The Voynich Ninja

(11-11-2025, 11:22 AM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Or P and H were both copied from the same original plant.

I find it extremely unlikely that the Author got fresh specimens of all the 120+ plants that had to be listed in his herbal.  It would be like assuming that the geographers who drew world maps did so by actually going around the shorelines they depicted. 

Especially when he had also to make a catalog of stars in the sky, and dissect cadavers for the Bio section. It is much more likely that, like mot authors of medieval herbals, just copied material from earlier herbals.

Especially considering that many of the plants are obviously not real, like f5v f11r, and f40r.

Moreover, the drawings of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and f102r1 are not just the same plant.  The layout of the branches is the same, the root is drawn from the same perspective view.  And on the other hand there are many critical differences, like the stalks and and bases of the leaves, the shape and placement of the root "tendrils", and the apparent 3D shape of the root -- three stubby cylinders on f1v, a potato and two broad humps on f102r1.  Both the similarities and the differences argue against both drawings having been made independently from the same plant specimen.

My best theory for these "echoes" is that the Author originally drew quick sketches of the plants, but not from nature. Instead he drew them as he would find them in markets and apothecary shops.  That is, he drew the sausages, not the pigs.  (That would explain why the Pharma section has mostly parts of plants, and why the roots and fruits often have flat ends, as if they were cut away: namely, because they were cut away when the Author sketched them.).  Later, the scribe drew the figures on Pharma by copying those sketches, as they were, with little change -- except that he inevitably distorted some details. And then, later still, the Scribe drew the plants of the Herbal section, by copying the same  sketches from the author, enhancing the details (like the shape of root and of its tendrils) as best as he could guess them, and adding the missing parts (like the flower of f1v) from his own imagination or from other European herbals.

But there are still some problems with this explanation.  Like, why are the three lobes of the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. root so different from each other, in shape and hatching?

All the best, --stolfi

(11-11-2025, 12:26 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(11-11-2025, 11:22 AM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Or P and H were both copied from the same original plant.

I find it extremely unlikely that the Author got fresh specimens of all the 120+ plants that had to be listed in his herbal.  It would be like assuming that the geographers who drew world maps did so by actually going around the shorelines they depicted. 

Especially when he had also to make a catalog of stars in the sky, and dissect cadavers for the Bio section. It is much more likely that, like mot authors of medieval herbals, just copied material from earlier herbals.

Especially considering that many of the plants are obviously not real, like f5v f11r, and f40r.

Moreover, the drawings of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and f102r1 are not just the same plant.  The layout of the branches is the same, the root is drawn from the same perspective view.  And on the other hand there are many critical differences, like the stalks and and bases of the leaves, the shape and placement of the root "tendrils", and the apparent 3D shape of the root -- three stubby cylinders on f1v, a potato and two broad humps on f102r1.  Both the similarities and the differences argue against both drawings having been made independently from the same plant specimen.

My best theory for these "echoes" is that the Author originally drew quick sketches of the plants, but not from nature. Instead he drew them as he would find them in markets and apothecary shops.  That is, he drew the sausages, not the pigs.  (That would explain why the Pharma section has mostly parts of plants, and why the roots and fruits often have flat ends, as if they were cut away: namely, because they were cut away when the Author sketched them.).  Later, the scribe drew the figures on Pharma by copying those sketches, as they were, with little change -- except that he inevitably distorted some details. And then, later still, the Scribe drew the plants of the Herbal section, by copying the same  sketches from the author, enhancing the details (like the shape of root and of its tendrils) as best as he could guess them, and adding the missing parts (like the flower of f1v) from his own imagination or from other European herbals.

But there are still some problems with this explanation.  Like, why are the three lobes of the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. root so different from each other, in shape and hatching?

All the best, --stolfi

You may be correct. I don't what the truth is. I find it perfectly conceivable that the Author got fresh specimens of all the 120+ plants that had to be listed in his herbal, maybe that he grew in his garden. However I also find it perfectly plausible that he didn’t. I am inclined to the view, at the moment, that all the plants are real, although they may well not be drawn in a way that actually represents the plant in question. I am, nevertheless, open to various possible explanations as I don't have a clearly formed theory.

