The Voynich Ninja

This is one of not so many plants that can boast some consensus amongst various researchers' identifications. Th. Petersen, the Finnish biologist and Steve D all consider it Paris.

Now, -JKP- You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. that Paris does have four leaves (btw, hence quadrifolia), while the plant in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. has more. -JKP- suggests this plant to be trientalis europaea.

But trientalis europea has seven leaves, which (unlike Paris, the four leaves of which reveal themselves at best in "cross" only - like Kreuzblatt or Crux Christi) are explicitly resembled in its folk names in some languages (German Siebenstern, Russian седмичник). So if the author confused the number of leaves indeed, he would have been more likely to do that with Paris, and not with Trientalis, wouldn't he?

What do you think? Any other interpretations? Sherwood considers this Arnica montana.

(09-01-2017, 11:22 PM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.This is one of not so many plants that can boast some consensus amongst various researchers' identifications. Th. Petersen, the Finnish biologist and Steve D all consider it Paris.

Now, -JKP- You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. that Paris does have four leaves (btw, hence quadrifolia), while the plant in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. has more. -JKP- suggests this plant to be trientalis europaea.

But trientalis europea has seven leaves, which (unlike Paris, the four leaves of which reveal themselves at best in "cross" only - like Kreuzblatt or Crux Christi) are explicitly resembled in its folk names in some languages (German Siebenstern, Russian седмичник). So if the author confused the number of leaves indeed, he would have been more likely to do that with Paris, and not with Trientalis, wouldn't he?

What do you think? Any other interpretations? Sherwood considers this Arnica montana.

I'm afraid that once again, I have to disagree with Sherwood's interpretation. You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. looks nothing like Plant 5r. Arnica resembles yellow daisies and has multiple flower stalks. It doesn't have berry-like buds or fruiting bodies, doesn't have a long thin calyx that curves under, and the leaves don't start partway up the stalk like Paris or Trientalis (in Arnica, the basal leaves are close to the ground). There is no resemblance between Arnica and VMS 5r.


As far as numbers of leaves go... Paris quadrifolia is like clover. Clover usually has three leaves, almost always, but there are occasionally four. Paris quadrifolia usually has four leaves, only occasionally do you see five. The plant called twayblade almost always has two leaves.

But some plants are not tied to a specific number of leaves—they vary. If you look at pictures of Trientalis, you will see that the leaves vary from 5 to 8 most of the time.


Assuming the VMS plant is naturalistic, the only way Paris can have 6 or more leaves is if it's a different species. In the 15th century, you would have to travel to Thailand, China, Japan, or Mongolia to find them. You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. looks quite a bit like the VMS plant (it usually has 8 leaves). The east Asian species of Paris have slightly lumpier roots. The ones that grow in India don't look quite as much like 5r as those from Japan. In India and Sichuan, they have longer stalks and there is an extra whorl of leaves instead of a skinny calyx under the part where one sees the berry on the VMS plant (maybe a climatic adaptation), so they don't match as well.

So... western species of Paris have four (occasionally five) leaves and a very skinny calyx under the "berry". Most east Asian species of Paris have a fat whorl of leaves just under the berry and sometimes as many as nine or ten leaves, depending on the species.

I use the word "berry" for convenience—it takes too long to write "fruiting body".  


I'm glad you asked for opinions. I'd like to hear them too. As it is, I don't think 5r looks very much like Paris, with the possible exception of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., which is quite a good match (but grows in east Asia). The number of leaves and shape of the leaves in 5r is wrong for You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (the western variety of Paris). You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (European star flower) fits better.

For the record, the North American version of star flower (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.) has a lumpy root, 6 to 8 leaves, and looks quite similar to 5r.


If 5r is Paris quadrifolia (which I doubt), then something weird is going on.

Although I also disagree with Sherwood's interpretation, I would note that we probably should not trust the colors in the VMS too much.

