*Continuum* means compact connected metrizable with more than one point.

A continuum is *Suslinean* if every collection of pairwise disjoint subcontinua is countable.

There is an apparent contradiction in the literature I would like to resolve...

In Example 3 at the end of **Paper A**, there is constructed a continuum $Y:=X/\sim$ which is the quotient of another continuum $X$. It is clear from the construction that $X$ is Suslinean, and since the quotient map is monotone $Y$ is also Suslinean. Actually, the author claims $X$ and $Y$ are hereditarily locally connected, and such continua are automatically known to be Suslinean.

On the other hand, $Y$ is the closure of a ray (a one-to-one continuous image of $[0,1)$) such that the ray is first category in $Y$. In other words, the ray and its complement are each dense in $Y$. It follows that there is a sequence of pairwise disjoint arcs in $Y$ which converges to $Y$ in the Hausdorff distance. By Theorem 30 in **Paper B**, $Y$ is non-Suslinean.

**Question 1**: Am I correct in finding a contradiction?

**Question 2**: Is Example 3 correct? Specifically, why is it Hausdorff (and therefore metrizable)? I found a couple of typos, e.g. $A_n$ should be $C_n\cup \bigcup ...$ and $\overline{z_1 z_1}$ should be $\overline{z_1 z_2}$, but otherwise it seems okay.

If there is a problem with Theorem 30, then I think the error must be in the proof of Lemma 29. Specifically there is a claim that $H_W$ is non-degenerate since it is an inverse limit of non-degenerate continua. This is a false statement in general because we can take the continua $[0,1/n]$ with bonding maps the inclusions $[0,1/(n+1)] \hookrightarrow[0,1/n]$, and the inverse limit is just the single point $\langle 0,0,..\rangle$. However, since each factor of the inverse limit for $H_W$ projects into $\partial U$ and $\partial V$ in the first factor, the inverse limits on preimages of these boundary sets should be non-empty and disjoint subsets of $H_W$...

Upon closer inspection, the proof of Lemma 29 (Paper B) is flawed in more ways than one. I'm not sure it can be saved.

At this point I would lean toward the example being correct. I really just need to see that $Y=X/\sim$ is Hausdorff.

**Paper A**:

*Tymchatyn, E. D.*, **Some rational continua**, Rocky Mt. J. Math. 13, 309-319 (1983). ZBL0514.54022.

**Paper B**:

*Mouron, Christopher*, **The topology of continua that are approximated by disjoint subcontinua**, Topology Appl. 156, No. 3, 558-576 (2009). ZBL1165.54012.