[attachment=12216][attachment=12217]

(11-11-2025, 12:26 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Especially considering that many of the plants are obviously not real, like f5v f11r, and f40r.

This statement is incorrect.
What do you have against f5v.? One might think that the illustrators were sitting next to each other.
The same applies to f11r. Both are classic medicinal plants and are very accurately depicted.
In the case of f40r, it is actually a little more difficult, but I have my ideas.
Basically, 80% of the VM plants are authentic and known as medicinal plants.

Some can also be found in other books.
[attachment=12218]
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
f010r

(11-11-2025, 10:49 PM)Aga Tentakulus Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.What do you have against f5v?

The "tennis racket" stem.  Ditto for f40r.  For f11r, the problem is the leaves with two stalks going to distinct branches.

Quote:One might think that the illustrators were sitting next to each other.

Hard to believe since each herbal page must have taken as long to draw as a whole Pharma page with a dozen plants.  

Besides it would not explain why You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and f102r1-SE-corner have precisely the same perspective view of the root.  And yet the 3d shapes of the root are quite different.

Quote:Basically, 80% of the VM plants are authentic and known as medicinal plants.

  

Yes, some of the plants are partly copied from nature or from more or less "honest" herbals. I myself claim the glory of having identified conclusively You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. as the pansy or forget-me-not (Viola tricolor), a common garden plant.  Not just because of the flower shapes (which are characteristic but upside-down), but because of the two leaf shapes: simple lances near the base, but changing to multiple fingers higher up.

But that fact does not dispel the thesis that the Herbal plants are based on Pharma-like sketches of some plant parts, like those of Pharma, with the rest being made up by the Scribe with the help of other herbals.  

And it does not imply that a plant whose drawing (whole or part) can be identified is the topic of the respective page.   Is the text on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. about Viola tricolor, or about some other plant that has a vaguely similar root?  I would not bet on the former...

And finally beware that there are millions of plant species, with more different leaf and flower shapes than one can imagine.  Thus any drawing of a plant, even one drawn by a five-year-old, can be matched to some species -- within the tolerance that people have been using in this task.  

It is like trying to read the text on page f116v: if you broaden the range of acceptable discrepancies until you get some match, you also get dozens of other possible matches.  And probably all wrong.

Take for example the plant of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and f102r1-SE-corner.  The shape of the leaves is a key criterion for species identification, but it is significantly different in the two drawings. That shows that the plant drawings have errors of at least that magnitude.  So, which of the two shapes should be look for?  Or should we accept any other shape that differs from both as much as they differ from each other?

Or take the plant on f2r.  Everybody agrees that it is some species of Centaurea.  And indeed the flowers and calyxes are a rather good match -- especially since there are species with all possible petal shapes.   But what about the leaves?  The drawing has large somewhat broad leaves in compact bundles of five overlapping leaves.  I could not find an image of actual Centaurea whose leaves even remotely resemble that.  Can you?

And then there is the "gnome with claws" root.  I suppose that, with enough imagination, one can consider it You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view..  But the error tolerance would have to be set so high than an elephant would match a cow...

All the best, --stolfi

(12-11-2025, 01:03 AM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.And finally beware that there are millions of plant species

That may be true, but I am only considering those that occur at the possible site of origin of the VM. There are approximately 12,000 of them.
Furthermore, the plants were also compared with classic medicinal plants, both today and in the past.
As you yourself said, you have not been actively involved in VM research for 20 years. I can see that you are not up to date.
And also take into account that these are drawings. There were no cameras in the Middle Ages.
The opinion that these are mainly fantasy plants is simply based on ignorance and is nonsense.

(12-11-2025, 01:53 AM)Aga Tentakulus Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Furthermore, the plants were also compared with classic medicinal plants, both today and in the past.

Yes, including by Petersen, in the ~1940s or earlier.

But consider f21r, for example.  Petersen had already "identified" it as "Polygonum" and you listed it above as You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (Pa) or knotgrass.  

At first sight the resemblance is remarkable and the identification seems to be a sure thing.  But the main similarity is due to f21r being drawn as viewed from the top, and that is how Pa is usually drawn, because of its habit of growing close to the ground.  Score one point for that.   Also both have long branching stems with small leaves all along them. Score another three points.  

