INCONSISTENCY: Why are there these two very similar search fields?

Is there any difference? It's confusing having the two. It seems to me to be a glitch in tagging

I agree.

crossreference and crossref are recognised field names but not  crossreferences. I only see Cross Reference in the drop down field list. If you see only Cross References in some resources, do you get results with crossref: e.g. crossref:<Jn 3:16>?

Interesting - I see both, even if I have no resource where this search field yields results for <Jn 3> in Cross References (the bookshop gives quite a number of those) 

This actually looked very suspicious.

I choose to buy one:

after indexing, turned to inline search: no such search field!
 
 

of course, running the search again did not show any hits for Cross References in my downloaded library.

I believe this spurious search field is a bug in the bookstore search, where it basically hits for bible references in the book which are present, but not tagged as cross references. 

See if you get the same hits with crossref:<Jn 3>

Nope. I get hits in 64 resources, all bibles and commentaries.  

These are the same results for the search field Cross Reference without s:

so it is weird - probably a bug - that the field is indexed for searches (and rightly so), but not exposed as a search field. The bookstore results for both may be the same or different (we can't see the total hits, they are build one "more" hit after the other)  

Why you can't see the Cross References with s is beyond me. Running Logos 9.17 Beta 3 on Windows 10. 

Why you can't see the Cross References with s is beyond me.

I have a smaller, more select, library.

If that was the reason, then I would expect hits in my convoluted, all-over-the-place library....