I agree with Eddie that ⿰饣穸 is an error form, 穸 and 𡨝 is non-cognate.
▲ 汉字海（华语教学出版社, 2018） pp. 691 quotes 汉语方言大词典 but changes the glyph to ⿰饣⿳穴人又, which is the simplified form from the T-glyph of 𩜯 (康熙字典). I don't have 汉语方言大词典 but I guess the original evidence is likely where 汉字海 quotes. More evidences from 汉语方言大词典 will be appreciated.
汉字海 also gives a simplified form from the G-glyph of 𩜯 (廣韻): ⿰饣叜.
I suggest we encode ⿰饣叜 instead per new evidence, change IDS to ⿰饣叜 and update the glyph accordingly.
五音集字 is authored by 汪朝恩, the earliest known published version is 道光十三年(1833年)刊本. The text probably comes from 字彙補 but 字彙補 gives 𧑳, as is quoted in 康熙字典:
According to the evidence, ⿰犭尊且 is synonym of 巴且. Assuming the phonetic component is 尊, 尊/巴 are pronounced very differently, while 尃/巴 are much more similar.
Per IRG PnP 2.1.1: "The supporting evidence for submitted characters in printed form
must be in regular scripts (楷書). Other styles cannot be used as evidence for encoding such
as clerical style, small seal, etc.."
IMO the left component of ⿰鼠鬲 is not in regular scripts.
Consider provide a new evidence of ⿰鼠鬲 in regular script.
The source seems to come from an ancient dictionary, however it misprints 畫 as 晝. I doubt if it is an authoritative source. Consider pending more evidences.
The IRG #57 meeting suggests updating IDS to be ⿰钅玻. However ⿰钅玻 has been submitted as GKJ-00847 (the next one), given that there is no evidence of ⿰金玻, withdraw?
His name also appears in 嘉泰吳興志. However, the original version of 嘉泰吳興志, probably printed in 嘉泰(1201-1204), is considered lost. The current version is from copies of which 四庫館臣 extracted from 永樂大典 but didn't have time to include it in 四庫全書.
The evidence indicates that the text is a quote from 乾隆浙江通志.
▲ 浙江通志（清乾隆刊本）卷102 folio 17 gives 秸, which further indicates that the text is a quote from 海鹽縣圖經.
▲ 海鹽縣圖經（清乾隆刊本）卷4 folio 12 also gives 秸. Though it was published later than 浙江通志, it is quite unlikely that this version will get cross-checked with 浙江通志.
I think it is a corrupted form of 秸, consider pending more evidences.
In this version, the dot in 夕 also crosses 丿in 夢 (see folio 13b above). Therefore the right-bottom component should be 夕. I don't think we should change the glyph.
Attached PDF file
▲ 藝文類聚（上海古籍出版社, 1999） pp. 1076 clearly gives ⿰氵⿱宀夕.
We think ⿰氵⿱宀夕 is similar to 波 because 藝文類聚（王元貞刊本）gives 波:
After 雍正廣東通志, a new version was published in 道光 periods:
▲ 廣東通志（清道光刊本）卷330葉34 gives 銜. The editor of 道光志 did not follow 雍正志 and used 銜 instead. Note that 㗸/𠷢/𠼫/銜 are synonyms, so the choice is still consistent with the other gazetteers.
Therefore, I suspect ⿲𧾷𦈢亍 is a misprint of 𠷢. Consider pending more evidences.
⿰氵輩 is a variant of 浿. From the evidences above, we can see the 康熙福建通志 editors replaced 結瀆⿰氵輩 by 結瀆浿, but didn't update the annotation text accordingly.
⿰氵輩 is dam. The author of 八閩通志 suggests that 𤁥 is a misprint of ⿰氵輩, he then quotes definition of ⿰氵輩 from 連江縣志: 「蓄水之背者皆從水從輩」.
Note that the original evidence is published earlier than 宋史（明成化刊本）, so we can not invalidate this evidence. In fact, it is interesting to note that the toc of 宋史（明成化刊本）卷451 gives 徐應德.
Text is from 文獻通考 卷336 龜茲. The earliest available version is [http://read.nlc.cn/allSearch/searchDetail?searchType=all&showType=1&indexName=data_892&fid=412004000629 元泰定刊本]. The third evidence is a reprint of 元泰定刊本.
The evidence is from 仁化縣志（清光緒刊本）, I have extracted the evidence directly from the NLC provided PDF without transcoding, but it seems not better than the original evidence, which I think is already reasonably clear.
The text gives 「～，俗名莙薘」. I guess ⿱艹舔 is a variant of 菾. I didn't find ⿱艹舔 in 嘉靖仁化縣志、萬曆仁化縣志、康熙仁化縣志; I do find 莙薘 in 韶州府志（清康熙刊本）卷1 folio 16.
▲ 寧海縣志（明崇禎刊本）卷10 folio 42 has 𭘋. 𭘋 is a variant of 㕀/㽕. Based on this evidence, I suspect ⿱田巳 is a corrupted form of 𭘋. But since we already have ⿱田巳 in two evidences, better just encode it.
The text is a transcription of 《大元保定路易州定興縣重修孔子廟記》, of which a rubbing is collected by 中央研究院歷史語言研究所: https://catalog.digitalarchives.tw/item/00/1b/f6/c9.html
In the info section, 史語所 noted 刻工:芯題 程澤
The text has ⿱𰏒心題程澤刊, I suspect ⿱𰏒心 is a variant of
According to the evidence, 熊會～ held a position of 江寧府 江防同知 in 乾隆 periods.
▲ 安徽通志（清道光刊本）卷56 folio 9 mentions 熊會玜：「官江蘇知府」, CBDB/熊會玜 gives his birth year as 1702 and death year 1762. I suspect 熊會～ and 熊會玜 are same person and thus ～ is a variant of 玜.
