Ashley was right not to identify #1016 as a 'Bowline'.
He was neither right nor wrong : he wasn't playing the
Is this a bowline? game here, but rather unhelpfully
parroting something seen in a book --presenting IMO
a botched illustration with a supposed purpose devoid
of rationale. How can one write that recommended use
without giving a reason for it --or at least remarking at
it and opening the question?! (By omission, we might
believe that he had no awareness of the knot otherwise
--from personal observation or hearsay/interview.)
One should think that a knot deserving that recommended
strong use would have a good following!
The collapsing of the structure neutralizes the nipping loop
- so it is no longer loaded at both ends.
The presented collapsing of an eye ... I suspect is pure
illustrator's doing, not seen in reality, on ship or elsewhere.
As for "loaded on both ends", that becomes a tenuous
criterion over the realm of *bowline* candidates. The
mirrored bowline --cow or clove base-- can be just so,
the between-loops crossing span pulled out as an eye!
I think this is a clue that Ashley did have a notional understanding
of the importance of the nipping loop and how it is key to defining 'Bowlines'.
Although he never explicitly spelt it out.
And he goes against it in his discussion at, which,
#1043/45 ?! [<<--yes, it's like knots #1057...]
But, yes, I think that Ashley'd be on board with much
of our thinking regarding *bowlines*.
The inversion and collapse of #1074 / #1882(a) is interesting - and correlates to #1016.
#1882 = #1016. (I'm not w/book to examine "a" aspect.)
#1074 gives a rationale for why the others are wrong.
There are *single*
bowlines in-the-bight by various means,
but to the extent that they mimic a
sheet bend on
throughloading --SPart-2-SPart, not eye--, I worry about their
slipping, or lesser strength.
--dl*
====