I don't want to make too big a deal out of this (read: at least he didn't start a new thread), but I think it is worth making a couple of points.

1. it's hard to find any source without some errors--at least some typos--always remembering they may not be the fault of the lexicographer. (consider Mrs. B's own "hit with a fish" [ycliu])

2. it's not always easy to avoid perpetrating errors from your source material. I know this well myself, and it's why I try to always have two(2) reliable sources--but these people steal indiscriminately from each other!

3. [see #2] there are snares and traps out there just waiting for the most sedulous and incredulous lexicographer. take, for example the word zzxjoanw which Mrs. B. defines as "a maori drum". I've come to learn (correct me if *this is wrong, max) that zzxjoanw is a "ghost word"; i.e., there ain't no such word. ghost words get in to the most prestigious dictionaries. [see the story of "dord" in W2*]
http://wordways.com/ghost.htm

4. there seems to be a streak of recreancy in word boffins. Charles Elster tells me there are two mistakes in his There's a Word for It!, but he won't tell me what they are!?

anyway, for all of these reasons, plus my natural skepticism, I tend to think "maybe it's epicuricacy.." when I can't find epicaricacy in another source.

*here is the W3 entry for "ghost word":
an accidental word form never in established usage; especially : one arising from an editorial or typographical error or a mistaken pronunciation (as phantomnation or dord)
at least they caught the errors in W2 and removed them!