First, I would not have said that
"the SP is "collared" by its own continuation", even with
two pairs of ditto marks...To my mind,
collar ( "proper" or not ) and
nipping structure do belong to different words, the former to the eye leg of the bight, the second to the eye leg of the standing part. As I have said before in this thread,
... do not confuse [a part of] the nipping loop with a collar : A structure is either a nipping loop or a collar, it can not be both of them, simultaneously !
A collar has its second leg nipped by the nipping loop, and secured because of the action of the nipping loop on it ( which, after its turn around the tree, does not pull as hard as before, so the nipping loop has a much easier job to do...)
The collar is not any U turn of a segment of the rope...The collar is a U turn of the tail, it is a mechanism of the tail, a means of the tail to be secured easier by the nipping loop.
Also, the nipping loop is not any 360 degrees turn of a segment of a rope...The nipping loop is a 360 degrees turn of the standing part around the tail, it is a constricting mechanism that nips the tail, a mechanism to secure the tail.
It is absurd to talk about collars on the standing part, and nipping loops on the working end / tail !
Now, regarding the first pair of two the loops posted at reply#224, the collar(a part of the eye leg of the bight) is U-turned around the standing part, in both loops. What differs is that the ""collar""(a part of the nipping structure, that is a continuation of the (first?) "turnip") is U-turned around the SP, in the first (1a) loop, but around the SP
AND the collar( a part of eye leg of the bight), in the second (1b) loop. So, the collar of the tail of the loop makes a U-turn around
one strand of the SP, in the first loop, but around
two strands of the SP, in the second loop. As the two collars, the collar at the eye leg of the bight, and the ""collar"" at the continuation of the (first?) "turnip" are interwoven together in the second loop, that loop should be more secure than the first. Whether this second (1b) loop should still be considered a crossing-knot based bowline-like loop or nor, it is not
obvious to
me...
We have a similar, but even more complex, situation at the other pair of loops shown in reply#224. The second (2b) loop should perhaps be considered as a crossing-knot based loop, ( the continuation of the eye leg of the bight and the continuation of the standing end
cross each other, dont thy ?), while the first (2a) loop looks more as a double interwoven-collars bowline. However, they are essentially the same knot, the Constrictor bowline, in its two variations.
The situation is more clear in the case of the double, crossed-coils bowline shown at reply#225. We have a "proper" collar, indeed, and a double coils nipping loop - so, according to my definition, it IS a bowline... -, but the SP makes also a U turn around itself - so, according to your definition, it is a crossing knot based loop...The similarity of this loop with the double bowline ( double-turn bowline) makes things worse for you, not for me ! Are you going to deny the inclusion of the double bowline into the bowline family, as you did for the Eskimo bowline - while you accept the ABoK#1033 ?
Whoa !
THAT is a position really difficult to defend !