I doubt it is 嵇. Suggest pending better evidences.
Evidence
In the first evidence ⿰禾岙 is the surname of ⿰禾岙慧. He/she is a contemporary person, which means it is very unlikely his/her surname was ever changed from ⿰禾岙 to 嵇 or vice.
We can find 嵇慧 (graduated from 竹根滩实验部 which matches the original evidence) in a 2009 web post
His/her name can also be found in a spreadsheet from ysxy.wust.edu.cn, which gives 嵇慧 and his/her student number, for privacy reasons I don't provide the full URL here.
Of course more compelling evidences can only come from Ministry of Public Security (China), for example a reproduction of his/her ID.
I don't oppose encoding 八輔 characters, but the evidence is not compelling enough, especially when it is in a contemporary person surname. More evidences, except the 八輔 codecharts, will surely be helpful.
The evidence is quoted in 《說文廣義》卷1 folio 53: https://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:FHCL:4596689?n=78, however the next page enumerates the shuowen seal script forms of ⿰魚函, which is clearly 䱤.
The content of 說文廣義 includes every characters it mentioned, which also has 䱤: https://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:FHCL:4596689?n=24
Because the source has contradicting evidences on ⿰魚函, I would suggest pending more evidences on ⿰魚函.
韻經 is a rime dictionary, which means ⿰魚两 must rhyme with 邴寎蛃. If the phonetic component of ⿰魚两 is 两, it clearly does not rhyme with 蛃. I doubt ⿰魚两 is an error form of 𩶁.
As a rhyme book, ⿱⿰召殳鳥 should rhyme with 㝅/𣪒/穀. Assuming ⿰召殳 is the phonetic component, it is unusual that ⿰召殳 is not encoded. I guess it should have been 𪆑 or
《古今圖書集成》also has 獻: https://zh.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:Gujin_Tushu_Jicheng,_Volume_634_(1700-1725).djvu/93#%E3%80%8A%E4%B8%9E%E7%9B%B8%E6%9D%8E%E5%85%AC%E5%A5%8F%E8%AD%B0%E5%BE%8C%E5%BA%8F%E3%80%8B%E5%89%8D%E4%BA%BA
Based on the context ⿰鬳虫 is a verb, which seems to be typo of 獻. I suggest not encoding on this evidence.
The evidence mentions 李四光's work 《中國北部之䗴科》published on 古生物誌 in 1927. Here is the cover which clearly shows 䗴, cited from http://114.251.176.131/UploadFiles/2020_4_21/%E5%88%9D%E5%BF%83%E4%B8%8E%E4%BD%BF%E5%91%BD--%E6%9D%8E%E5%9B%9B%E5%85%89%E5%85%A5%E5%85%9A%E7%9A%84%E6%95%85%E4%BA%8B.pdf
Based on the context: 貂實鼠類，故字又作「⿰鼠臽」. ⿰鼠臽 should have same phonetic component with 貂, so it is an error form of 鼦. If it were ⿰鼠臽, the first 丿in 臼 is missing in the evidence.
The evidence quotes 爾雅翼. The 摛藻堂四庫全書薈要本 version has 鼦
So ⿰鼠匡 is a misprint of 鼮, the print error begins in 《隸通》in gets smuggled to 《鄦齋叢書》. I suggest pending better evidence.
Note: It is a good example of why full evidences are always preferred. I happen to know the text is from《隸通》 because Google digitalized the text and matches it with my search query "篤學舉孝廉爲郎", using maximal single-line context provided by China. There are many evidences lack of sufficient context that I can't tackle. I hope China could submit full evidences for those public domain texts so experts can research on these unencoded characters.
The evidence gives text「則當作⿱宀艸⿱宀日⿱宀鹿」among which ⿱宀艸 and ⿱宀日 are not submitted.
況祥麟, the author of 六書管見, comments on 《說文•宀部》「家，居也。从宀，豭省聲。」. By comparing 豭葭麚椵暇 with 家, he argues that if we extend the rule that 豭 derives 家, then 葭 should be ⿱宀艸, 暇 should be ⿱宀日 and 麚 should be ⿱宀鹿.
In this context, ⿱宀鹿 is not used as a character but a symbol derived from 麚, so is ⿱宀艸 and ⿱宀日.
It is interesting to note that an earlier version of 宋書 gives different shape:
▲ 宋書（宋元明三朝遞修本，aka 三朝本）卷67 folio 19 gives ⿱山⿰日⿺乚三, which could be an error form of ⿱山⿰日𢀳 and thus ⿱山⿰日巴.
百衲本 is derived from multiple 宋書 versions. 百衲本 gives ⿱山⿰目⿺乚三, which is possibly an error form of ⿱山⿰日⿺乚三.
▲ 宋書（百衲本）商務印書館 page 459
宋書（中華書局）is based on 百衲本. So we also have ⿱山⿰目⿺乚三 in 宋書（中華書局本）page 1758.
In all, in the post-Ext. C2 era, more and more characters are now encoded directly from ancient texts, which is good for the transcription purpose. It is thus very important to offer the specific version of the source, especially those which have been circulated long. For example, instead of 爾雅, we could give 爾雅（四部叢刊初編本）. In this case we have seen ⿱山皅 have 3 different shapes in multiple versions, so a title like 宋書 virtually gives no reproduction assurance as an independent researcher may not verify the evidence and IRG can not access the sources's authoritativeness.
This is the same version as the proposed evidence, which clearly shows ⿱宀晤. The dot-like stroke in the original evidence may be due to a specific ink issue.
The earliest version of 藝文類聚 we know today is 宋紹興浙江刊本, currently hosted in 上海图书馆.
http://read.nlc.cn/allSearch/searchDetail?searchType=all&showType=1&indexName=data_496&fid=027011104020023
However, juan 1 - 3 are missing and the collector supplemented juan 1 - 3 from 胡纘宗陸采刊本.
## Counter evidence
▲ 藝文類聚. 王元貞. 明萬曆丁亥 [15年, 1587]. 刊本
https://iiif.lib.harvard.edu/manifests/view/drs:54171458$78i
This version has ⿱宀⿰丬吾, which could be unified to 寤.
The evidence is from 《中华人民共和国地名大词典·第四卷》（商务印书馆，2002）page 6470 entry「川江」, part of the Yangtze River.
Note that ⿰鱼戚 is an orphan character, ⿰魚戚 is not encoded. It is very unusual that a name of fish in Yangtze river is not encoded, unless it is a species discovered in recent years. Because 中华人民共和国地名大词典 does not give the text references, it is impossible to reason what ⿰鱼戚 should be. I guess it should have been 鳜, an endemic rare species.
I would suggest pending more evidences, especially historical evidences of ⿰魚戚.