藝文類聚 and 初學記 are different text system. Many, if not most, pre-Tang texts we can read today are sourced from them. Since ～ and 嫡 are very different and ～ prevails in multiple versions of 藝文類聚, we should encode it for digitalization purpose.
I made a mistake in previous comment: 錢大昕 argued that ⿰⿱旦來阝is a misprint of 鄡 and 中華書局 changed text from ⿰⿱旦來阝 to 鄡. Therefore, ⿰⿱旦來阝 is a semantic variant of 鄡.
The original UK evidence is a reprint of 文選李善註宋淳熙尤袤刻本, which means both ⿰目晉 and 㬐 exist in different 文選 versions no later than 南宋. ⿰目晉 should be encoded separately because as an ancient nation name, we don't know which one is correct.
IRG Working Set 2021v2.0
Source: HUANG Junliang
Date: Generated on 2026-07-27
Unification
Unify to [ {{WS2017-01129}} ]
, consider UCV 畬/𤲞.
Unify to 脨 by UCV #422.
The following UCV are related but not reflected on current comments, I can provide more evidences if we agree on some of these rules:
Level 1 UCV: 卥/⿱⺊⿴囗夕(卥+VS17)
Level 2 UCV: 𠧪卥鹵. 𠧪 ~ 卣, 𠧪卥 ~ 西, so they are level 2.
Unify to 闙.
Unify to 幡, high similarity and cognate. Suggest encoding by IVD.
Unify to 𢶳 by UCV #62 and UCV IRGN2481-Item 3. Since 𢶳 is likely an error form, I suggest UK horizontally extends 𢶳 with ⿰扌棄.
▲ 墨娥小錄（吳繼聚好堂明隆慶5年刊本）卷9 folio 3a gives the same spell 魑⿺鬼㫖𩲕𩲓⿺鬼尊⿺鬼勝.
Unify with 𩲓?
▲ Pelliot Chinois 4525(1) 20 (See ⿰目𡧱 on the top-right)
Unify to 𭏨
Attributes
⿱二山 is unifiable to ⿱亠山 per UCV #62.
Here is the evidence of ⿱亠山:
▲ 漢字海 pp. 190
Change IDS to ⿰⿱旦來阝and update the glyph accordingly.
The original has ～銅爲之, ⿱氾土 is likely a variant of 笵. 「範銅爲之」appears in 清史稿:
Attached PDF file
▲ 清史稿（1942） pp. 211
change IDS to ⿱氾土 and update the glyph accordingly.
▲ 汉字海（华语教学出版社, 2018） pp. 691 quotes 汉语方言大词典 but changes the glyph to ⿰饣⿳穴人又, which is the simplified form from the T-glyph of 𩜯 (康熙字典). I don't have 汉语方言大词典 but I guess the original evidence is likely where 汉字海 quotes. More evidences from 汉语方言大词典 will be appreciated.
汉字海 also gives a simplified form from the G-glyph of 𩜯 (廣韻): ⿰饣叜.
I suggest we encode ⿰饣叜 instead per new evidence, change IDS to ⿰饣叜 and update the glyph accordingly.
Evidence
▲ 陝西通志（清雍正刊乾隆補修本）卷37 folio 52
I suspect it is a misprint of 鰈. The evidence has 西鶼東～. 《文心雕龍·封禪》has 西鶼東鰈.
▲ 文心雕龍（四部叢刊景上海涵芬樓藏明刊本）卷5 folio 1
Suggest pending more evidences.
▲ 太平御覽（四部叢刊中華學藝社借照日本帝室圖書寮京都東福寺東京靜嘉堂文庫藏宋刊本）卷937 folio 1
太平御覽 gives very similar 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。』」
Suggest pending more evidences.
▲ 太平御覽（四部叢刊中華學藝社借照日本帝室圖書寮京都東福寺東京靜嘉堂文庫藏宋刊本）卷998 folio 2
I agree with Andrew that this is an error form of 蘓.
字彙補 51/52
I suspect ～ is a misprint of 𧑳, consider pending more evidences.
Variant/misprint of 鶅? Note that 笛 is very similar to ⿱𡿧田 (甾 + VS19).
See 鶅 on ctext:
太平御覽（靜嘉堂藏宋刊本）卷917 folio 5：「西方曰鷷，東方曰緇（音緇衣之緇）」緇/鶅 share the same phonetic element.
春秋左傳正義（清同治刊本）卷48 folio 8:「西方曰鷷雉，東方曰鶅雉，南方曰翟雉」
An original evidence from 寶慶本草折衷 would help to ensure it is not a modern misprint.
▲ 爾雅疏（四部叢刊本）卷9 folio 8 gives 蠹. I suspect ⿱宕虫 is misprint of 蠹/𧋌. Consider pending more evidences.
▲ 閩書（明崇禎刊本）卷151 folio 21 gives ⿰⿳⺊冖⿱又目⿱又隹, not similar to ⿰虫㥯 at all.
I agree with Andrew. I suggest pending more evidences.
Misprint of 蜩?
Attached PDF file
▲ 宋景文公筆記（文淵閣四庫全書本）卷下葉6：「鶬鶊鳴春，蟋蟀唫夏，蜩蟧喝秋，螘子戰隂。」
▲ 三晋文字编. pp. 616
The character is a transcription of the seal script form from 《中國古印：程訓義古璽印集存》.
Attached PDF file
▲ 附釋音禮記註疏（元泰定, 致和間刊 明遞修）卷39葉1 gives 獶.
Attached PDF file
▲ 纂圖互註禮記（南宋刊 （建安））卷11葉16 gives 優, in the annotation it gives 獶.
Attached PDF file
▲ 禮記注䟽挍勘記（清嘉慶刊本）卷39葉1
Furthermore, 阮元's 禮記注䟽挍勘記 does not mention ⿰犭優. He notes that 「各本同石經」and gives 獶, so we can conclude that he didn't see any 禮記 version giving ⿰犭優.
