The Voynich Ninja

(26-02-2016, 09:34 PM)Diane Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Hello all,

...

No water-lily looks like that.


...


and here's the Indian water-lily nelumbo.
 Once again, nothing remotely like the sort of cup, or style that you see in f.2v.

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

There's no 'male' style at all.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

Now contrast with the hibiscus - as example; I don't think it's an hibiscus, either, but this is closer.  It does have a small, cup-shaped calyx is smaller and a single, feathery-looking style.

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

The plant(s) on 2v remain unidentified.

- surely,  I'm not the first person to have noticed.

You're right, it doesn't look like any water lily I've ever seen or researched either and René mentioned that he'd noticed that as well.

The protruding part of the flower does resemble a hibiscus more than anything, but the rest of it, including the "v" shape in the flower petals resembles the Indian Nymphaea except that the style doesn't match (it's not hirsute and rarely protrudes that much) and N. indica is more frilly than the VMS plant. There is a plant in the Gulf Coast, in a very limited range (and not near the Mayan section), that probably wasn't discovered by the early colonists that does match this plant quite well.

I often wonder if it's a variety of Nymphaea that's become extinct or if it's from a dried specimen and the illustrator made some guesses about the flower (or didn't have one and pasted on a generic flower). I hate to think the flower is wrong when the rest of it is drawn so accurately and in such detail.

Hello JKP, of course, nobody can say for sure that this is a water lily. We are dealing with a manuscript we cannot read, so nothing is certain. There are difficulties with the hypothesis that this is a water lily, as there are difficult with all hypotheses. The most useful thing to do with difficulties is to propose better options: some other plant that appears in medieval herbals and is more similar to the leaves, roots and flower of f2v. Until somebody does that, the water-lily is the better hypothesis we have.

(26-02-2016, 10:08 PM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.There is a plant in the Gulf Coast, in a very limited range (and not near the Mayan section), that probably wasn't discovered by the early colonists that does match this plant quite well.

Might I ask which plant this is?

(27-02-2016, 03:24 PM)Sam G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(26-02-2016, 10:08 PM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.There is a plant in the Gulf Coast, in a very limited range (and not near the Mayan section), that probably wasn't discovered by the early colonists that does match this plant quite well.

Might I ask which plant this is?

I actually have two.

If you look at Grass of Parnassus (Parnassia asarifolia) you will find it has the correct leaf shape, the correct veins, a prominent protruding style and, when partially open, petals fairly similar to the VMS. It also sets out rhizomes. In terms of the flower and overall morphology, it's a little closer than Asarum europaea and much closer than Nuphar (water lily). Parnassia fimbriata is similar (and has the fringed petals and protruding style) but has a longer stem. I think P. fimbriata is circumboreal (northern) but I would have to check.


Now, the second one took me months to find, so I'm passing on hard-won knowledge. It is similar to Nymphoides indica but is a closer match for the VMS plant's protruding style and not always as frilled as N. indica. In other words, N. indica is a reasonably good candidate for the VMS plant, and sometimes has a protruding style (though not typically hirsute like hibiscus), but the Gulf plant is close, as well.

It's called Villarsia humboldtiana and grows in the southeast Gulf Coast (I guess it does cross into Mayan territory) but it's not a common plant. At the time I was researching it (in 2009) there was almost zero information about it on the Web, there appears to be quite a bit more now. It could easily be mistaken for N. indica except for the darkish protruding style and they originally classified it as Nymphoides based on this similarity.



In my opinion, Asarum, Parnassia and Nymphoides more closely match the features of the VMS plant than the familiar water lily and Asarum falls behind if you consider the style (I'm talking about the plant part called the style). Even Nephrophllidium crista-galli (which has a very limited range and is probably not a candidate) matches more closely than water lily (especially the flower petals), except that the leaf margins are scalloped.

Nelumbo, Nuphar, and Nymphaea only match the leaf and rhizome, not the flower, and just because some people jumped to the conclusion that it's a water lily based on the shape of the leaf does not mean that terrestrial plants like Parnassia should not be considered. They often have rhizomes very similar to water lilies, especially if it's a wetland plant.