The first evidence 馬牡曰～ indicates ⿱陟鳥 is a name of horse. The text is from 《爾雅·釋畜》which gives 騭. https://ctext.org/library.pl?if=en&file=80276&page=105
The second evidence mentions 桑原 隲蔵（くわばら じつぞう）. 隲 is semantic variant of 騭.
Error form of 鸃? 說文 has 「鵔鸃也。从鳥。義聲。」, which also matches the given pronunciation.
⿰鳥羲 is never encoded, and the current known ⿰鳥羲 evidence http://www.koreanhistory.or.kr/newchar/list_view.jsp?code=162805 also implies that ⿰鳥羲 is error form of 鸃.
I doubt they should be encoded as Han Ideographs. Encoding them as a single character is open-ended.
They are parts of the examples in 有機化學命名芻議[1] (A proposal of Organic Chemicals Nomenclature, see attachments below) by 梁國常. Here I summarize the naming rules related to the WS2021 characters.
* Alkane CnH2n+2 is named as ⿰⿳一巛⿸厂X充, where X is one of 一二三四五六七八九十 when n = 1, 2, ... , 9, 10. So WS2021-00016 ⿰⿳一巛⿸厂一充 is methane (CH4) when n = 1, WS2021-00017 ⿰⿳一巛⿸厂二充 is ethane (C2H6) when n = 2. When n = 11, ..., 19, X is the top-down combination of 十一, 十二, ... , 十九. For example, he gave ⿰⿳一巛⿸厂⿱十五充 for C15H32. When n = 21, ... , 29, X is the combination of 廿一, 廿二, ... 廿九. For example he gave ⿰⿳一巛⿸厂⿱廿一充 for C21H44. He also gave ⿰⿳一巛⿸厂⿱六十充 for C60H122, but he didn't give any example for n > 60.
* Alkene CnH2n (n >= 2) is named as ⿰⿳一巛⿸厂X欠, how X is created from n is as same as how he proposed for alkane. So WS2021-01900 is ethylene (C2H4) when n = 2.
* Alkyne CnH2n-2 (n >= 2) is named as ⿰⿳一巛⿸厂X少, how X is created from n is as same as how he proposed for alkane. So WS2021-00014 is ethyne (C2H2) when n = 2.
* Aromatic ring compounds like Benzene and Furan are named as ⿴囗⿳一巛⿸厂X, where X represents the number of nucleus in the ring. So WS2021-00777 ⿴囗⿳一巛⿸厂六 is benzene and ⿴囗⿳一巛⿸厂五 (also shown in the WS2021-00777 evidence but not submitted) is furan (C4H4O). He did not mention how to name other ring compounds with identical nucleus number, such as pyrrole (C4H5N), let alone general ring compounds.
Encoding ⿰⿳一巛⿸厂X充 as a single character is open-ended because alkane, alkene and alkyne can have arbitrarily large number of carbons. If we accept ⿰⿳一巛⿸厂一充, should we accept ⿰⿳一巛⿸厂⿱六十充 (already in the given evidence)? Should we accept ⿰⿳一巛⿸厂⿳一百一充?
Encoding ⿴囗⿳一巛⿸厂X as a single character is also open-ended because cycloalkanes (hydrocarbons ring compounds) also have arbitrarily large number of carbons, let alone general ring compounds. If we accept ⿴囗⿳一巛⿸厂六, should we accept ⿴囗⿳一巛⿸厂七? Should we accept ⿴囗⿳一巛𫨅?
Alternative encoding solution
To encode these characters, I suggest they be placed in a new Unicode block, using a different encoding model than Han Ideographs. Take alkane for example. we can encode ⿰⿳一巛⿸厂◌充 as a base character, which starts a ZWJ sequence to represent different alkanes:
Note that 宋史（中華書局，1974）page 11055 gives 悖. 葉～麻 is name of a Tangut general. Since the RHS 字 and 孛 are pronounced very differently, it would be helpful if we can cross check with Tangut source.
IRG Working Set 2021v1.0
Source: HUANG Junliang
Date: Generated on 2026-07-27
Unification
The evidence has 西鶼東鰈, a quote from 《文心雕龍·封禪》
▲ 文心雕龍. 《四部叢刊初編》景上海涵芬樓藏明刊本
https://ctext.org/library.pl?if=en&file=79415&page=99
《太平御覽》卷九三七 Section 鱮魚 gives almost identical text:
《毛詩義疏》曰：鱮，似魴而大頭，魚之不美者。故里語曰：「買魚得鱮，不如啖茹。」
https://ctext.org/library.pl?if=en&file=80653&page=21
康熙字典（內府本）on 鱮：【陸璣·草木蟲魚疏】鱮似魴，厚而頭大，魚之不美者。
https://iiif.lib.harvard.edu/manifests/view/drs:17752267$3542i
Consider add UCV 飱/餐 so ⿰魚飱 can be an IVS of 𩽐.
▲《古今圖書集成》鰷魚部 gives both 𩽐 and ⿰魚飱.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9d/Gujin_Tushu_Jicheng%2C_Volume_526_%281700-1725%29.djvu/page48-2385px-Gujin_Tushu_Jicheng%2C_Volume_526_%281700-1725%29.djvu.jpg
Encoded 飱 characters:
U+859E 薞 ^⿱艹飱$(GHKT)
Encoded 餐 characters:
U+7218 爘 ^⿰火餐$(GT)
U+21104 𡄄 ^⿰口餐$(T)
U+29F50 𩽐 ^⿰魚餐$(GT)
U+2C19D 𬆝 ^⿰歹餐$(T)
U+303C0 𰏀 ^⿰山餐$(G)
The evidence is quoted from《山海經・南山經》: https://ctext.org/library.pl?if=gb&file=56660&page=24
I suspect the IDS should have been ⿰⿱止魚匕 and potentially unifiable to 鮆.
Consider add UCV 𠪨/廛 to j1 due to difference of a single stroke (the first dot). So it can be unified to 𪇮.
Thanks Henry who mentioned 𪇮.
UCV #243
The evidence is a quote from 《禽經》.
▲《禽經》夷門廣牘本 gives 𪄡.
https://ctext.org/library.pl?if=en&file=83908&page=29
Unify to 鼰.
鼰 in 康熙字典（同文書局本）：「【字彙補】南見切，音睍。【爾雅·釋獸】鼰鼠。」According to the evidence:
鼰 and ⿰鼠見 share
1) same pronunciation
2) same meanings
3) strong shape similarity
so we can consider unify ⿰鼠見 to 鼰.
Unify to 𧃔.
The evidence has 蒴⿰扌藋.
康熙字典（同文書局本）：「【申集上】【艸字部】 【唐韻】直角切，音濯。【玉篇】蒴𧃔，藥草。」
Unify to 珬 by UCV #49.