I suggest pending original evidences from a specific version of 禮記, in order to rule out the possibility that ⿰犭優 is a modern misprint of 獶.
I suspect it is a misprint of 猼.
The evidence is quote from 《史記·司馬相如列傳》. 說文字母集解 is authored 井上夬菴 by published in 寬保01年（1741）.
Attached PDF file
▲ 史記（南宋建安黃善夫家塾刊本）卷117 folio 6 gives 猼.
Attached PDF file
▲ 史記（宋刊本）卷117 folio 4 gives 猼.
史記（清武英殿刊本） also gives 猼.
According to the evidence, ⿰犭尊且 is synonym of 巴且. Assuming the phonetic component is 尊, 尊/巴 are pronounced very differently, while 尃/巴 are much more similar.
Consider pending more evidences.
Error form of 𢶉?
覆宋本重修廣韻卷5：「𢶉，射中聲，普麥切。」
Attached PDF file
▲ 廣雅（畢效欽明刊本）卷3 folio 2
Attached PDF file
▲ 廣雅（文淵閣四庫全書本）卷3 folio 3
Attached PDF file
▲ 廣雅（寶曆07年刊本）卷3 folio 15
BTW, the character is used in 反切, which should be a common character.
▲ 甲骨文字釋林（中華書局，1979）p. 404.
The author 于省吾 argues that ⿲木犬木 is a variant of 莽.
must be in regular scripts (楷書). Other styles cannot be used as evidence for encoding such
as clerical style, small seal, etc.."
IMO the left component of ⿰鼠鬲 is not in regular scripts.
Consider provide a new evidence of ⿰鼠鬲 in regular script.
▲ 柳建钰,秦冕.《全元诗》未编码疑难字考辨八例[J].古汉语研究,2021(1):105-111
In the article the author argues that ～ is a variant of 鼷.
▲ 廣韻（四部叢刊景海鹽張氏涉園藏宋刊巾箱本）卷3 folio 10
廣韻 has 「鸓。飛生鳥。名飛且乳。一曰鼯䑕。毛紫赤。色似𮕙蝠而長」
▲ 重修政和證類本草（四部叢刊景上海涵芬樓藏金刊本）卷18 folio 14
本草 has 「陶𨼆居云。鼺是鼯䑕。一名飛生」
I suspect it is a misprint of 鼺, suggest pending more evidences.
▲ 新刊大宋演義中興通俗演義（明嘉靖刊本）卷8 folio 6
▲ 劎南詩稾（明崇禎汲古閣刊本） 卷9 folio 7b gives 讒.
Consider pending more evidences.
The evidence has 「江汜野⿱艹麕諸篇……」, where 江汜 is 《召南·江有汜》 and 野⿱艹麕 is 《召南·野有死麕》. Consider pending more evidences.
▲ 竹齋集（文淵閣本）卷中 folio 42a gives 灑. I suspect ⿰氵⿱曲鹿 is a corrupted form of 灑, consider pending more evidences.
⿰巾晝 should be ⿰巾畫 = 𢄶
⿰彳蒦 should be ⿰犭蒦 = 獲
The source seems to come from an ancient dictionary, however it misprints 畫 as 晝. I doubt if it is an authoritative source. Consider pending more evidences.
* 𱶎 is [ {{WS2017-03148}} ]
.
▲ 本草求原（清道光刊本）卷1
▲ 集韻（南宋潭州刊本）卷4 folio 13 平聲十五青.
▲ 農書（四庫全書本）卷22 gives 鬷.
As we tend to reject unencoded characters in telegraph code books, I think we should consider pending more evidences of ⿰愚㚇.
I don't think so. The text before this list clearly indicates that it is a list of samples of movable types （活字板式）:
「今載立號監韻活字板式于後。其餘五聲韻字俱要倣此」
▲ 農書（文淵閣四庫全書本）卷22
▲ 農書（明嘉靖刊本）卷1 folio 28 (p30) gives 斸.
▲ 農書（四庫全書本）卷2 folio 14 also gives 斸.
Based on these evidences, I guess ⿰屈斤 is a variant of 𣃁/𰕟, more evidences would be helpful.
Attached PDF file
▲ 河防一覽（明萬曆刊本）卷6 folio 5 gives 舡.
Attached PDF file
▲ 至正河防記（中國水利工程協會, 1936） gives 舡.
Attached PDF file
▲ 新元史（中国书店, 1988）志 pp. 269 gives 船, variant of 舡.
See also Google books search results: 石船堤.
I guess 并 is a corrupted form of 舟, and 𠮷 may be corrupted form of 㕣. Based on these evidences, I suggest pending more evidences of ⿰并𠮷.
管子（四部叢刊景常熟瞿氏鐵琴銅劍樓藏宋刊本）卷19 folio 4 has 蘟.
▲ The evidence also gives 蘟 in subsequent text.
▲ 龍龕手鑑（景江安傅氏雙鑑樓藏宋刊本）卷2 folio 23
▲ 戰國策（平江路儒学元至正二十五年刊、明重修本）卷7 folio 30 (also in 四部叢刊)
The evidence supports that 逜、～、捂、梧、牾、啎、𠵦 are 假借字 among each other. I agree with Eiso on unifying ～ with 遻.
▲ 白氏長慶集（四部叢刊景江南圖書館藏日本活字本）卷64 folio 5
The text gives 九～燈炫轉，七寳帳熒煌. A more popular version to date is 九微燈炫轉，七寳帳熒煌, yet I don't think ～ is a variant of 微.
▲ 柳建钰,秦冕.《全元诗》未编码疑难字考辨八例[J].古汉语研究,2021(1):105-111
In the article the author argues that ～ is a variant of 𤞘.
▲ 陝西通志（清雍正刊乾隆補修本）卷32 folio 45
▲ 宋史（朝鮮刊本）卷224 folio 13b (pdf p16).
