Earlier, is what should be called the "reverse fig.9" per its orientation of that named structure.
No, it can NOT be called that way.
For two reasons :
1. If we classify the "closed" knots by the (minimum) number of their crossing points, like the mathematicians do, the knots that have 6 crossing points ( the 6_1, 6_2 and 6_3 ) should be kept separate, and named differently, from the knots that have 5 crossing points ( the 5_1 and the 5_2, on which those two TIB adjustable loops are based ). So, if we retain the name "fig.9" for the knot(s) climbers and cavers call "fig.9", which are the knot(s) with the 6 crossing points ( the knots shown at (1) and at the attached picture ), we can NOT call by the same name either the 5_1 ( the known to us as "double overhand/Strangle" ) or the 5_2 ( shown at the Reply#2, and the pictures there ).
2. If we decide to classify
all the more convoluted than the fig.8 ( the 4_1) knot , collectively as "fig.9 knot(s)" ( as I said earlier, few people, knot tyers included, ever realize the differences...), we can not call the 5_2 as "
reverse fig.9" - because, in that case, which, of the five, would be the "not-reversed" fig.9, and which the "reversed" ones ? If we chose this nomenclature, we should call
all the 5 knots ( the "double overhand / Strangle included ) as "fig.9 knots" - and that is what I had done. I had thought that the introduction of one more name ( as the "fig.8+1" would had been...) was something that should better be avoided, and, in any case, it was not something I could bear the responsibility to do.
If the author of those two adjustable loops wishes to name them differently ( as "fig.8+1", or even as "fig.9-1" adjustable loops )(*), I will be glad to follow his choice.
1.
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4764 (*)
P.S. Perhaps fig.9 / 5 ( and/or fig.9 / 6 ) , meaning a fig.9 form ( so, not a fig.8 form...), but with 5 ( and/or 6 ) crossing points.
It is tempting to use the "Strangle" similitude, but I do not like it, for a reason : the penetrating returning eye leg of those two loops is not immobilized the way it would had happened in a genuine
Strangle-based hitch / adjustable loop. The mechanism by which the Strangle grips the penetrating pole/rope is different.