Mike Cirba,
I don't think that George Bahto's book porports to list every single possible influence or inspiration for the various holes and features at NGLA or later courses. There were only three or four templates of famous holes at NGLA and the rest are amalgamations of various features and concepts gleaned from the links courses and Macdonald's and Whigham's application of these concepts and features to the landscape at NGLA. And to the best of my knowledge Macdonald's and Whigham's writings do not specifically identify every feature or concept that influenced them or their work at NGLA or on later courses. Nor do we know for certain that Macdonald and Whigham applied the exact same concepts at Merion as they did at NGLA or do we know that they applied the concepts in the exact same way. In fact it is doubtful that they would have, given the differences in the landscape.
In short, it is downright silly for you to have expected him only to visit those exact courses which are most often mentioned in conjunction with NGLA and no more. After all, Wilson was a complete novice before he traveled to NGLA and met with Macdonald, so visiting any links courses would be bound to help, and the more the better. Also, you oversimplify what happened at NGLA and later courses, and do so to make a point that cuts against all the accounts we have, including this recent one. Wilson went abroad AFTER Merion had built holes based on the underlying concepts from the great holes abroad, and his goal was to understand and study the great links courses so he could preserve (and perhaps improve upon) what Merion had attempted. He likely visited all the courses you mention and more.
. . .
I have to admit I'm a bit surprised at this juncture to see the question resurface, "How could Wilson have designed holes based after famous holes abroad if he had not yet visited there?"
Of course, as Jeff or Bryan pointed out, we already know the answer to that question. In fact, Hugh Wilson himself told us when he stated, "Our ideals were high and fortunately we did get a good start in the correct principles of laying out the holes through the kindness of Messrs. C.B. Macdonald and H.J. Whigham. We spent two days with Mr. Macdonald at his bungalow near the National Course and in one night absorbed more ideas on golf course construction than we had learned in all the years we had played. Through sketches and explanations of the correct principles of the holes that form the famous courses abroad, we learned what was right and what we should try to accomplish with our natural conditions. The next day we spent going over the course and studying the different holes. Every good course I saw later in England and Scotland confirmed Mr. Macdonald's teachings."
The NGLA visit was of course the source of Hugh Wilson's understanding of the holes abroad, and the visit preceded construction of the initial Merion course. Wilson and his committee had not only seen (and perhaps received copies of) extremely detailed, scale drawings of the famous holes abroad, but they had also seen Macdonald's template holes based on their concepts, and in some cases, attempts at close replication.
Isn't it about time we stop pretending that they were not planning the actual layout (or at least working on that plan) at the NGLA meetings? The sources indicate they were, and the timing and circumstances indicates they would have been. This continued portrayal of the NGLA meeting as anything but a meeting to shore up the plans for Merion East is contrary to the record and common sense.
But setting that aside, judging from your post as quoted above, at least we are finally in agreement that at the very least, Wilson was trying to build a golf course according to the CBM model, based on CBM's approach, and using CBM's ideas, concepts, drawings, and golf holes as his models.
Since we agree that this was the case, then what distinguishes Wilson's pre-trip role at Merion from the role Raynor played at other courses, aside from their different aesthetic sensibilities? To put it another way, aren't we getting to the point where you are drawing a distinction without a difference? I don't see much reason to differentiate between Wilson's attempt to lay out a CBM course based on CBM's model, his concepts, his drawings, and his golf holes, on the one hand, and Wilson's attempt to lay out a course designed by CBM on the other. Either way, the original Merion East was intended to be CBM course.
I also found one interpretation odd as relates to the writer's term, 'green architects". Someone wrote that the term "apparently applied to green keeper(s)".
Honestly, I'm not sure how anyone could so misunderstand such a very straightforward term as to humorously omit Hugh Wilson from the writer's intent. I did get a good chuckle out of it, though, so perhaps my sense of humor is returning. 
Whether or not your humor has returned, your ability to accurately comprehend and disseminate information is still nowhere to be found. I did not omit Hugh Wilson. You just cut off the rest of the sentence which includes
the green committee of which Wilson was apparently the chairman. I wasn't familiar with the phrase "green architect" and mistakenly took this to refer to preserving and maintaining the course. After TomM clarified I now see that the reference is generally referring to designers trying to emulate the great holes in America.
_______________________
As for Belmont it remains to be determined what role Campbell (or other professional(s) played in its early design. What specifically does the 1898 publication by Prosper Sennatt say about Toulman's role at Belmont?
[/quote]