Attached PDF file
▲ 徽州府志（明弘治刊本）卷6 folio 18.
⿰亻𫠥 was also adopted by many gazetteers after 弘治徽州府志, i.e. 乾隆江南通志卷121 folio 10. Though ⿰亻𫠥 may be derived from ⿰亻⿱丙一.
▲ 山東通志（清乾隆元年 [1736] 刻道光十七年 [1837] 補刻）卷15之2 folio 94
▲ 宋史（朝鮮刊本）表13 folio 22
The new evidence shows that ⿰貝見 is non-cogante with 賏: 趙伯賏 and 趙伯⿰貝見 are brothers.
▲ 確山縣志（乾隆7-10 [1742-1745]刊本）卷三 folio 5
In this evidence, ～縣 is a place name in 江西. I don't know where it is though.
▲ 陝西通志（清雍正刊乾隆補修本）卷32 folio 34
▲ 貴州通志（清乾隆刊本）卷27 folio 27
Evidence has ⿰金勲, unifiable to ⿰金勳.
[ {{WS2017-04379}} ]
but postponed for better evidence. Hence I provide a presumably better evidence:
▲ 畿輔通志（清雍正刊本）卷13 folio 46
▲ 魏書（宋元明遞修本）卷106上 folio 8 gives ⿰⿱旦来阝.
▲ 魏書（南監本） 卷106上 folio 8 is same
Most, if not all, 魏書 versions after 南監本 gives ⿰⿱旦來阝.
▲ 魏書（北監本）卷106上 folio 8
▲ 魏書（汲古閣本）卷106上 folio 6 (⿰⿱旦來阝/⿰⿱目來阝)
▲ 魏書（武英殿本）卷106上 folio 8
In 廿二史考異, 錢大昕 argued that ⿰⿱旦來阝is a misprint of 郻.
▲ 廿二史考異（清乾隆刊本）魏書2 folio 2
魏書（中華書局）agreed on his opinion and changed text from ⿰⿱旦來阝 to 郻.
▲ 魏書（中華書局）pp. 2508
▲ 管子（四部叢刊景常熟瞿氏鐵琴銅劍樓藏宋刊本）卷16 folio 10
See other related text on ctext.
Based on these evidences, ⿵門离 is likely a corrupted form of 闟.
Attached PDF file
▲ 雲間據目抄（清一寒齋刊本）卷2 folio 19b
⿰羊來 could be a misprint of 辣 (vicious, ruthless). It is not a person name anyway, consider pending more evidences.
▲ 陝西通志（清雍正刊乾隆補修本）卷32 folio 14
▲ 文苑英華（明隆慶刊本）卷923 folio 3 has 𣄣.
Attached PDF file
▲ 欽定全唐文（清嘉慶刊本）卷422 folio 4 has 𣄣.
Based on the evidences, I guess ⿰方無 is a corrupted form of 𣄣/旟.
▲ 湖州府誌（明萬曆刊本）卷6 folio 43 has 侀.
Attached PDF file
▲ 浙江通志（清乾隆刊本）卷126 folio 12 has 侀.
His name also appears in 嘉泰吳興志. However, the original version of 嘉泰吳興志, probably printed in 嘉泰(1201-1204), is considered lost. The current version is from copies of which 四庫館臣 extracted from 永樂大典 but didn't have time to include it in 四庫全書.
Attached PDF file
▲ 嘉泰吳興志（吳興嚴氏隨分讀書齋清宣統抄本） vol. 6 pp9 has 侀.
Attached PDF file
▲ 嘉泰吳興志（南潯劉氏嘉業堂民國刊本）卷17 folio 17 has 制. This version is the base version of 嘉泰吴兴志（点校本）（浙江古籍出版社，2019）.
I suggest pending more evidences.
Text has ～峞,
▲ 王忠文公文集（張齊明嘉靖元年刊本）卷2 folio 4 has 𡾋. 廣韻（四部叢刊景海鹽張氏涉園藏宋刊巾箱本）：「𡾋峞。山狀」
I suspect ⿱宀畾 is a corrupted form of 𡾋.
▲ 寧海縣志（清康熙刊本）卷10下序 folio 35
Attached PDF file
▲ 金華縣志（清道光刊本）卷4 folio 6 has 嶄.
Based on this evidence, I think ⿱山軒 is a corrupted form of 嶄, consider pending more evidences.
Attached PDF file
▲ 曲周縣志（清乾隆刊本）卷18 folio 25 has 旋.
Based on this evidence I think ⿰方足 is a corrupted form of 旋, consider pending more evidences.
▲ 大清會典（清康熙刊本）卷34 folio 16
▲ 松浦 章. 清代内河水運史の研究 pp. 308, a reprint of 北新關志（清雍正刊本） 船式 folio 69b/70a authored by 許夢𨳗 (The NLC gives incorrect author name 許夢閎).
Attached PDF file
▲ 卷16 folio 6 shows both ⿱氾土 and ⿱𣲆土.
Attached PDF file
and folio 7 shows ⿱汜土.
The text has 「葉箋，霅川人，⿱𥫗異之從弟，～之從兄」. ⿱𥫗異 is .
The person name 葉～ also appears in folio 20:
Attached PDF file
I suspect in the original evidence, ～ is a corrupted form of 籈, and ⿱𥫗異 is a corrupted form of 簨.
For more info, see CBDB/葉籈 and CBDB/葉簨.
Consider pending more evidences.
▲ 鮚埼亭集外編（四部叢刊景上海涵芬樓藏原刊本）卷47 folio 23 gives 「名小江㙮院」. 㙮 is a variant of 塔 but it must not be a variant of ⿰土苦.
I suspect ⿰土苦 is a misprint of 塔 and consider pending more evidences.