康熙字典（同文書局本）：「【廣韻】珂屬。【集韻】珂謂之珬。」
According to 漢語大字典, the following 8 encoded pairs are variants, most of which come from 直音篇
𰂬 / 僧 p252
𰻹 / 鄫 p4044
𰯐 / 𦠇 p2261
𰦢 / 矰 p2769
𰧞 / 磳 p2626
𰷐 / 𧸑 p3898
𱄱 / 驓 p4872
𱋹 / 𪒟 p5070
The only exception is 𨶧, which is a Taiwan person name but ⿵門曾 is not encoded.
According to MOE dictionary, the following 25 unencoded pairs are variants, most of which come from 直音篇.
⿰口𭦌 / 噌 B00425-004
⿰山𭦌 / 嶒 B00881-006
⿰巾𭦌 / 𢅋 C03181-002
⿰忄𭦌 / 憎 A01437-003
⿰扌𭦌 / 𢴣 A00813-009
⿰土𭦌 / 增 A00813-004
⿰氵𭦌 / 潧 C06414-002
⿰𭦌彡/ 㣒 C03489-002
⿱山𭦌 / 𡼳 B00881-007
⿱艹𭦌 / 𦼏 C11864-002
⿰木𭦌 / 橧 B01837-004
⿰火𭦌 / 熷 C06843-004
⿰牛𭦌 / 𤛢 C07114-002
⿰王𭦌 / 璔 A02595-012
⿱𠔿𭦌 / 𦌘 B03527-007
⿱𠕀𭦌 / 罾 B03527-002 (龍龕)
⿱罒𭦌 / 罾 B03527-003 (玉篇)
⿰立𭦌 / 竲 C09457-002
⿰糹𭦌 / 繒 B03458-006
⿰𭦌羽 / 䎖 C10661-002
⿰貝𭦌 / 贈 A03976-006 (廣碑別字)
⿰金𭦌 / 鏳 A04315-006 or 璔 B02639-002 (玉篇)
⿱山⿰糸𭦌 / 𡾽 B00881-008
⿰黒𭦌 / 𪒟 C18127-002
⿳亠⿲刀丫⿸#(丿𠄌>)乀⿴囗𭦌 / 𪗐 C18268-001
The known exceptions are
⿱𭦌灬 (KC12396): a variant of 魯 according to http://www.koreanhistory.or.kr/newchar/list_view.jsp?code=161977
⿰𭦌盖: a variant of 嫌 A00956-005
Note that the component 𭦌 may also be a variant of the component 魯: ⿰口𭦌 / 噌 A00708-002 from 敦煌俗字譜.
Given that most of unencoded 𭦌 component is a variant of component 曾, consider
add a UCV 187b 曾/𭦌 with etymological link.
According to MOE dictionary, ⿻𠆤⿱二八 is a variant of 余.
Add a ucv for ⿻𠆤⿱二八/余 ?
Consider add 賔/賓 as UCV so it can be unified to 𡁟.
Exact match.
Consider adding 幹/榦/𠏉 to UCV so it can be unified to 澣.
Including 幹:
U+64C0 擀 ^⿰扌幹$(GHTV)
U+6A8A 檊 ^⿰木幹$(GHTV)
U+6FA3 澣 ^⿰氵幹$(GHJKT)
U+7C33 簳 ^⿱𥫗幹$(GHJKT)
U+20FE8 𠿨 ^⿰口幹$(G)
U+26F2E 𦼮 ^⿱艹幹$(GT)
U+29F1B 𩼛 ^⿰魚幹$(G)
U+2D5E0 𭗠 ^⿱山幹$(S)
Including 榦:
U+26FAE 𦾮 ^⿱艹榦$(GT)
U+2DB15 𭬕 ^⿰木榦$(K)
Including 𠏉:
U+25DAD 𥶭 ^⿱𥫗𠏉$(G)
U+27040 𧁀 ^⿱艹𠏉$(GT)
Consider add 賔/賓 as UCV so it can be unified to 璸.
Consider add 賔/賓 as UCV so it can be unified to 𢣐.
Agree to unify with 丽. I suggest we add two UCV rules:
1) ⿰𣄼𣄼 / 丽 + VS17 are unifiable under UCV b-2 (like b-2 #123?)
2) ⿰𣄼𣄼 / ⿱一昍 are unifiable under UCV c-1 (like c-1#178)
So ⿱一昍 ~(c1) ⿰𣄼𣄼 ~(b-2) 丽 + VS17 ~ 丽.
Consider add 㸑/爨 as UCV so it can be unified to 𣡿.
Consider add 𣸧/深 as UCV so it can be unified to 𦸂.
Attributes
Consider change IDS to ⿱壯鳥 and accept the new evidence here which gives ⿱壯鳥:
▲ 浙江通志（清乾隆刊本） 卷101 folio 2
⿱𡉟鳥 can be unified to ⿱壯鳥 by UCV #312.
Evidence
I doubt it is 嵇. Suggest pending better evidences.
We can find 嵇慧 (graduated from 竹根滩实验部 which matches the original evidence) in a 2009 web post
http://www.qjren.com/read-tid-88878-fpage-401.html
or the Google cache version
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:3SppGm_kDGoJ:www.qjren.com/read-tid-88878-fpage-401.html+
His/her name can also be found in a spreadsheet from ysxy.wust.edu.cn, which gives 嵇慧 and his/her student number, for privacy reasons I don't provide the full URL here.
Of course more compelling evidences can only come from Ministry of Public Security (China), for example a reproduction of his/her ID.
I don't oppose encoding 八輔 characters, but the evidence is not compelling enough, especially when it is in a contemporary person surname. More evidences, except the 八輔 codecharts, will surely be helpful.
Misprint of 鯼/𩼕? Suggest pending more evidences.
⿰魚⿳一⿰忄舟一 seems to be derived from the Shuowen small seal script form of 䱴. The evidence also implies it should have been 䱴.
See also 《說文解字》（四部叢刊初編景宋本）：https://ctext.org/library.pl?if=en&file=77391&page=131
The evidence is quoted in 《說文廣義》卷1 folio 53: https://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:FHCL:4596689?n=78, however the next page enumerates the shuowen seal script forms of ⿰魚函, which is clearly 䱤.
The content of 說文廣義 includes every characters it mentioned, which also has 䱤: https://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:FHCL:4596689?n=24
Because the source has contradicting evidences on ⿰魚函, I would suggest pending more evidences on ⿰魚函.
Here is the full evidence from 《韻經·十一梗》
▲韻經. 明嘉靖十八年（1539）長水書院刻本.
http://read.nlc.cn/allSearch/searchDetail?searchType=all&showType=1&indexName=data_892&fid=GBZX0301015813
韻經 is a rime dictionary, which means ⿰魚两 must rhyme with 邴寎蛃. If the phonetic component of ⿰魚两 is 两, it clearly does not rhyme with 蛃. I doubt ⿰魚两 is an error form of 𩶁.