As for Paris, here's how the Finnish biologist You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. the identification (red emphasis is mine):

Quote:My first guess of 5r: Paris quadrifolia (this has been suggested by
others in the net, as well)

If this plant is aimed, then the fruit would represent a single dark
berry (meaning of pale center unclear - shining?), the sharp-tipped
calyx leaves would fit, as would the general habitus of a straight stem
with a single flower/fruit in the top, and a radiating whorl of
broadish, entire, elliptic to lanceolate leaves with a tip in the middle
of the stem. The leaves curving down is not characteristic but is
possible of course e.g. in a withering plant or as an artistic decoration.

Although four is the general number of leaves in P. quadrifolia, whorls
of more leaves do occur, and the painter may mot have aimed to give an
exact number, just the general appearance. Also the nodulose rhizome in
the image has some resemblance to that of Paris.

Paris is poisonous and has been used as a pharmacy plant.

(10-01-2017, 08:27 AM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Although I also disagree with Sherwood's interpretation, I would note that we probably should not trust the colors in the VMS too much.

As for Paris, here's how the Finnish biologist You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. the identification (red emphasis is mine):

Quote:My first guess of 5r: Paris quadrifolia (this has been suggested by
others in the net, as well)

If this plant is aimed, then the fruit would represent a single dark
berry (meaning of pale center unclear - shining?), the sharp-tipped
calyx leaves would fit, as would the general habitus of a straight stem
with a single flower/fruit in the top, and a radiating whorl of
broadish, entire, elliptic to lanceolate leaves with a tip in the middle
of the stem. The leaves curving down is not characteristic but is
possible of course e.g. in a withering plant or as an artistic decoration.

Although four is the general number of leaves in P. quadrifolia, whorls
of more leaves do occur, and the painter may mot have aimed to give an
exact number, just the general appearance. Also the nodulose rhizome in
the image has some resemblance to that of Paris.

Paris is poisonous and has been used as a pharmacy plant.

The Finnish biologist clearly noticed that it was not a perfect fit and pointed out the same anomalous features that bother me.

I think the reason so many have jumped on Paris as an ID is because the "berry" on the VMS plant looks correct, as does the long stalk, but Trientalis has the same fruiting head and skinny-limbed calyx. Many people are familiar with Paris, the shape and name are easy to recognize and remember. Trientalis is not as distinctive and thus not as easily recognized by name or by shape, but it is nevertheless a more common plant than Paris and there are many botanical illustrations of it (I don't know exactly how far back they go).

Notice how many people assumed the plant with the dragony-cirtter was mandrake simply because it looks familiar at first glance, but mandrake is also a questionable ID in the context of the VMS. The plant has the wrong kind of leaves, the critter doesn't look like a dog and is not pulling the plant with a rope, and the root is not the typical mandrake root as it's drawn in most of the old herbals. Glancing and taking the first obvious guess is not good research.


The reason I believe the shape/number of leaves is important and that this is probably not Paris is because the naturalistic VMS plants have very accurate leaves. The illustrator was careful to make sure that alternate/opposite was represented correctly (many of the old herbals are sloppy about this) and, as I mentioned before, carefully depicted leaf margins and veins. The colors are pretty good too, time was taken to mix about eight different shades of green by adding yellow or blue to the green paint (I'm talking about the more careful ones, not the sloppy ones).


All the other herbal illustrators, even ones that drew badly, had no trouble drawing Paris quadrifolia.

I think an ID of Trientalis is a simpler explanation than a strange version of Paris because Trientalis is a good match to the VMS drawing, Trientalis was a common plant (widespread in mountainous regions, the far north, and the northern temperate zone) and the Trientalis root was used medicinally to treat wounds.


If plant 5r is Paris, it's a species from the far east, or it's two different species combined (Paris for the fruit, something else for the leaves), either that or the leaves are used for misdirection (which seems unlikely since the fruit would give it away).

---

[quote pid='11059' dateline='1484068506']

(10-01-2017, 08:27 AM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Although I also disagree with Sherwood's interpretation, I would note that we probably should not trust the colors in the VMS too much.

[/quote]

I didn't go by the colors. There is nothing about Arnica montana (not the shape, not the leaves, not the direction of the leaves, not the position of the leaves on the stalk, not the bud, not the calyx, not the seeds, NOTHING that matches Plant 5r. Sherwood saw something that wasn't there. For the record, I only agree with about 10% of her IDs.

