[kgwgk]

I don't think so.

In the first one you have a partition in subgroups A and B (or more than two) which show similar correlations, different from the correlation seen in A+B.

In the second one you have only a subgroup A (the implicit complement notA is not observed) where the correlation is not the same as in the (unobserved) full population A+notA. Nothing is said about the correlation in notA. It could be at either side of the correlation in the full population, while in Simpson’s paradox both subgroups are in the same side.

Edit: and I also mention "due to the way that those samples are selected" for Berkson's paradox where the selection is based on the variables of interest while in Simpson's paradox the subgroups are "external" (but influence the correlation between those variables).