Attached PDF file
▲ 咸賓錄（明萬曆刊本）卷8 folio 12
The original 咸賓錄 gives「⿱⿻大吅亡食尚魚鰕」, ⿱⿻大吅亡 can be unified to 𠷔 = 喪.
I suspect it is a misprint of 鰕. Consider pending more evidences.
▲ 禮白岳紀（明刊本）·篷櫳夜話. folio 28
▲ 開元占經. 明大德堂鈔本. 卷61 folio 9
http://read.nlc.cn/allSearch/searchDetail?searchType=all&showType=1&indexName=data_892&fid=411999014866
▲ 《睡虎地秦墓竹簡》文物出版社. 1990. 秦律十八種譯文註釋. pp. 21
https://mdx.mdict.org/%E4%B8%AD%E5%8D%8E%E6%96%87%E5%8C%96%E5%B7%A5%E5%85%B7%E4%B9%A6/%E5%8F%A4%E6%96%87%E5%AD%97/%E7%9D%A1%E8%99%8E%E5%9C%B0%E7%A7%A6%E5%A2%93%E7%AB%B9%E7%AE%80.pdf
The authors suspect ⿰黍魚 is 穌.
Note that ⿱艹曆 is also not encoded and not submitted yet.
I suspect it is a misprint of 鮌. The evidence has 伯鮌, father of 禹. 鮌 is semantic variant of 鯀.
The text is from 蘇安恒《請複位皇太子第二疏》. 全唐文 gives 鯀.
▲ 全唐文武英殿刊本. 卷237 folio 4
http://read.nlc.cn/allSearch/searchDetail?searchType=all&showType=1&indexName=data_892&fid=GBZX0301013113
I suggest pending more evidences.
The evidence quotes 《集韻》 and 《異魚圖賛》. However both original evidences give 鯺.
▲ 集韻. 南宋潭州刊本. 卷一 folio 39
http://read.nlc.cn/allSearch/searchDetail?searchType=all&showType=1&indexName=data_892&fid=412004000234
▲ 異魚圖賛. 明嘉靖刊本. 卷一 folio 5
http://read.nlc.cn/allSearch/searchDetail?searchType=all&showType=1&indexName=data_892&fid=1289
康熙字典（內府本）has 𩹆, which is reasonable since 孱/孨 is a pair of semantic variants.
https://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:FHCL:4339956?n=3540
What is the version of 康熙字典 in this evidence?
The text is quote from 新唐書卷204、方技列傳第129
▲ 新唐書（靜嘉堂藏宋紹興刊本）卷204 folio 9 gives ⿱郷食, which is unifiable to 饗.
⿱鄉鱼 is an orphan character, ⿱鄉魚 is not encoded. Consider not encode on this evidence.
The evidence is from 康熙字典 on 𪈪. It quotes 廣雅 because it contains 鸊𪈪. If 鸊𪈪 is indeed 鸊⿰⿱句奚鳥, 康熙字典 should have printed 𪈪 as 鸊⿰⿱句奚鳥.
廣雅四庫全書本 juan 10 [2] have 鸊𪈪.
[1]: https://iiif.lib.harvard.edu/manifests/view/drs:17752267$3759i
[2]: https://ctext.org/library.pl?if=en&file=54365&page=137
Attached PDF file
▲ 新安志（清光緒刊本）卷2 folio 13 (Link1: NLC, Link2: ctext)
新安志 gives ⿰⿱高早鳥, likely a variant of 𪆾. The text already suggests that ⿰⿱高早鳥 is semantic variant of 鶉.
Consider pending more evidences.
Misprint of 𣝼. 《漢語大字典》pp. 1404 quotes《說文》：𣝼，屋𣝼䏈也。
https://homeinmists.ilotus.org/hd/hydzd3.php?st=page_no&kw=1404
▲ 武昌府志（清康熙刊本）卷10 folio 10
古今圖書集成 gives 鷰.
As a rhyme book, ⿱⿰召殳鳥 should rhyme with 㝅/𣪒/穀. Assuming ⿰召殳 is the phonetic component, it is unusual that ⿰召殳 is not encoded. I guess it should have been 𪆑 or
What's the version of 宋書 used in this evidence? I have checked 三朝本，北監本，汲古閣本 and 中華書局點校本. All of them give 鷺 here.
▲ 《涵芬樓祕笈》 Volume 3 繁勝錄 folio 6
▲ 永樂大典（明嘉靖鈔本）卷7603 folio 3
The third 說文 evidence implies that it is a misprint of 鷽.
爾雅疏「鵖鴔戴鵀」
https://ctext.org/library.pl?if=en&file=89243&page=137
I think it is a misprint of 鵖.
▲ 重訂直音篇（練川明德書院明萬曆三十四年刊本）卷6 folio 73
▲ 浙江通志（清乾隆刊本）卷104 folio 4
▲ 张文冠.疑难字考释二十则[J].中国文字研究,2017(2):118-126. pp. 124
In this evidence, 张文冠 argues that ⿱扎鳥 is a semantic variant of 𩿤 and 𪀻 is a misprint of 𩿤.
Similar to 鴰.
康熙字典（同文書局）「【玉篇】鶬，鴰也。【爾雅·釋鳥】鶬，麋鴰。【郭註】今呼鶬鴰。【班固·西都賦】鶬鴰鳵鶂。」
Seems like misprint of 鴞.
康熙字典. 同文書局 gives almost the same text
「𪁐：《集韻》良脂切，音棃。𪁐黃，鳥名。與鵹鸝𠀤同。又《山海經》王母山沃野有三靑鳥，赤首黑目。一名大𪁐。一名小𪁐。一名靑鳥。」
https://ctext.org/library.pl?if=en&file=77415&page=1490
I suspect it is misprint of 𪁐, the phonetic component of ⿱和鳥 is different than 鵹/鸝.
Full evidence:
▲ 重刊詳校篇海. 明萬曆刊本. 卷2 folio 12
https://www.digital.archives.go.jp/img/2852607
「⿰自鳥，《羣濁》巨九切，舊音舅。鳥，似鳩有冠，或作𨾹」
康熙字典. 同文書局 gives almost same text「䳎：《廣韻》其九切，音舅。烏䳎也。似鳩，有冠。」
https://ctext.org/library.pl?if=en&file=77415&page=1488
The 「或作𨾹」in the original evidence also indicates ⿰自鳥 should have been 䳎.
《国家重点保护野生动物名录》（2021）pp.17 gives 冠斑犀鸟（Anthracoceros albirostris）
http://www.gov.cn/xinwen/2021-02/09/5586227/files/e007df5cdb364bcdbcb89d169047d6c5.pdf
I suspect it is misprint of two characters 犀鸟, consider pending better evidence.
The evidence is from a compiled index of several books including 陸澹安's 《戲曲詞語匯釋》（上海古籍出版社，1981）.
