1. Is Bushby's drawing at page 62 in his journal "Note on Knots'
published Jan 1902 the earliest known record of #1053 Butterfly knot?
(its at the bottom of the page).
There was no "publishing" until the Mariners'
Museum made the very private document public
in 2018? (yea!) There is now also a published
(in hardcopy) IGKT transcription of Bushby's work;
but one should refer to the original, for accuracy.
Per Bushby's annotations/comments,
he appears to have found it for himself,
though admittedly the crossed-out expresssion
could suggest that he (later) found it wrong
--but that for "free" was surely Bushby just
applying Ockham's razor; his "unknown" maybe
touched him as gratuitous? However, there is no
citation to show a contradiction to "unknown".
2. Can someone please decipher Bushby's hand writing describing his knot on page 62, Volume 1 (see attached image).
His script can be challenging, indeed; but it's pretty
consistent & well-articulated :: so, should you puzzle
about some shape, but then find it elsewhere in a word
you are sure of, you should be pretty sure that the same
graphic is the same in the puzzled place!
Lovely hand in the graphic art, too!!
A loop (fixed) somewhat similar to the last is obtained thus.
//
Retain This It is H.'s "Dalliance Knot"
: : : : : : MY REMARKS : : : : : :
(Bushby's reference "H." is my big mystery;
it is definitely NOT what the IGKT transcribers
ascribed it to be (which was "Hasluck's" book,
to which B. has a single reference in Vol.7 for
Nets (IIRC)), though it has so much scent/flavor
of that (such as including this particular knot & name).
Which my best guess is ... because THAT BOOK
is essentially a copy of L.L. HaslOPE's Work periodical
articles (spread out over many issues) on knots.
(These are available on-line, yea!)
A N D . . .
.:. I figure it must be to LLH's son Pearce L. H.,
who is credited on an also-extant-online book's
front matter as the auther of "Knots and Knotting",
which per the location citations of Bushby, I take
to be/have been some periodical, too
(but of FOUR columns, and all at once over pp. 30-44ish).)
: : : : : : END MY REMARKS : : : : : :
2nd page text:
A series of apparently UNKNOWN knots [my emphasis, to y/our question!]
giving fixed loops can be made on cord
without access to the free ends, in some-
what similar ways, from interlaced over-
hand knots. For instance the loop recom-
mended by the Alpine Club in their 1864
Report, now surperseded by the neater form
on p 74, can be made thus :-
(p 102.)
--dl*
====
3. Is Wright and Magowan (1928) the first to publish #1053 Butterfly with twisted eye legs? (see attached image).
Ack, I don't have --nor have I seen?-- Berger's
book's image. (I THINK I don't have that; I don't
recall it, now. His preceded in date W&M's.)
4. Does anyone know history of the 'double Butterfly knot'?
5. Does anyone have history on girth hitched Butterfly knot?
Note: Richard Delaney had published images of this variation on his website at
Link: https://www.ropelab.com.au/the-awesome-alpine-butterfly/ (scroll down)
I will also contact Richard...but, he states on his website that he isn't 100% sure if he discovered it...
These sorts of versions can come up by applying
known means of *version-ation*
and one can
imagine various folks fiddling around with it.
(Heck, I might be at 100 knots in 2020 but have
scant familiarity with most, as they are Ivory Tower
creations, not needed solutions to a pressing problem.)
Delaney's remark is like W&M's :: simply allowing that
others might've had the same idea. As he notes, he is
following a sort of "backflip" (my term!) used in some
well-known knots.
(Should we quickly go 'round through the gazillions
of eye knots and backflip 'em all so to preclude questions
of subsequent claims of originality?! And it matters ... how?!)
Whereas, YOUR seeing the stretch of material at the
center of the looks-like-a-single-zeppelin/SmitHunter's bend
as an inchoate 'Z' or "S" to form two eyes/bights is not (yet)
such a common mechanism of variation. Or the splitting of
the tucked bight into two so to get your double of #1074.
I think Bushby's cleverness likewise puts him in the lead.
--dl*
====
ps: I'm finding it a darn PITA to figure out how to connect
to the pure-view of Bushby's work. SOMEhow, I just managed,
again, today --but only after many failed efforts.
(It USED to be pretty simple :: Search 'Bushb',
get a page w/listed Vol.s and image at left of text;
and simply click on the image.) GRRRRR.
(Somewhere I saw pdf. files for PARTS of his Volumes,
not the entire Vol. ?! No, I want the whole thing.)