VMS plant 18r is a very good representation of either Arnica montana (which is in many of the medicinal herbals) or Calendula (which is also in many of the medicinal herbals). It also resembles Senecio aurantiacus (North American) and Senecio turczaninovii (Siberian). All of these plants have yellow (or orange) flowers, but other than the color of the flower, the VMS plant is a very accurate representation of one of the plants from the aster family. If the blue color is literal, then there are also a few fleabanes that resemble 18r.


Put plant 5r next to 18r and a picture of Arnica you will see why 5r cannot be Arnica.

   

Pritzel says that trientalis europaea was called Schirmkraut in Thuringia, which, I would say, corresponds with the way the leaves are depicted in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (hi Koen and mnemonics )

But in that case I see no way for Schirm to play any role in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (as PPN kshody).

Actually I'd also like to try myself in mnemonics.

One may note that roots of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. look like claws. Now, trientalis europaea has been considered as belonging to Lysimachia species. Actually Pritzel lists it as "Lysimachia trientalis". Lysimachia is called after Lysimachus. Among other glorious deeds, if one believes to what is told by Plutarch and (Russian) Wikipedia - and medieval people probably did the former as we do the latter, - Lysimachus was known by that he fought a lion when Alexander the Great forced the lion on him. And that lion's claws left characteristic scars on him.

I have Plutarch's "Bioi paralleloi" in two volumes (Russian translation) and can check that tomorrow.

The question, of course, is whether Lysimachia was already known under that name in XV century.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(11-01-2017, 12:20 AM)Linda Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

Good example of one of the species of Paris with an extra whorl of leaves at the top just under the fruit, Linda. Also note that some species have a "snout" on top of the fruit.


As I mentioned previously, the eastern and far eastern versions of Paris have more leaves and most of them have a second whorl of leaves under the "berry" (as in Paris polyphilla) instead of a skinny calyx (as shown in the VMS drawing).

I mentioned Paris japonica upthread because it is one of the few eastern varieties of Paris with 7 or 8 leaves that doesn't have an extra whorl of leaves just under the fruiting body. It's a significant detail that helps botanists distinguish one species from another (in addition to the number of leaves and the length of the "whiskers" that grow upwards around the fruiting body on some species (not this one)).


Paris japonica, courtesy of Wikipedia. Far eastern plant.


Paris originated in the east. Paris polyphylla is from southeast Asia (south China). There are many varieties all across Mongolia, Japan, China, Viet Nam and India. The farther west you go, the fewer multi-leaved varieties one sees, and the western variety (Paris quadrifolia) is distinctive for its four leaves and the skinny calyx*.


I mentioned earlier that there is also a [small] possibility that the VMS plant is a species of Paris that has died out due to deforestation. I don't think this is a likely scenario (it would probably have shown up in old herbals if it existed) but extinction has occurred to some plants included in old manuscripts (e.g., Silphium).


* P.S., I'm not 100 sure if it's a calyx or unusually skinny leaf whorl under the "berry" on Paris quadrifolia, I'm using the term calyx for convenience. Sometimes you need a microscope to tell the difference.

(11-01-2017, 12:04 AM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Actually I'd also like to try myself in mnemonics.

One may note that roots of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. look like claws. Now, trientalis europaea has been considered as belonging to Lysimachia species. Actually Pritzel lists it as "Lysimachia trientalis". Lysimachia is called after Lysimachus. Among other glorious deeds, if one believes to what is told by Plutarch and (Russian) Wikipedia - and medieval people probably did the former as we do the latter, - Lysimachus was known by that he fought a lion when Alexander the Great forced the lion on him. And that lion's claws left characteristic scars on him.

I have Plutarch's "Bioi paralleloi" in two volumes (Russian translation) and can check that tomorrow.

The question, of course, is whether Lysimachia was already known under that name in XV century.

FYI, there was also a Greek physician called Lysimachos.