However, 《戲曲詞語匯釋》page 515 clearly gives 鴿.
So ⿰启鸟 is a misprint of 鸽. Consider not encode on this evidence.
⿰背鸟 is an orphan character, ⿰背鳥 is not encoded.
《达赉湖地区秋季湿地鸟类调查》. 中国鹤类通讯 10 卷 2 期 gives 黄鹡鸰（Motacilla flava）.
http://www.chinabird.org/newsletter/crane%202006-2.pdf
达赉湖（呼伦湖） is 10km to 滿洲里.
See also 黄头鹡鸰 in https://baike.baidu.com/item/%E9%BB%84%E5%A4%B4%E9%B9%A1%E9%B8%B0
I suspect it is a misprint of 鹡.
The evidence is likely a quote from 墉城集仙錄.
▲ {{http://read.nlc.cn/allSearch/searchDetail?
searchType=all&showType=1&indexName=data_892&fid=411999009544 墉城集仙錄（明抄本）}} 卷5 folio 22 has 鶴,
墉城集仙錄（正統道藏本） also gives 鶴
I doubt it is an error form of 蛷. The evidence quotes 博雅 (= 廣雅) 卷十
https://ctext.org/library.pl?if=gb&file=54365&page=134
which has 蛷䗏𧐙蛷也.
We can also check how 康熙字典（內府本）quotes 博雅
䗏 https://iiif.lib.harvard.edu/manifests/view/drs:17752267$2609i
𧐙 https://iiif.lib.harvard.edu/manifests/view/drs:17752267$2624i
both show 蛷䗏𧐙蛷也.
I am aware that 集韻（四庫全書本）have 蛷: https://ctext.org/library.pl?if=en&file=9468&page=66
▲ 《長沙馬王堆漢墓簡帛集成·陸》（中華書局，2014）page 93 《胎產書》
The author thinks ⿱彈虫 is a variant of 鱓. Here《中国养生文献全书》misprints 鱓 as 鲜.
Strong similarity with 蜼.
《山海經·大荒南經》 has similar text:
https://ctext.org/library.pl?if=en&file=100007&page=33
其中多䱱魚，狀如𥂕蜼而長距
Since 隹/佳 is resembling, I would suggest to provide the original evidence instead of 《中国养生文献全书》.
奎章閣本《朱子文選》has 獻:
https://ctext.org/library.pl?if=en&file=111176&page=65
《古今圖書集成》also has 獻: https://zh.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:Gujin_Tushu_Jicheng,_Volume_634_(1700-1725).djvu/93#%E3%80%8A%E4%B8%9E%E7%9B%B8%E6%9D%8E%E5%85%AC%E5%A5%8F%E8%AD%B0%E5%BE%8C%E5%BA%8F%E3%80%8B%E5%89%8D%E4%BA%BA
Based on the context ⿰鬳虫 is a verb, which seems to be typo of 獻. I suggest not encoding on this evidence.
Based on the context, I doubt ⿱初虫 is an error form of 䖿. 「上世椓蠡䖿而摭毛皮以自蔽，...，⿱初虫，力兮切」, here ⿱初虫 refers to 䖿.
Since the source have contradicting evidences, I suggest not encoding on this evidence.
The evidence mentions 李四光's work 《中國北部之䗴科》published on 古生物誌 in 1927. Here is the cover which clearly shows 䗴, cited from http://114.251.176.131/UploadFiles/2020_4_21/%E5%88%9D%E5%BF%83%E4%B8%8E%E4%BD%BF%E5%91%BD--%E6%9D%8E%E5%9B%9B%E5%85%89%E5%85%A5%E5%85%9A%E7%9A%84%E6%95%85%E4%BA%8B.pdf
He creates 䗴 for Fusulinida.
I suggest not encoding on this evidence.
▲ 字孳補（清同治刊本）卷下 folio 26
The evidence contains other unencoded characters not yet submitted: ⿱匜皿 and ⿰金⿱匜皿.
▲ 宋史（清乾隆武英殿刊本） 卷225 folio 13
▲ 宋史（明成化刊本）卷225 folio 13 gives ⿳艹羽余.
明成化刊本 is the oldest complete 宋史 version available as of 2021, 宋史（中華書局點校本）follows here.
▲ 山西通志（明萬曆刊本）卷20 folio 41
▲ 臺灣文獻叢刊（1962）第一輯12諸羅縣志 page 161, slightly corrupted though.
Similar to 狆.
▲ 新鋟抱朴子内篇（明萬曆刊本）卷2 folio 17 gives ⿰犭歩, which is unifiable to ⿰犭步 by UCV #283.
The evidence also contains [ {{WS2017-02528}} ]
.
I suspect it is a misprint of 玂.
廣韻（宋刊本）gives 玂: https://ctext.org/library.pl?if=gb&file=77410&page=57#18
康熙字典：https://ctext.org/library.pl?if=gb&file=77415&page=722#03
Overall the quality of 中国养生文献全书 is questioning (see also https://hc.jsecs.org/irg/ws2021/app/index.php?id=03656#c2764). we should discuss if it should be considered an authoritative source.
▲ 廣西通志（清雍正刊本）卷92 folio 2
http://read.nlc.cn/allSearch/searchDetail?searchType=all&showType=1&indexName=data_892&fid=412000000310
▲ 吾學編（明刊本）卷57 folio 1 gives ⿰口⿰犭⿱艹𨾏, probably unifiable to ⿰口獲.
Based on the context: 貂實鼠類，故字又作「⿰鼠臽」. ⿰鼠臽 should have same phonetic component with 貂, so it is an error form of 鼦. If it were ⿰鼠臽, the first 丿in 臼 is missing in the evidence.
The evidence quotes 爾雅翼. The 摛藻堂四庫全書薈要本 version has 鼦
https://ctext.org/library.pl?file=9017&page=46
Full evidence:
▲ 剡源戴先生文集（景上海涵芬樓藏明刊本）卷5 folio 9
similar to 𪕍, 康熙字典（同文書局本）:「 【廣雅】𪕍𪕌，鼠屬。【廣韻】𪕍𪕌，斑鼠。」
The evidence is 《隸通》 included in 《鄦齋叢書》.
▲ 《隸通（清光緒刊本）》卷後漢儒林傳補逸 folio 26 gives ⿺鼠匡, and quotes「黃戢華嶠書」, which is 《華嶠後漢書注》from 漢學堂知足齋叢書 by 黃奭.
▲ 《華嶠後漢書注》（清刊本）folio 2 gives 鼮 and quotes 《太平御覽》卷215.
《太平御覽》（京都東福寺東京靜嘉堂文庫藏宋刊本）卷215 gives 鼮.
So ⿰鼠匡 is a misprint of 鼮, the print error begins in 《隸通》in gets smuggled to 《鄦齋叢書》. I suggest pending better evidence.