▲ 金華黃先生文集（四部叢刊景常熟瞿氏上元宗氏日本岩崎氏藏元刊本）卷13 folio 11
▲ 字學三正（明萬曆刊本）卷1 folio 71 gives ⿱⿰龵龵下, potentially unifiable to ⿱玨下. They are all variants of 拜.
Since ⿱⿰龵龵下 preserves the 手 radical, if we agree that ⿱玨下 is unifiable with ⿱⿰龵龵下, I suggest we encode ⿱⿰龵龵下 instead.
⿱玨下 is also similar to
Attached PDF file
▲ 杭州府志（清康熙刊本）卷25 folio 19 has 㦂.
杭州府志（清乾隆刊本）卷70 folio 24 has 㦂.
I suspect it is a corrupted form of 㦂, consider pending more evidences.
Attached PDF file
▲ 楊淇園先生年譜（1946） pp. 56 gives 井寒子瞽言.
▲ 浙江通志（文淵閣四庫全書本）卷246 folio 43 gives 井寒子瞽言.
I suspect ～ is a misprint of 瞽. Consider pending more evidences, for example, a reproduction of the book itself.
▲ 商河縣志（清道光刊本）卷6 folio 30a
▲ 商河縣志（清道光刊本）卷7 folio 33b：王澤深……嘉慶庚午中副車
I suggest pending more evidences.
▲ 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.
Attached PDF file
▲ 四鎮三關志（明萬曆刊本）卷2 folio 29 gives ⿰氵⿱𠀍冉, a potentially unifiable variant of 溝.
Attached PDF file
▲ 四鎮三關志（民國抄本）卷2 folio 20 gives ⿰氵⿱𠫓冉, another potentially unifiable variant of 溝.
Consider pending more evidences.
▲ 畿輔輿圖（清刊本）卷6 gives 于林頭 and 廣糧集 in the south of 長垣縣.
I suspect ～ is a misprint of 頭, consider pending more evidences.
▲ 重刊詳校篇海（明萬曆刊本）卷1 folio 130
滹沱河賦 also appears in 定州志（清乾隆刊本）.
▲ 卷10 folio 23 gives 魴.
I suspect it is an error form of 魴, consider pending more evidences.
Attached PDF file
▲ 宋史（明成化刊本）卷101 folio 16 has 催.
Based on the evidence, I suspect ～ is a corrupted form of 催, consider pending more evidences.
▲ 宣化縣志（清乾隆刊本）卷18 folio 8 has 宸.
And we can find more evidences of 張宸極：
▲ 太學進士題名碑錄（清乾隆刊本）天啓乙丑 folio 15
Consider pending more evidences.
▲ 柳建钰.《全元诗》未编码疑难字考辨十例[J].励耘语言学刊,2020(2):10-19.
The author argues that 龍～ is derived from 龍媒.
The evidence is from 錢塘縣志（明萬曆刊清光緒重刊本）.
The text is from 《錢塘賦》 by 葛澧, active in late Southern Song.
▲ 咸淳臨安志（宋咸淳刊本）卷94 folio 8 gives 㵅.
⿰氵貧 is likely mutated from 㵅 -> ⿰氵𮙿 -> ⿰氵貧.
The text is authored by 彭孫貽（1615-1673）.
▲ 海鹽縣續圖經（清乾隆刊本）卷1 方域篇古蹟 folio 4
▲ 茗齋集（四部叢刊景海鹽張氏涉園藏手稿刻本寫本） gives ⿰虫⿱八𠃔, unifiable variant of 蛻.
This is the most authentic version since it is reproduced from the author's manuscript.
But we'd better encode ⿰虫充 since we already have two evidences.
▲ 明嘉靖四十一年進士題名碑（北京國子監，嘉靖四十二年立，拓本局部）
▲ 寄菴詩钞（清嘉慶刊本）東遊草續 folio 19
▲ 潛子詩鈔（民國七年鉛印本） gives 咽.
I suspect it is a misprint of 咽, consider pending more evidences.
▲ 景定建康志（文淵閣四庫全書本）卷17 folio 50
▲ 康熙字典（清康熙內府刊本）寅集中.山部.五畫.岯：「或作𠂾～」
I don't think UK need withdraw. We can encode it based on new evidences.
竑弢 is the courtesy name of 閩光德.
I suspect ～ is a misprint of 竑. Consider pending more evidences.
▲ 說嵩（清康熙刊本）自序 folio 4 has 幅.
So it is a corrupted form of 幅. Consider pending more evidences.
▲ 浙江通志（清乾隆刊本）卷102 folio 17 gives 秸, which further indicates that the text is a quote from 海鹽縣圖經.
▲ 海鹽縣圖經（清乾隆刊本）卷4 folio 12 also gives 秸. Though it was published later than 浙江通志, it is quite unlikely that this version will get cross-checked with 浙江通志.
I think it is a corrupted form of 秸, consider pending more evidences.
▲ 四川通志（清乾隆刊本）卷40 folio 69
▲ 四川總志（明萬曆刊本）卷0 folio ?（抄配）
▲ 甌北全集（清乾隆嘉慶湛貽堂刊本） 墓誌銘 folio 1 gives 耘松.
▲ 二十二史劄記（清乾隆嘉慶湛貽堂刻本）卷1 folio 1 gives 雲崧. This version was published when 趙翼 was alive.
I suspect ⿰耒公 is a misprint of 松, consider pending more evidences.
▲ 文選集釋（清光緒刊本）卷16 folio 4 gives ⿰目晉.
Attached PDF file
▲ 文選（朝鮮木活字印本）卷19 folio 32 gives ⿰目晋, China can consider HE in the future using this evidence.
▲ 藝文類聚（宋紹興刊本）卷16 folio 6
▲ 藝文類聚（明萬曆王元貞刊本）卷16 folio 12
▲ 藝文類聚（宋紹興刊本） 卷59 folio 14.
