Crossword Help Forum
Forum Rules

That's what I was saying...AZ and CO are not considered contiguous - and neither are NM and UT.

On the other hand, if one just goes by Chambers which defines contiguous as "touching, adjoining, near, next (to) in space or time" then I suppose touching diagonally would qualify.

In any case, since all but one of the names can be found restricting oneself to adjoining edges using the proscribed number(s) of cells and the other one cannot, I think it's perfectly fair as it is.

I can't see any way the missing item can be found in the grid, even if we stretch the definition of contiguous to allow for touching at corners. All the letters bar the fifth appear in a cluster where they join at the sides and don't interfere with another group, but the nearest usable occurrence of that fifth letter is separated from the rest by other cells.

The Chambers definition of contiguous (touching, adjoining; near; next (to) in space or time) is unhelpful in this context - one could argue that fifth letter is near the others, though I won't! - and I think there's a case for using alternative wording here and in any puzzle where thematic material in the grid doesn't follow an obvious pattern. I appreciate this would have been difficult, given that space was tight due to the long preamble, though if necessary the grid could have been a bit smaller?

Loge, I believe that within a 4x4 square whose top left cell begins 27a a backwards L and a NE-SW diagonal, touching at a corner, could spell the item. But it’s academic to me

I see what you mean, Quisling, though it interferes with one of the other groups which would then have to be the odd one out and the numbers wouldn't add up.

Shame there wasn't another way of presenting this last stage, since it's overshadowed what I consider to be a very good puzzle.

Am I right in thinking you don’t need to work out the locations from the synonyms, except for completeness’ sake? I think I have worked out the rest of the puzzle.

In the bottom right one of the theme words is also present in a contiguous way. I wonder if the setter intended the missing name somehow to replace this so all were present in the grid but just could not get to work in a satisfactory manner. Would have been a more neat endgame.

Diver, you don't need to do anything to show you've worked out the locations, except it's a lot harder to find the third location without them.

Am I right in thinking that, in terms of the names associated with the third location, it's the fifth alphabetically that is missing? Determining the location of the other members of the group has been tricky but I think I have them in their respective jumbles - a not altogether satisfactory end to an otherwise enjoyable and engrossing puzzle!

I have located 6 jumbled groups in the grid, totalling 40 letters, including two that are lesser known members of the main theme subject. However one of these two can be spelt with 7 or 8 letters, so that seems to satisfy the 39/40 letter requirement. My problem is that this leaves me with 3 contenders for the missing name and I cannot see how to choose one of them.

Clearly I have caused some controversy, though it's largely academic and won't impact on solver's solutions here.

'Contiguous' is defined in Chambers as 'touching'. There is no doubt in my mind that two cells adjoined at corners are touching. The first definition in ODE is more restrictive - 'sharing a common border', but ithe second is 'touching'. There is also no doubt in my mind that past Listeners have used 'contiguous' to mean touching at a corner or edge. I remember the first Listener where I encountered that because I recall a surprised comment on Derek Harrison's discussion forum years ago.

Lastly (pace Loge) all the names are in the grid on the basis of the wider meaning assigned to 'contiguous'. The one occupying roughly the lower middle of the grid can be traced in the SE corner, and the "missing name" can be traced in the lower middle part. All names are then completely separate.