Note: It is a good example of why full evidences are always preferred. I happen to know the text is from《隸通》 because Google digitalized the text and matches it with my search query "篤學舉孝廉爲郎", using maximal single-line context provided by China. There are many evidences lack of sufficient context that I can't tackle. I hope China could submit full evidences for those public domain texts so experts can research on these unencoded characters.
▲ 內蒙古歷史文獻叢書·四（遠方出版社，2008） page 191.
⿰鼠圭 is also not encoded.
▲ 五雜組（明刊本）卷9 folio 11
The evidence quotes 集韻.
集韵（宋刊本）十一唐 gives 𡃯.
⿰鹿昜 seems to be misprint of 𡃯.
石鼓文正誤（明嘉靖刊本）juan 3 folio 1 gives 𣬐.
石鼓文（拓片） also gives 𣬐. The shape of 鹿 and 㲋 is very different in seal script.
⿸鹿史 is likely a misprint of 𣬐.
▲ 張玉金. (2020). 再論殷墟甲骨文中的“其”, Bulletin of Chinese Linguistics, 13(2), 365-377. doi: https://doi.org/10.1163/2405478X-01302008
The character is derived from a seal script in 《甲骨文全集》14295, see https://zi.tools/zi/%E2%BF%B1%E9%B9%BF%E7%99%B8 for the seal script shape.
況祥麟, the author of 六書管見, comments on 《說文•宀部》「家，居也。从宀，豭省聲。」. By comparing 豭葭麚椵暇 with 家, he argues that if we extend the rule that 豭 derives 家, then 葭 should be ⿱宀艸, 暇 should be ⿱宀日 and 麚 should be ⿱宀鹿.
In this context, ⿱宀鹿 is not used as a character but a symbol derived from 麚, so is ⿱宀艸 and ⿱宀日.
I suspect it is a typo of 䅓. 《康熙字典》同文書局本午集下禾部「䅓」：「䅩䅓，不伸之意。一曰果名。」I suggest pending more evidences.
⿰鱼卡 is an orphan character: ⿰魚卡 is not encoded. The evidence quotes 爾雅, 爾雅（武英殿十三經注疏本）卷10 folio 3 gives 鮛. I suspect the evidence is a misprint of 𱇨.
I suspect it is a misprint of 䗓. The evidence quotes 淮南子, however 淮南子鴻烈解（四部叢刊本） gives 䗓.
康熙字典（同文書局本）：「【集韻】麤叢切，𠀤音悤。蜻蜓也。【淮南子·齊俗訓】蝦蟆爲鶉，水蠆爲䗓。」
本草綱目（明萬曆刊本） 卷20 folio 11 gives 𪖙:
本草綱目（四庫全書本） 卷20 11a also gives 𪖙.
Consider not encode on this evidence.
Error form of 塌? The evidence is from 花鏡（同人堂刊本）, another version gives 塌.
▲ 花鏡（安永二年刊本）卷3 folio 1
error form of 痰?
error form of 藂? Similar to A00479-020.
▲《古今圖書集成·博物彙編草木典》juan 26 (Book 533 folio 20)
https://zh.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:Gujin_Tushu_Jicheng,_Volume_533_(1700-1725).djvu/40
The text is a quote from 《閩書》juan 150 南產志上.
▲《閩書》福建人民出版社. 1994. pp. 4435
I suspect the evidence is a misprint of 捃. Consider not encode based on current evidence.
The evidence is in the contents section of 農書（廣雅書局重刊武英殿聚珍本）. However, 卷21 of the same version gives 捃.
▲ 《中国科学技术典籍通汇·农学卷》vol. 1 page 674
If we turn to an older edition, for example in 農書（山東布政使司明嘉靖刊本）, both contents and 卷21 give 捃.
▲ 農書·農器圖譜 （山東布政使司明嘉靖刊本）目錄 folio 10
▲ 農書·農器圖譜（山東布政使司明嘉靖刊本）卷15 folio 4
▲《中国科学技术典籍通汇·化学卷》vol 1. page 1
The original evidence is from 趙匡華's《軒轅黃帝水經藥法提要》. The evidence I mentioned is fromhis 《三十六水法提要》.
However, the text in 三十六水法（涵芬楼影印正统道藏本）from the same book 《中国科学技术典籍通汇·化学卷》 gives 𤭌.
《中国科学技术典籍通汇·化学卷》vol 1. page 8
▲ 湖廣通志（清雍正刊本）卷12 folio 50
▲ 畿輔通志（清雍正刊本）卷49 folio 7
▲ 《湖廣通志（1733）》，卷之三十八
https://www.digital.archives.go.jp/img.pdf/4469304
▲ 浙江通志（清乾隆刊本）卷128 folio 20
▲ 溫州府志（明弘治刊本）卷13 folio 17 gives 涭.
I suspect the evidence in (乾隆)鄂縣新志 is a misprint of 鷟.
康熙字典 quotes 說文：「鸑鷟也。」
I suspect the evidence in 中华大典·民俗典·口头民俗分典 is a misprint of 𦠄.
康熙字典 quote 說文：「頰肉也。」
https://ctext.org/library.pl?if=en&file=77415&page=0994
The first evidence seems like a corrupted form of 𦞂 to me. The evidence mentioned multiple synonym of 圪塔, so the phonetic component should be 荅.
The second evidence is good to encode.
The text is a quote from 謝靈運《山居賦》in juan 20 folio 28 of the same book.
http://read.nlc.cn/allSearch/searchDetail?searchType=all&showType=1&indexName=data_403&fid=312001070900
山居賦 gives 㮏, name of a fruit tree.
The evidence is from 謝靈運《山居賦》, also quoted in 宋書.
▲ 宋書（明萬曆二十六年刊本，aka 北監本）卷67 folio 16，武英殿本 also gives ⿱山皅.
It is interesting to note that an earlier version of 宋書 gives different shape:
▲ 宋書（宋元明三朝遞修本，aka 三朝本）卷67 folio 19 gives ⿱山⿰日⿺乚三, which could be an error form of ⿱山⿰日𢀳 and thus ⿱山⿰日巴.
百衲本 is derived from multiple 宋書 versions. 百衲本 gives ⿱山⿰目⿺乚三, which is possibly an error form of ⿱山⿰日⿺乚三.
▲ 宋書（百衲本）商務印書館 page 459
宋書（中華書局）is based on 百衲本. So we also have ⿱山⿰目⿺乚三 in 宋書（中華書局本）page 1758.
In all, in the post-Ext. C2 era, more and more characters are now encoded directly from ancient texts, which is good for the transcription purpose. It is thus very important to offer the specific version of the source, especially those which have been circulated long. For example, instead of 爾雅, we could give 爾雅（四部叢刊初編本）. In this case we have seen ⿱山皅 have 3 different shapes in multiple versions, so a title like 宋書 virtually gives no reproduction assurance as an independent researcher may not verify the evidence and IRG can not access the sources's authoritativeness.
