼓心 is very likely a variant of 懿.
Data for Unihan
According to the evidence, ⿱秌鳥 is a variant of 𪀖. According to Kangxi Dictionary: 「鶖，說文作𪀖」, so 鶖 is also a variant of 𪀖.
Therefore ⿱秌鳥 is a semantic variant of 鶖. Also 秌 is a semantic variant of 秋.
Per Kangxi Dictionary: 「【午集中】【疒字部】 【集韻】乃嫁切，拏去聲。病也。 」, the meaning is same as the meaning of ⿸疒挐 from the new evidences in comment #12887.
The current 爾雅 text gives: 「檓，大椒也〈今椒實大者名檓也〉」：
▲ 爾雅（南宋初浙東刻本）卷下 6a // 中華再造善本
so ⿱毀木 is a semantic variant of 檓.
Per Kangxi Dictionary: 「䁓：【午集中】【目字部】 【集韻】祖叢切，音椶。【類篇】視也。 又【廣韻】作孔切【集韻】祖動切，𠀤椶上聲。【揚子·方言】伺視也。凡相竊視，南楚或謂之䁓。 又【廣韻】【集韻】𠀤作弄切，椶去聲。義同。 又【類篇】矇䁓，視貌。 又【廣韻】古拜切【集韻】居拜切，𠀤音戒。怒也。」
𡕰 is also variant of 㚇. In the 元聲韻學大成 evidence, we can see the component 㚇 is systematically written as 𡕰.