In this version, the dot in 夕 also crosses 丿in 夢 (see folio 13b above). Therefore the right-bottom component should be 夕. I don't think we should change the glyph.
Attached PDF file
▲ 藝文類聚（上海古籍出版社, 1999） pp. 1076 clearly gives ⿰氵⿱宀夕.
We think ⿰氵⿱宀夕 is similar to 波 because 藝文類聚（王元貞刊本）gives 波:
▲ 藝文類聚（王元貞萬曆刊本）卷59 folio 29a
▲ 江南通志（清康熙刊本）卷61 folio 27 盛時泰《報恩墖賦》
▲ 柳建钰.《全元诗》未编码疑难字考辨十例[J].励耘语言学刊,2020(2):10-19.
▲ 朱文公校昌黎先生文集（四部叢刊景上海涵芬樓藏元刊本）卷8 folio 4
「膏理易滋榮〈理或作～〉」here ～ is similar to 理.
掘港 can be found in the same book where the original evidence is from.
▲《如皋縣志》（清嘉慶十三年刊本）卷11 folio 3 gives multiple 掘港.
and folio 10 gives a map of 掘港營.
The place is called 掘港街道 today: http://www.rudong.gov.cn/gxq/dzldjfg/dzldjfg.html
Consider pending more evidences, e.g. different 如皋縣志 versions to prove that it becomes a stable misprint.
▲ 陝西通志（清雍正刊乾隆補修本）卷40 folio 17
▲ 汲冢周書（嘉兴路儒学元至正十四年刊本） 卷5 folio 5
▲ 易緯辨終備（武英殿聚珍本） (v. 40) folio 2
Attached PDF file
▲ 膏蘭堂札記卷2 // 章太炎全集. 上海人民出版. 1984. vol. 1 pp. 159
章太炎 asserts that ⿰氵害 is a redundant character.
I agree with KWAN Ching Kit that we should extend the UCV #4.
▲ 柳建钰.《全元诗》未编码疑难字考辨十例[J].励耘语言学刊,2020(2):10-19.
In this article the author argues that ～ is variant of 螮.
▲ Pelliot Chinois 4525(1) 20
▲ Gulik, R.H.Van, _Erotic colour prints of the ming period_, with an essay on Chinese sex life from the Han to the Ch'ing Dynasty, B.C. 206 - A.D. 1644 (privately published at Tokyo). 1951 pp. 91
▲ 分門集註杜工部詩（四部叢刊景宋刊本）卷16 folio 18
The evidence is a quote to 謝靈運《晚出西射堂詩》「連嶂鼻～崿，青華香深沉」. A more popular version gives 巘 for ～.
▲ 廣東通志（清道光刊本）卷99葉21
The author of 廣東通志 argues that ⿸鹿侖 is a variant of 麟, which makes sense to me since 粦/侖 share the same pronunciation (leon4) in Cantonese.
▲ 廣東通志（明嘉靖刊本）卷60葉16 gives 㗸.
▲ 廣東通志（明萬曆刊本）卷70猺獞葉14 gives 𠷢.
▲ 廣東通志（清康熙刊本）卷29葉19 gives 𠷢 or 𠼫 (too small to determine)
After 雍正廣東通志, a new version was published in 道光 periods:
▲ 廣東通志（清道光刊本）卷330葉34 gives 銜. The editor of 道光志 did not follow 雍正志 and used 銜 instead. Note that 㗸/𠷢/𠼫/銜 are synonyms, so the choice is still consistent with the other gazetteers.
Therefore, I suspect ⿲𧾷𦈢亍 is a misprint of 𠷢. Consider pending more evidences.
▲ 天下郡國利病書（四部叢刊崑山圖書館藏稿本）冊47葉53
▲ 福建通志（文淵閣四庫全書本）卷4 folio 52
▲ 大清一統志（清乾隆九年刊本）卷269 folio 14
▲ 嘉慶重修一統志（四部叢刊景清史館藏進呈鈔本）汀州府 folio 15
▲ 延平府志（明嘉靖刊本）卷5 folio 7 gives ⿰土冨. I think ⿰土冨 is unifiable to ⿰土富. So we can accept the new evidence.
▲ 八閩通志（明弘治刊本）卷22 folio 10.
The author suggests that ⿰田廷 might be a variant of 町.
▲ 嘉靖福寧州志[1] 卷3 folio 又2
Attached PDF file
▲ 八閩通志（明弘治刊本）卷24 folio 22
Attached PDF file
▲ 福建通志（清康熙刊本）卷9 folio 44
⿰氵輩 is a variant of 浿. From the evidences above, we can see the 康熙福建通志 editors replaced 結瀆⿰氵輩 by 結瀆浿, but didn't update the annotation text accordingly.
⿰氵輩 is dam. The author of 八閩通志 suggests that 𤁥 is a misprint of ⿰氵輩, he then quotes definition of ⿰氵輩 from 連江縣志: 「蓄水之背者皆從水從輩」.
[1]: 閔文振, 陳應賔. 嘉靖福寧州志[G]//天一閣藏明代方志選刊續編: 第41册. 上海: 上海書店
出版社, 1990: 1/626.
▲ 甯洋縣志（清光緒刊本）卷2 folio 10
「驢～。改名鳳村」
▲ 福安縣志（清光緒刊本）卷6 folio 10 gives ⿰土粵, unifiable to ⿰土粤.
▲ 溫州府志（明萬曆刊本）卷6葉18 clearly gives ⿱山秦.
▲ 福建通志（清乾隆刊本）卷25葉30
Attached PDF file
▲ 八閩通志卷31葉31 gives 𨕤.
I think ⿺辶⿱艹隶 is a variant of 𨕤 and thus it is similar to 𰻍, which is a variant of 𨕤 according to MOE dictionary.
興化府志（明萬曆刊本）卷1 folio 36：⿰片頁，疋被切
▲ 福建通志（清同治刊本）卷150 folio 34.