▲ 栝蒼彙紀（明萬曆刊本）卷11 folio 11
湖廣通志（1733）卷64 folio 27
https://www.digital.archives.go.jp/img.pdf/4445487
Attached PDF file
▲ {{宋史（明成化刊本）}}卷349 folio 7
▲ 東維子文集（明刊本）卷24 folio 8 《故翰林侍講學士金華先生墓誌銘》
variant of 泐? See also https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/宗泐
▲ 汴京遺蹟志（明嘉靖刊本）卷23 folio 14
▲ 《馬王堆漢墓簡帛集成・肆》（中華書局，2014）page 219
《江西通志》（1732）卷162 folio 23
https://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:FHCL:13777046?n=61
▲ 浙江通志（清乾隆刊本）卷270 folio 16. The text is a quote from 方士穎《富春山賦》.
▲ 藝文類聚. 上海古籍出版社. 1999. 歐陽詢撰. 汪紹楹校. pp30
http://book.ucdrs.superlib.net/views/specific/2929/bookDetail.jsp?dxNumber=000007893564&d=3E508755D01E8519C545CCD9BC9F4A46&fenlei=22020101
▲ 藝文類聚. 胡纘宗陸采明嘉靖6年至7年. 刊本.
http://read.nlc.cn/allSearch/searchDetail?searchType=all&showType=1&indexName=data_892&fid=411999008429
This is the same version as the proposed evidence, which clearly shows ⿱宀晤. The dot-like stroke in the original evidence may be due to a specific ink issue.
The earliest version of 藝文類聚 we know today is 宋紹興浙江刊本, currently hosted in 上海图书馆.
http://read.nlc.cn/allSearch/searchDetail?searchType=all&showType=1&indexName=data_496&fid=027011104020023
However, juan 1 - 3 are missing and the collector supplemented juan 1 - 3 from 胡纘宗陸采刊本.
## Counter evidence
▲ 藝文類聚. 王元貞. 明萬曆丁亥 [15年, 1587]. 刊本
https://iiif.lib.harvard.edu/manifests/view/drs:54171458$78i
This version has ⿱宀⿰丬吾, which could be unified to 寤.
▲ 浙江通志（清乾隆刊本）卷199 folio 7
▲ 廣西通志（清雍正刊本）卷119 folio 17
http://read.nlc.cn/allSearch/searchDetail?searchType=all&showType=1&indexName=data_892&fid=412000000310
▲ 廣西通志（清雍正刊本）卷21 folio 3
http://read.nlc.cn/allSearch/searchDetail?searchType=all&showType=1&indexName=data_892&fid=412000000310
⿰土⿱罒𦈢
▲ 河南通志（清雍正刊本）卷17 folio 18
http://read.nlc.cn/allSearch/searchDetail?searchType=all&showType=1&indexName=data_892&fid=412000000131
明史卷84 folio 26 has 沙堽.
https://iiif.lib.harvard.edu/manifests/view/drs:428231527$29i
Based on current evidences, I agree it is a variant of 堽.
康熙字典.同文書局 pp.1495 quotes 山海經：「《山海經》北囂之山有鳥，人面，名曰𪄀𪃑」
https://ctext.org/library.pl?if=gb&file=77415&page=1495#15
▲ 湖廣通志（雍正十一年刊本）卷119 folio 12
https://www.digital.archives.go.jp/img/4446360
▲《元詩紀事》民國十四年. 商務印書館. 卷14 folio 14
https://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:FHCL:34592420?n=57
Resubmitted from WS2017 01096.
▲ 西江志（清康熙刊本）卷13 folio 26
Attached PDF file
▲ 成化八年進士登科錄 folio 61 gives 頀.
I suspect ⿰香隻 is a misprint of 頀, consider not encode on this evidence.
▲ 浙江通志（清乾隆刊本） 卷95 folio 12, which quotes 溫州府志（明萬曆刊本）.
▲ 獻徵錄（明萬曆刊本）卷98 folio 97 《四川按察司副使遠齋顧公翀墓志銘》
▲ 浙江通志（清乾隆刊本）卷135 folio 3
宋登科记考（2005 年，江苏教育出版社）p. 599
Still potentially unifiable to 𦸂. Propose ⿰氵𦊅 / 深 as ucv?
宋登科记考（2005 年，江苏教育出版社）p. 1652
▲ 淳熙三山志（清乾隆抄本）卷32 folio 68
▲ 湖廣通志（清雍正刊本）卷 83 folio 43
https://www.digital.archives.go.jp/img/4470926
Glyph Design & Normalization
Other
Similar to 𭰗, both are variants of 凌.
▲ 成陽靈臺碑宋翻明拓本 gives 𩷙.
https://www.dpm.org.cn/collection/impres/231827.html
康熙字典 also mentions 《靈臺碑》on 𩷙:
https://iiif.lib.harvard.edu/manifests/view/drs:17752267$3524i
Variant/misprint of 鰲. 鰲擲鯨呿.
The evidence has 占⿱放魚頭，error form of 鰲?
The 漢書疏證 evidence is a quote from 《莊子·達生》
▲ 莊子. 續古逸叢書本 gives 蠪
https://ctext.org/library.pl?if=en&file=80289&page=11
Similar to 轍 (U+8F4D). The word may be derived from 涸轍之鮒.
齊民要術 乾隆御覽四庫全書薈要本 juan 10 has 蘓.
https://ctext.org/library.pl?if=en&file=73449&page=77
4 evidences have (⿰魚頁)顇, error form of 顦顇?
Note that ⿰鱼戚 is an orphan character, ⿰魚戚 is not encoded. It is very unusual that a name of fish in Yangtze river is not encoded, unless it is a species discovered in recent years. Because 中华人民共和国地名大词典 does not give the text references, it is impossible to reason what ⿰鱼戚 should be. I guess it should have been 鳜, an endemic rare species.
I would suggest pending more evidences, especially historical evidences of ⿰魚戚.
Similar to 𩽙 (U+29F59). ⿰魚鱀 is not encoded, this is an orphan character.
Based on the evidence it is similar to 𪀾.
▲ 誠齋示兒編（明刊本）卷21 folio 2 gives 𧄞.
示兒編（四庫全書本） also gives 𧄞.
Both evidences are misprint of 騭.
The first evidence 馬牡曰～ indicates ⿱陟鳥 is a name of horse. The text is from 《爾雅·釋畜》which gives 騭. https://ctext.org/library.pl?if=en&file=80276&page=105
The second evidence mentions 桑原 隲蔵（くわばら じつぞう）. 隲 is semantic variant of 騭.
https://ctext.org/library.pl?if=en&file=77415&page=1503
The first evidence indicates ⿰⿱口了鳥 reads as 囂. The second evidence 鴟⿰⿱口了鳥, 《說文》has 鴟鴞.
