Agree with Andrew's opinion. U+211AE provides a good example that authoritative dictionaries are not Bible, the mistakes existing in them should be replaced by other sources.
According to Professor YANG BaoZhong's textual research, ⿴囗土 and 磣\墋 are variants(heterogeneous characters), which still used in Northeast dialect of China.
So China would like to correct the G glyph for U+211AE to ⿴囗土, and change the reference to 陝西通志.
It is difficult to preserve such characters in written materials. They are the products of historical times. They only circulate in specific periods and regions, and will disappear with the process of standardization. They were usually used in daily writing, such as slogans, ground or wall drawings, etc. with the change of buildings, the carrier of such characters will also disappear. Documents can preserve this kind of characters occasionally, but the usage of them is difficult to rediscovered.
Thanks for demonstration from LI Yuan.
Although ⿰魚两 is obviously the variant of 𩶁, there is no rule for unification of 丙 and 两. As a head character of a dictionary, it has an independent status other from the ones occasionally appear in the text.
IRG Working Set 2021v3.0
Source: TAO Yang
Date: Generated on 2024-10-08
Unification
It must be a variant shape of 歍, could be unified.
Withdraw it.
It's a variant shape of 脑, not unify to 𧉫.
蝍GKJ-00464 or 蝍蟟 are the ancient forms of 知了. Obviously, ⿰虫聊 should be the correct glyph.
But what is the meaning of 𧊃?
UCV level should be 2, it depends on whether it used individually or not.
Agree with Andrew's opinion. U+211AE provides a good example that authoritative dictionaries are not Bible, the mistakes existing in them should be replaced by other sources.
According to Professor YANG BaoZhong's textual research, ⿴囗土 and 磣\墋 are variants(heterogeneous characters), which still used in Northeast dialect of China.
So China would like to correct the G glyph for U+211AE to ⿴囗土, and change the reference to 陝西通志.
Evidence
Although ⿰魚两 is obviously the variant of 𩶁, there is no rule for unification of 丙 and 两. As a head character of a dictionary, it has an independent status other from the ones occasionally appear in the text.
New evidence from 贵州通志.