It could be water lily with an inaccurately drawn flower, but it could also be one of the species I mentioned that matches all of the features more closely.

Why is this plant not "cicoro"  i thought that was obvious

(29-02-2016, 07:04 PM)Davidsch Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Why is this plant not "cicoro"  i thought that was obvious

Cicoro?

yes, or do you call it cicaro ?

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

(29-02-2016, 11:06 PM)Davidsch Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.yes, or do you call it cicaro ?

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

The plant you've illustrated has heart-shaped or sagittate leaves and a tap root. The petal margins are smooth, and the drawing does not include a prominent style.

The VMS plant has kidney-shaped (reniforme) leaves and a very distinctive, well-drawn rhizome that shows not only the scales for the new growth (right) but also the leaf scars from previous growth (left). It has a prominent, hirsute style and slightly frilled petal margins.

The only thing that's similar between the two plants is the light-colored flower with pointy petals, everything else is different.




It is possible for plants of the same family, but different species, to be related but look very different. For example, Euphorbia plants are extremely variable (you'd never guess they were the same plant). Some look like cacti and some look like ferny flowers. The mustard family is like that too. Most people don't realize that field mustard and broccoli are close relatives.

So... you find violas with heart-shaped leaves and also violas with rounded leaves (and some with palmate leaves), but they are different species.


The plant you posted could be Parnassia palustris, for example (heart-shaped leaves, tap root, white pointy flowers) and let's say the VMS flower is another species of Parnassia, but they don't resemble each other very much except the petals.

Not sure it helps, but I would note that the system informing the botanical folios appears to classify a plant chiefly by the leaf, petiole and habit, only emphasising a flower if it has some particular commercial value - not necessarily herbal.

The kidney-shaped leaf appears to be drawn as a succulent, and for some reason the original draughtsman wanted to make a point of referring to what is inside.  It makes me think that perhaps, in the same way that we value the aloe's juice as a remedy for burns, so the juice as well as the flower was of value.

I should first say that I agree with Tiltman that all the botanical folios show a composite. This is a view I reached  independently after having analysing a good number - though frankly I quite shrank from sharing that information with the online community of the time. In 2011 reception of information about any non-Latin style, custom or antecedents in the imagery was routinely met by ad hominems and 'back room' denigration.  Reading Tiltman's opinion, and finding it agreed with mine, at last gave me the courage to risk explaining those folios.

The common factor for each group, I think, is the plants' having similar appearance AND  comparable/interchangeable uses. Very practical for the traveller, I should think.

With regard to this folio, I was less confident than with most of them, but settled with some hesitation for the leaf (which sets the type) as being from Bauhinia malabarica; with the flower from Bauhinia tomentosa .  The latter would have been of importance where it grew, in southern India, because it is also known as the 'flower of St. Thomas' and would thus have been revered, and I expect used for festivals and so forth, where it grew.  (The Community of Thomas was founded in Malabar).

As I suppose some will know, I see no evidence that the botanical folios are related to the earlier medieval Latin herbals.  They differ in attitudes to the page, in style of drawing, in emphasis and especially in displaying an intellectual and artistic sophistication of which we find no trace in Latin herbals made before the middle of the thirteenth century, when believe the matter travelled west through Syria and the Levant. (Hope this isn't a digression).

I think that this folio and those adjacent to it represent plant 'groups' from along the maritime trade routes between southern Arabia and southeast Asia. 

The route was known to relatively few Europeans before 1438, but then some of the plants which are perfectly depicted in our manuscript had their appearance still unknown to illustrators of western botanical works until as much as a couple of centuries after 1438.

(01-03-2016, 01:59 AM)Diane Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view....all the botanical folios show a composite.
...
some of the plants... are perfectly depicted in our manuscript

These two statements are contradictory and cannot logically both be valid.
Or do you mean that the plants are all composites, of which each part is perfectly depicted?