It seems to be misprint/variant of 鴞
Similar to 䳚.
康熙字典（同文書局）「【正韻】得爛切，𠀤音旦。䳚旦，鳥也。【增韻】䳚旦，求旦之鳥，似雞，晝夜常鳴。【揚子·方言】周魏齊宋之閒謂之獨春，自關而東謂之城旦，秦隴之內謂之鶡鴠……《方言》作鶡鴠，別作鳱鴠、䳚鴠」
Semantic variant of ⿱壯鳥?
覆宋本廣韻卷五 has 𪇲, ⿰截鳥 seems to be an error form of 𪇲.
https://ctext.org/library.pl?if=en&file=77414&page=54
GKJ-00414 is similar to/simplified variant of 𧓳.
Similar to 𪖂. 《康熙字典（同文書局）》「【玉篇】𪖂𪕭，小鼠，相銜尾而行。」
山海經（明成化庚寅刊本） has 鏊.
The text is from 左思《蜀都賦》.
《文選》（李善注，宋尤袤刊本）卷四 folio 24 gives 麖.
《文選》（李善注，清胡克家重刊宋尤袤刊本） gives same content.
康熙字典（同文書局本）：「【唐韻】奴亂切，音偄。【說文】鹿麛也。」
⿸鹿曲 seems to be a misprint of 麛.
⿰鳥羲 is never encoded, and the current known ⿰鳥羲 evidence http://www.koreanhistory.or.kr/newchar/list_view.jsp?code=162805 also implies that ⿰鳥羲 is error form of 鸃.
Variant of 䔜. 廣雅（文淵閣四庫全書本）：「藜蘆，蒽䔜也」。
I doubt they should be encoded as Han Ideographs. Encoding them as a single character is open-ended.
They are parts of the examples in 有機化學命名芻議[1] (A proposal of Organic Chemicals Nomenclature, see attachments below) by 梁國常. Here I summarize the naming rules related to the WS2021 characters.
* Alkane CnH2n+2 is named as ⿰⿳一巛⿸厂X充, where X is one of 一二三四五六七八九十 when n = 1, 2, ... , 9, 10. So WS2021-00016 ⿰⿳一巛⿸厂一充 is methane (CH4) when n = 1, WS2021-00017 ⿰⿳一巛⿸厂二充 is ethane (C2H6) when n = 2. When n = 11, ..., 19, X is the top-down combination of 十一, 十二, ... , 十九. For example, he gave ⿰⿳一巛⿸厂⿱十五充 for C15H32. When n = 21, ... , 29, X is the combination of 廿一, 廿二, ... 廿九. For example he gave ⿰⿳一巛⿸厂⿱廿一充 for C21H44. He also gave ⿰⿳一巛⿸厂⿱六十充 for C60H122, but he didn't give any example for n > 60.
* Alkene CnH2n (n >= 2) is named as ⿰⿳一巛⿸厂X欠, how X is created from n is as same as how he proposed for alkane. So WS2021-01900 is ethylene (C2H4) when n = 2.
* Alkyne CnH2n-2 (n >= 2) is named as ⿰⿳一巛⿸厂X少, how X is created from n is as same as how he proposed for alkane. So WS2021-00014 is ethyne (C2H2) when n = 2.
* Aromatic ring compounds like Benzene and Furan are named as ⿴囗⿳一巛⿸厂X, where X represents the number of nucleus in the ring. So WS2021-00777 ⿴囗⿳一巛⿸厂六 is benzene and ⿴囗⿳一巛⿸厂五 (also shown in the WS2021-00777 evidence but not submitted) is furan (C4H4O). He did not mention how to name other ring compounds with identical nucleus number, such as pyrrole (C4H5N), let alone general ring compounds.
Encoding ⿰⿳一巛⿸厂X充 as a single character is open-ended because alkane, alkene and alkyne can have arbitrarily large number of carbons. If we accept ⿰⿳一巛⿸厂一充, should we accept ⿰⿳一巛⿸厂⿱六十充 (already in the given evidence)? Should we accept ⿰⿳一巛⿸厂⿳一百一充?
Encoding ⿴囗⿳一巛⿸厂X as a single character is also open-ended because cycloalkanes (hydrocarbons ring compounds) also have arbitrarily large number of carbons, let alone general ring compounds. If we accept ⿴囗⿳一巛⿸厂六, should we accept ⿴囗⿳一巛⿸厂七? Should we accept ⿴囗⿳一巛𫨅?
Alternative encoding solution
To encode these characters, I suggest they be placed in a new Unicode block, using a different encoding model than Han Ideographs. Take alkane for example. we can encode ⿰⿳一巛⿸厂◌充 as a base character, which starts a ZWJ sequence to represent different alkanes:
⿰⿳一巛⿸厂二充 --> ⿰⿳一巛⿸厂◌充 + ZWJ + 二
⿰⿳一巛⿸厂⿱六十充 --> ⿰⿳一巛⿸厂◌充 + ZWJ + 六 + ZWJ + 十
Reference:
[1] 梁國常. 有機化學命名芻議. 北京大學月刊. 1920(7). pp71-89. Available online: http://read.nlc.cn/allSearch/searchDetail?searchType=all&showType=1&indexName=data_404&fid=01J000340
Attached PDF file
Similar to 𩮓?
Similar to 䐔?
元亨療馬集（清金陵汝顯堂梓本） gives ⿰𧾷衮, which may be a 類化字 of 滚.
▲ 元亨療馬集（清金陵汝顯堂梓本）夏集二卷 folio 24
Corrupted form of 鞮? 後漢書（清乾隆武英殿刊本）卷53 folio 15/16 gives 私渠北鞮海.
The RHS 卑 is similar to ⿱丶𤰞 (A00635-008), which is a variant of 單 according to MOE dictionary
Variant of 馘? 當出輕騎～虜以報。馘：【說文】軍戰斷耳也。
Data for Unihan
Similar to 𩽌(U+29F4C) and 𩺫 (U+29EAB).
Similar to 𩼥 (U+29F25), as it is also shown on the evidence.
Similar to 䲛 (U+4C9B).
https://ctext.org/library.pl?if=gb&file=79543&page=119
《漢書・司馬相如傳上》has 䱴䲛漸離.
Similar to 𬵜?
康熙字典. 同文書局
https://ctext.org/library.pl?if=en&file=77415&page=1505
「【廣韻】鳥名。【正字通】按山海經郭璞鸓鳥贊，有鳥名鸓，兩頭四足，翔若合飛。叶飛韻。鸓音釐。以此推之，乃知䴑爲鸓之譌。互見鸓字註。」
Semantic variant of 䴑.
Similar to 鴯.