The author of 同治福建通志 noted that 坔 was ⿱六土 in 乾隆志 and 良坔 can be found in 宋史.
We can confirm that 良坔 is in 宋史:
▲ 宋史（明成化刊本）卷227 folio 27
▲ 嘉靖福寧州志[1] pp. 990 gives 𠣊. All evidences are quoted from 閩書. However 閩書 does not specify where the text comes from.
說文: 「𠣊，助也，从力非，慮聲，良倨切」
[1]: 閔文振, 陳應賔. 嘉靖福寧州志 [G]//天一閣藏明代方志選刊續編: 第41册.
上海: 上海書店出版社, 1990: 1/626.
▲ 嘉靖福寧州志[1] pp. 990 gives ⿰⿱亠人𠂢. All evidences are quoted from 閩書. However 閩書 does not specify where the text comes from.
I guess ⿰方⿱𮕦一 is a variant of 㼋. 廣韻：「㼋，乾菜」
[1]: 閔文振, 陳應賔. 嘉靖福寧州志 [G]//天一閣藏明代方志選刊續編: 第41册.
上海: 上海書店出版社, 1990: 1/626.
▲ 嘉靖福寧州志[1] pp. 990 gives 𩆚. All evidences are quoted from 閩書. However 閩書 does not specify where the text comes from.
But 𩆚 is pronounced as 零, quite different from 諭. I guess in that case 諭 is a misprint of 論.
[1]: 閔文振, 陳應賔. 嘉靖福寧州志 [G]//天一閣藏明代方志選刊續編: 第41册.
上海: 上海書店出版社, 1990: 1/626.
Glyph Design & Normalization
Other
Note that ⿰魚笨 is not encoded.
朱文公校昌黎先生文集（四部叢刊本）卷5 folio 1：「終始如駏蛩」。
康熙字典（崇文書局）：【申集中】【虫字部】 【唐韻】符遇切，音附。蚹蛇，腹下橫鱗可行者。【莊子·齊物論】吾待蛇蚹、蜩翼耶。【註】蚹謂蛇腹下齟齬，可以行者也。
The seal script gives 蚹 anyway. ⿰虫仅 is an alternative transcription.
Variant of 𦍕?
康熙字典（同文書局）：「【諸苗考】𦍕獚，苗類。」See also ctext for more references of 𦍕獚.
The evidence gives ⿰犭赤拔. I suspect ⿰犭赤 is error form of 捇.
康熙字典（同文書局石印本）：「【周禮·秋官·赤犮氏註】赤犮，猶言捇拔也。主除蟲豸自埋者。」gives 捇.
Attached PDF file
▲ 周禮 漢鄭玄注南宋刊 （蜀大字本）卷9 folio 6 also gives 捇.
康熙字典（同文書局石印本）：「（䍄）【廣韻】多忝切，音點。【說文】缺也。」
The text gives「太學徐應～與其二男一女死之」. Based on the time (1276 CE), his name and title, I suspect he is 徐應鑣 in 宋史.
Attached PDF file
▲ 宋史（朱英明成化7年至16年刊本）卷451 folio 13
「徐應鑣，字巨翁，衢之江山人，世為衢望族。咸淳末，試補太學生。德祐二年，宋亡，瀛國公入燕，三學生百餘人皆從行。應鑣不欲從，乃與其子琦、崧、女元娘誓共焚，子女皆喜從之。」
Note that the original evidence is published earlier than 宋史（明成化刊本）, so we can not invalidate this evidence. In fact, it is interesting to note that the toc of 宋史（明成化刊本）卷451 gives 徐應德.
Attached PDF file
▲ 宋史（朱英明成化7年至16年刊本）卷451 folio 1
In all, this evidence is from an authoritative source. I hope China can submit more of such evidences.
The evidence gives
「暴古文作～，故有僄音。」
If ～ were ⿸鹿日, 「故有僄音」does not make sense because 鹿/僄 sounds completely different. However, in「暴古文作𣋴，故有僄音。」, 麃/僄 have same pronunciation.
太平御覽（四部叢刊照東京靜嘉堂文庫藏宋刊本）卷792 gives 麋:「……出細氈、饒銅、䥫鈆、麋皮、氍毹、沙塩……」
It seems that the text comes from 新集藏經音義隨函錄 23 卷: http://tripitaka.cbeta.org/K35n1257_023
「秈……故字从山。～與稻同，但粗長；實與稻同，但長糙。」
重編國語辭典修訂本：「秈，一種稻米類型。葉片較寬大且長，色淡綠，莖稈較高。穀粒呈細長或扁形。」
▲ 集韻（[宋淳煕14年]跋刊） 四宵：「[𩡦]，毗霄[切]……𩡦馛，香皃。」
The text is from the TOC of 居家必用事類全集.
Attached PDF file
The content gives 橗. 居家必用事類全集（明刊本）癸集卷1 folio 15
How is ⿰扌⿱並弓 pronounced? Is it a variant of 𢺯/⿰扌弯?
奉藥罔～
The evidence is from 仁化縣志（清光緒刊本）, I have extracted the evidence directly from the NLC provided PDF without transcoding, but it seems not better than the original evidence, which I think is already reasonably clear.
The text gives 「～，俗名莙薘」. I guess ⿱艹舔 is a variant of 菾. I didn't find ⿱艹舔 in 嘉靖仁化縣志、萬曆仁化縣志、康熙仁化縣志; I do find 莙薘 in 韶州府志（清康熙刊本）卷1 folio 16.
Text has ～㴸.
▲ 六臣註文選（四部叢刊景上海涵芬楼藏宋刊本）卷12 folio 15 《江賦》：「㶖㴸㶒瀹」.
▲ 六臣註文選（四部叢刊景上海涵芬楼藏宋刊本）卷7 folio 14 has 岭巆嶙峋, from 甘泉賦 by 揚雄.
