So go here and tell me Mark 16:9-20 wasn't blotted out.
Dan Wallace says there's not enough room for it in the space, but I disagree. (Maybe he was referring to the space after Mark 16:8 in the Sinaiticus, I can't remember, but still there's quite a bit of space there.) He also says that the Western order has Mark last among the Gospels, which formed their own unit, so it's quite logical that the space would be there since you would start another unit on its own page. Then how do you explain Luke starting at the upper left? I think he's reaching.
Anyway, Burgon is kicking butt in my opinion, in his The Last 12 Verses of Mark.
Just got a kick out of the following marginal note, found, ironically, in the Vaticanus, at Heb. 1:3: ""Fool and knave, can't you leave the old reading alone and not alter it!" Yeah, can't you keep from erasing 12 verses?
And I really love the duplicity of this image. Notice they didn't mention that the next column to the right was left completely blank, unlike any other column in the Vaticanus. Why did they show this image and not the above-mentioned one.