But, if we look closely, we see several discrepancies:

• The leaves of Pa are generally pointy, while those of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. have mostly rounded ends.
  
• The leaves of Pa alternate along the stem, while those of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. are paired.
  
• The flowers of Pa grow singly or in small groups of 2-3 from the bases of the leaf stalk, forward of the leaf, while those of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. grow in dense bunches of a dozen or so flowers, directly out of the stem, right behind some leaf pairs.
  
• The flowers of Pa are elongated when still closed and with a trumpety corolla when open, while those of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. are spherical.
  
• The root of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is a long and thick cylindrical "trunk", much wider than the stems, that branches out near the tip.  That does not seem to match the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.of Pa.
  

The distinction between alternate and paired leaves is generally a principal key for plant species identification.

I have seen one "herbal health" site where a picture labeled Pa has flowers in bunches that are more similar to those of f21r.  But it turns out that the site is wrong: their image is that of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (Pm) or smartweed.  But even this is still not a perfect match, because the flowers  of Pm are elongated and the bunches apparently grow only at the end of long naked stalks. 

Sure, sure, those are drawings not photographs, and that can excuse some of the discrepancies above. (Although it is hard to believe that the Scribe would draw those flower bunches if he was looking at a real specimen.)  But they show how much discrepancy one must tolerate in order to get a match.  Even on the "best" cases...

All the best, --stolfi

(12-11-2025, 07:28 AM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.But consider f21r, for example.  Petersen had already "identified" it as "Polygonum" and you listed it above as You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (Pa) or knotgrass.  

At first sight the resemblance is remarkable and the identification seems to be a sure thing.

This morning I noticed this plant growing on my driveway:
[attachment=12234]
It too seems to match f21r.  The same general shape, the same small leaves growing along the stems.  Indeed it is a better match to You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. than Pa, because
The leaves have rounded tips.
The leaves are paired, instead of alternate.
[attachment=12236]
But tYou are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. says that my plant is You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. alias chickenweed.  Or maybe You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view..   No chance for any Polygonum. And the former is listed as having medicinal uses.  

The only problem with this identification is that both species originated from South America, although it has now spread to half the world.

To be clear, I am not proposing that my plant above is the plant on f21r. I showed it here just to show how shaky are all "identifications" of VMS plants.

All the best, --stolfi

Problem:
It is native to tropical and subtropical America.
That alone puts it out of the running for me.
JKP used it. So I say the same thing. No America.
And by the way, Peterson is no authority for me.
That may have been the case 30 years ago. But too many American comparisons.

(12-11-2025, 04:24 PM)Aga Tentakulus Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It is native to tropical and subtropical America. That alone puts it out of the running for me.

The C14 date rules out any plants native to the Americas, sure.  But why do you assume that the plants must be medicinal plants known in Europe in the 1400s?  

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

Quote:From the pictures of herbs, of which there are a great many in the codex, and of varied images, stars and other things bearing the appearance of chemical symbolism, it is my guess that the whole thing is medical, the most beneficial branch of learning for the human race apart from the salvation of souls. This task is not beneath the dignity of a powerful intellect. After all, this thing cannot be for the masses as may be judged from the precautions the author took in order to keep the uneducated ignorant of it. In fact it is easily conceivable that some man of quality went to oriental parts in quest of true medicine (he would have grasped that popular medicine here in Europe is of little value). He would have acquired the treasures of Egyptian medicine partly from the written literature and also from associating with experts in the art, brought them back with him and buried them in this book in the same script. This is all the more plausible because the volume contains pictures of exotic plants which have escaped observation here in Germany.

So, the plan of looking for matches in European medical herbals of the time seems doomed to failure a priori.  It was tried, and failed, at least 500 years ago...

All the best, --stolfi

[attachment=12272]

Why should I pay attention to Barchius' writing? He lived 200 years after the VM was written. He was even more clueless than we are today. Today we have the internet. I can examine hundreds of books. If Barchius managed to write 10 medical books, that is certainly remarkable.
Many plants in folk medicine are named after what they were used for. Take toothroot, for example. The word “denta” already says a lot. The correspondence says the rest. Most of them grow on my doorstep.
For me, the idea of fantasy plants and the Far East already belongs in the category of folk tales.