Sorry for the vague title, but that is really the question.
The problem is with the manuscript sources for Lobel-Page incerti auctoris 24. From Edmonds on, the sources are reported as:
υεσζερυμηνιον των αδωνιον cod. A, υεσσερυια ηνιονωτον αδονιον cod. B
or at least that is what one is led to reconstruct from the split-into-pieces transcription in Voigt's note:
The typical emendation of this is Ἔσπερ' ᾽Υμήναον / ὦ τὸν Ἀδώνιον. Line 2 is pretty much doubtless, line 1 is a friggin' mess. Edmonds creatively amends it to τεσσεραμήνιον, which is partly more and partly less adherent to the tradition, and notes that «the mss suggest τεσσερυμήναον». But then we have Bergk:
In other words, he'd have us believe cod. B actually reads:
τεσσερυιαη νιον ωτον αδονιον
What bugs me here is that the starting letter is upsilon for everyone else, but tau for Bergk. How is this possible? Having a tau would support Edmonds' version, which would then need to only amend where the first space appears, removing υι and adding the μ. It would also make that letter finally fit in, instead of having to be either changed or straight-up thrown out (or turned to a digamma as Voigt says Bücheler suggested). Is there any way I could lay my eyes on a scan of the codices and see that latter for myself? Or is there any source that comments on this letter?
Also, what is up with that τὸν Καλυδώνιον in Bergk's rendition of the quote? Did he straight up invent it or is it in some source? I mean, AFAIK this poem has two sources, cod. A and cod. B, neither of which has such a thing, so WTH…?
I can quite believe that depending on the letter forms used, Τ and Υ might look close enough to each other to be confused.
Commented @varro, and as @cnread pointed out, I fell for exactly that trap, given Bergk actually has an upsilon to start things off. So the first letter is settled. The "Also…" still stands, however.