Lysimachia trientalis has, in the past, been used as a synonym for Trientalis europaea. I don't know how far back. These days, Lysimachia trientalis is recognized as a synonym for the North American species of Trientalis. The European and North American species look very similar.


Here's an example of the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. Note that the tips of the leaves are pointy and sometimes curl under and it can sometimes have as many as eight or nine leaves. It's a good match for plant 5r, especially since the root is slightly knobbier than the European species. I generally believe that the VMS is earlier than 1492, but some of the plants match so well to North American plants that I always keep the possibility open that it might be later.

Anton,
As ever, I would ask people hoping to identify the subject of these drawings to consider critically the set of their reflexive assumptions.

The most prevalent assumption runs counter to both the evidence of the primary document and the science of iconographic analysis, or the business of assessing and correctly attributing an image - that flawed assumption could be expressed as "style of drawing doesn't matter".

In fact style of drawing is absolutely critical because it directs attention to the mind-set informing the image, and thus assists correct attribution.  Style is how we distinguish whether the picture of (say) a woman and child is meant for the Madonna, and further whether it is a product of Italy, France, Spain, Russia, Egypt or China.

Since many also assume, without pausing to consider whether the assumption is anachronistic, that any divergence in style between Latin art and the imagery in Beinecke MS 408 may be dismissed as due to some imaginary figure called "the artist", we have the compounding of these two notions at work before the person even begins to posit a plant id.

Another unthinking assumption is that any pictures of plants must constitute a herbal.  For all anyone knows, the pictures may be patterns for ... a craftsman's collection of patterns to be used in metalwork, tapestry, embroidery, silk fabric, mosaic, china-painting or woodwork. 

So what if the 'herbal' idea is another assumption not just unexamined but plain wrong?


On top of all these - a card-house of one bit of guess-work on another - there is just one dominant tradition at work in European plant pictures in herbal manuscripts made between c.12thC and the time the manuscript was made - the Dioscoridan.

Now, we know that one of the remarkable innovations made by Dioscorides was to produce a single 'plant portrait' and thus in the Dioscoridan tradition - in the Islamic, Byzantine or the Latin corpus - every picture shows just one plant and tries with greater or lesser determination to make that 'portrait' realistic.

So the assumption of those who presume that this, too, may be presumed in treating the Voynich botanical pictures, begin with a triple-decker of unexamined and fairly obviously mistaken expectations - yet all they have already set limits to their efforts which account neither for style, nor for the method of construction for these images, nor taking into account particular customs found across this section of the manuscript.

So what we get are statements which, if expressed fully, would be "If the manuscript were entirely a product of Latin Europe, and if these botanical images were part of the Dioscoridan lineage, and if all the plants were ones appropriate to the medieval European range of knowledge.. then I guess the id would be thus-or-so.

But we know - in fact it was already known when Tiltman wrote about the Friedman group's unsuccessful efforts - that the botanical imagery as a whole does not employ the style of construction ('the plant portrait'), nor the style of presentation that the Dioscoridan tradition does.  Thus, the grounds for supposing that the Vms botanical imagery *must* refer to plants known to medieval Latins is shaky indeed.  And the Anicia Juliana ms did not arrive in Europe until after Beinecke MS 408 was made.  But if the style is not appropriate, the principles of construction are not appropriate, and the plant-pictures are not "single plant portraits" either (another point well known sixty years ago), then these attempts are surely unlikely to prove accurate.

First one has to find when, and where, a similar style of drawing occurs; then an intellectual attitude which can explain the system of construction, and finally to find a coherent explanation and comparative historical examples for the curious little motifs - such as that I've called the 'circumscription mark'. 

I suppose that the point I'm trying to make is that these pictures are made images  - not 'failed photos' - and they need to be approached first as pictures and assigned their proper place and culture-of-origin.  This is the always the very first step in treating a made picture.  Only when that is done can one know whether or not the posited "id" is consistent with that time and place, and the range of information and plants which were certainly known.

Remember, in Baresch's time, German botanists and herbalists were the most eminent in Europe - meaning they had studied the range of older 'Dioscoridan' works as well as the contemporary science - and they couldn't identify any, apparently.