The bow taught in modern classes lies face down, takes hold of the ankles behind the body, and lifts chest and thighs clear of the floor into a backward arch. The Hatha Yoga Pradipika describes catching the toes and drawing one foot toward the ear, an action rather than an arch. Both can be justified from the word dhanu, a bow, but they are not the same posture, and the atlas records what the manual says instead of reading the studio version back into the fifteenth century.
Divergences of this kind are the norm rather than the scandal. Mark Singleton's Yoga Body documents how twentieth century posture practice was assembled, and one consequence of that assembly is that classical names were attached to shapes drawn from other sources, including Indian wrestling and gymnastic culture and the European physical culture movement. The name carried authority; the shape often did not come with it.
Recognising this matters for anyone using a reference work to find out what a tradition actually held. A modern practitioner and a fifteenth century compiler can use the same Sanskrit word in good faith and mean different arrangements of a body. Setting the two accounts beside each other, without harmonising them and without treating either as an error, is what the atlas can do here. What is continuous is the image: a body understood as a bow, held under tension, which is a way of describing a posture that no purely anatomical vocabulary reproduces.