Smith Rock - Red Wall - What Route is This?

On MP, this route is listed as Papillion 5.8

We climbed this a few weeks ago, and were using the guide book - Oregon Rock Climbing by Bolf & Ruef, and the route is titled; Two Perfect Stars 5.9 - our friend happened to be there taking pictures; here's just a few. I was belaying.

Miranda Leading for the first time on real rock

Miranda resting at the same spot as the climber in the MP photo

So, my question is: whats the deal? Both sources describe the location as being down hill and to the right of Super Slab, which is right on. Looking at the pics, they are obviously the same climb. So does the route go by either name, is one a typo, is there another 5.8ish climb in the vacinity, etc?

Any help confirming these would be appreciated.

Looking at the Alan Watts book it looks like papillion (5.8). From the topo it looks like the second pitch of Gulag Archipelago (5.11d) starts from the anchors of Papillion. If it is, from the anchors there should have been a nice line of bolts going straight up.

Hope this helps.
jeb

Thanks guys,

It sounds like my book has the typo, so Papillion 5.8 it is. There is a bolted line that starts above the chains, and looked to be a hard line up the steep red face.

On the topic of the Red Wall; I like climbing this side as it's in the shade all afternoon, and there's usually not too many people there. Lots of hikers on the Misery Ridge trail, but everytime I've been there, we basically had the whole area to ourselves.

Been meaning to pick up the Watts book... but does anyone know if there are additional moderate routes, besides what's already listed on MP?

That book, Oregon Rock Climbing by Bolf & Rue does not have a typo - it is POS full of many errors. Burn it and buy something else.

^ Thanks for the advice, I am looking to get a new book. It's gotten me around a bit, but I know what you mean about the errors. I've run across a few of them and some confusing descriptions.

It does cover a lot of area in one book - so in that regard it's comprehensive, but at the same it is a bit sparse in details on some specific areas, as well as being at least 8 years old, it's somewhat outdated.