One of the many names for the Chinese button knot is the one strand diamond knot. Strangely enough, the exact same knot can also be called the two strand diamond knot. This wackiness is due to the idea that if the top of the knot is a loop, then there is only one strand of cord tying the knot. If, instead, there are two separate cords instead of a loop at the top, then it is a knot tied in 2 cords, hence two strand button knot. It’s a very fine distinction that I chose not to make most of the time (what exactly is it if you’ve tied it with one “strand” and then cut the top loop, eh? 8)

Unlike the inline square flower knot (see left), Ashley #588, a rectangular knot is not simply the 1x2 mystic knot (see right) with one end passed through the body of the knot to give a half-hearted extra ear (although it could certainly be done that way). The pass-through occurs earlier and still has no structural support, so the ears still need to be either “closed” or sewn in order that casual handling not destroy the knot.

Consider your standard square flower knot (see right). The structural centre is distinctly square, which is good. But, you say, there are only three ears. You say, a square knot should have four ears. I say, consider the loose ends to be the fourth ear. You, nevertheless, remain dissatisfied. A square has four sides, should not a square flower knot have four ears?

So here’s the creeper knot. You’ll notice the free ends extending to either side versus the usual free ends making up an ear of the knot. That’s because the creeper is meant to wrap around an object, like the bow on a package. The description in the book makes me think that she maybe wanted “vine” versus “creeper” but…

So, if I already have a mat knot and a polygonal knot then do we need a mystic knot? Polygonal knots are such a distinct class (which conveniently intersects with the vast family of mystic knots) that I think it’s beneficial to show it in this context.