▲ 寧海縣志（明崇禎刊本）卷10 folio 42 has 𭘋. 𭘋 is a variant of 㕀/㽕. Based on this evidence, I suspect ⿱田巳 is a corrupted form of 𭘋. But since we already have ⿱田巳 in two evidences, better just encode it.
The text is a transcription of 《大元保定路易州定興縣重修孔子廟記》, of which a rubbing is collected by 中央研究院歷史語言研究所: https://catalog.digitalarchives.tw/item/00/1b/f6/c9.html
In the info section, 史語所 noted 刻工:芯題 程澤
The text has ⿱𰏒心題程澤刊, I suspect ⿱𰏒心 is a variant of
𢘿題 is a place name in 河北, which makes sense here.
康熙字典「榺，機持經者。」
廣韻：「霶霈大雨」
According to the evidence, 熊會～ held a position of 江寧府 江防同知 in 乾隆 periods.
▲ 安徽通志（清道光刊本）卷56 folio 9 mentions 熊會玜：「官江蘇知府」, CBDB/熊會玜 gives his birth year as 1702 and death year 1762. I suspect 熊會～ and 熊會玜 are same person and thus ～ is a variant of 玜.
▲ 初學記（宋紹興刊本）卷10 folio 9
藝文類聚 and 初學記 are different text system. Many, if not most, pre-Tang texts we can read today are sourced from them. Since ～ and 嫡 are very different and ～ prevails in multiple versions of 藝文類聚, we should encode it for digitalization purpose.
▲ 八閩通志（明弘治刊本）卷56 folio 15 has 林𦿄, active in Ming. But there is no evidence that they refer to the same person.
▲ 晉書（宋刻元明遞修本）卷97葉7 gives 繩
▲ 太平御覽（宋慶元5年跋蜀刊本） 卷787葉4 gives ⿰糹電, which could be variant of 縄.
It seems that the text comes from 諸羅縣志（清康熙刊本）
▲ 卷1 folio 27 gives 寮. However, 寮 is not printed clearly so the 福建通志 editors might think it were ⿱宀𮙺.
𡨢 presents in the following evidences:
▲ 八閩通志（明弘治刊本）卷34 folio 7
▲ 汀州府志（明嘉靖刊本）卷11 folio 17 // 天一閣藏明代方志選刊續編: 第39册. 上海: 上海書店出版社, 1990.
▲ 閩書（明崇禎刊本）卷59 folio 39
However, since we already have multiple evidences of ⿱穴居, better just encode it.
馮～ also appears as in 馮𤪋 in 浙江通志：
▲ 浙江通志（清乾隆刊本）卷122 folio 7
▲ 福建通志（清康熙刊本） 卷23 folio 18 has ⿰王⿱攺口.
▲ 重纂福建通志（清同治刊本） 卷100 folio 12 has ⿰王啓.
They were not submitted to WS2021 because both are misprint of 璐. Yet they suggest that ⿱攺口/啓 are semantic variants.
Data for Unihan
The evidence 1 gives 「音局，伯勞也」, which shares the same pronunciation / meaning with 鶪, and they have similar structure, too.
The first evidence states that it is a semantic variant of 𪃦.
All evidences are quotes from 爾雅.
▲ 爾雅（四部叢刊本）pp. 96 gives 蜠.
The text is from 爾雅疏.
▲ 爾雅疏（四部叢刊本）卷 gives 蝥/蟊.
山海經（四部叢刊景江安傅氏雙鑑樓藏明成化庚寅刊本：「太行之山……其下……有獸焉，其状如麢羊而四角，馬尾而有距，其名曰䮝」
The second evidence gives 「誰云～尺平，直中還有曲」, the same text can be found in 指月錄卷26, which gives 秤 instead:
The fourth evidence indicates that ～ is a variant of 惱.
. Therefore it is semantic variant of
I made a mistake in previous comment: 錢大昕 argued that ⿰⿱旦來阝is a misprint of 鄡 and 中華書局 changed text from ⿰⿱旦來阝 to 鄡. Therefore, ⿰⿱旦來阝 is a semantic variant of 鄡.
The evidence is from 珠里小志（清嘉慶刊本）
The text gives 「昶所著尙有五經揭～，婁東詩傳……」, 昶 is 王昶（1725-1806）.
Attached PDF file
▲ 文獻徵存錄（清咸豐刊本）卷9 folio 35 gives 「羣經揭櫫，五代史注揭櫫」.
According to GHZR p.2083, both 𢶳 and ⿰扌棄 are variants of 拚.
Though I suspect 𢶳 should have been ⿰扌𣓪, which is then a unifiable variant of ⿰扌棄.
康熙字典【辰集上】【日字部】㬐 【六書索隱】與鄑同。㬐字从晉作。
Here is 㬐 in 六書索隱 authored by 楊慎（1488-1559）, which quotes 文選（李善）注.
▲ 六書索隱（明嘉靖刊本）平 folio 18
We can not draw the conclusion that 㬐 is a misprint of ⿰目晉 because 六臣註文選（四部叢刊景南宋建州本）gives 㬐:
▲ 六臣註文選（四部叢刊景南宋建州本）卷19
The original UK evidence is a reprint of 文選李善註宋淳熙尤袤刻本, which means both ⿰目晉 and 㬐 exist in different 文選 versions no later than 南宋. ⿰目晉 should be encoded separately because as an ancient nation name, we don't know which one is correct.
The evidence 4 gives
斞：以主切，說文：量也。
⿰更斗：音与，量也。
So 斞 and ⿰更斗 have same pronunciations and meanings.
According to nomfoundation, both 𢴖 and ⿰扌⿱改口 mean "suggestive, sex-appeal" and are pronounced as gợi.
http://www.nomfoundation.org/common/nom_details.php?codepoint=22d16&img=1&uiLang=en