The Voynich Ninja

Hi Torsten,

I agree that the plants share similar ideas. It is kind of similar to the text, which is different from one section to the other, while also sharing a basic idea.
Regarding scribes, for me personally the most important point is now to show that differences exist which cannot be explained by coincidence. I was fascinated by trying to find out whether there were different groups of plant illustrations. We opted for A vs. B because this was the highest level split we could think of.

Thank you for looking at the plants in detail, this kind of check is important. There are certainly some grey areas, which is to be expected when classifying so many different drawings.

So let's start with the daisies. We went through a number of iterations as we kept finding new things. Originally, our category for "daisies" was "daisy in cup": we had the impression that B's daisies were often inserted into something, or kind of floating above a "cup". At this stage, we had not noticed the existence of B-calyxes yet. This probably explains the table. We saw B's typical behavior as either inserting the daisy in/on another flower, or paired with a spiky structure (which we later called the B-calyx). You are, however, fully correct to point out the situation of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. - as we mentioned, the system really struggles on certain bifolios around the 50's. It is probably not a coincidence that the two exceptions are found on the recto-verso of the same page.

I do think You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. shows typical "daisy behavior", namely a dotted heart surrounded by petals, in a place where you probably wouldn't expect it (some kind of thistle-type flower). For something kind of similar, see You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. . 

Regarding "grass": we tried to differentiate between a property of the root (being hairy) or a feature of the terrain (shoots around the base of the stem). We approached both categories without knowing beforehand whether they would lean A or B or neither.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. : we classified this as a hairy root, since the hairs are also below the root and no specific attempt is made to make something grow around the stem. See especially the lines bottom right. Of the three examples you list, this one is certainly the closest, since much of the hair is on the top. However, the B-style emphasizes them around the base of the stem. You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. : this is a clear example of an all-round hairy root You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. : these are parallel lines "inside" the shape of the root. One might even argue that this root is not meant as hairy, but rather that the lines indicate a texture. (I have no preference for either, but it's certainly not the B-style of grass)

For "hairy roots", we had 15 for A, 2 for B, which normalizes to 6 for B. (Count not double checked since we did not include this feature).
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. : fair remark, this root is hairy all around, and we debated whether this had grass or not. What finally pushed it over the edge is that the lines at the base of the stem are longer than those next to it on the root. So my impression was that both features "hairy" and "grass" were intended.  You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. : this is a piece of terrain (it is even painted green) with "grass" on it. The roots themselves are smooth. The requirement of the base of the stems is also fulfilled. This one seems clear to me. You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. : we also debated this one. But when we zoomed in on the area where the leaves meet the roots, we noticed that the lines in between are a separate layer.

So for each plant, we asked ourselves: are they trying to draw a hairy root (one category) or are they doing something entirely different, namely drawing "grass" as part of the terrain. The second category clearly leans B.

I'm not saying any of these have to be the way we classified them, but just trying to explain our reasoning to do so. I hope this clears up at lease a few places where we've been unclear.

(18-04-2024, 08:53 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.You are, however, fully correct to point out the situation of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. - as we mentioned, the system really struggles on certain bifolios around the 50's. It is probably not a coincidence that the two exceptions are found on the recto-verso of the same page.

Hi Koen,

 indeed, I would also argue that it is not a coincidence. There are for instance some rare instances of words containing EVA-edy like ypchedy on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. or esedy on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. In the next quire on f58r, f58v, and You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. even some more instances of EVA-edy words exists. See for instance shedy on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. or chedy on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. It appears as both the textual features as well as the illustrations suggest that the transition from Currier A to Currier B starts in Quire 7 and Quire 8.

Note: Lisa Fagin Davis attributes the bifolio f58 - f65 in Quire 8 to Scribe 3. It is the only Currier A bifolio that Lisa Fagin Davis does not attribute to Scribe 1 [see You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., p. 178].

Great work Koen!

I'm always amazed by the amount of new details that can be found in the VM that leave me puzzled how we could overlook them for so long!

However I have to add something about the plant- and especially flower shapes. I have so far considered the VM plants largely fantastic but the flowers appear to have some properties which are more botanically correct than expected.

First of all, to me the VM plants look strangely 2-dimensional or flat. This may be artistic style or simply lacking skill of the artist. But it could also be the case that we are looking at herbarized or pressed plants and the way certain plant and especially flower shapes are preserved after pressing.

One example would be the lpetiole protruding into the center of leaves in A plants. This would be the abaxial or backside of pressed leaves. Leaves all pointing in one direction and flowers into the other may also be a style of arranging plants for herbarizing. This saves space and makes flowers stand out after pressing.

But most importantly I'd like to say something about the difference between A and B flowers.
You noted the difference between A and B flowers and attributed them to the artist's preference, however I think this is at least partly due to necessity to depict certain types of flowers.

B- flowers are often of the daisy type with a wide calyx formed of more than 3 lobed elements (you write tepals in your blog btw, this should be corrected, frankly it's not any flower parts, neither tepals nor sepals but bracts.)
Asteraceae form floral heads or capitulae, composite flowers consisting of a central head with disc florets surrounded by asymmetric ray florets and protected by an involucre which consists of many phyllaries or involucral bracts. This is exactly what we see in what you call a 'wide B-type calyx'!

[attachment=8437]
[attachment=8438]
[attachment=8439]

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

I also do not think what you call 'daisy' has been inserted into another flower type anywhere, it is simply the disc florets surrounded by ray florets. All daisy-type flowers look quite realistic compared to other VM flowers. Look at f40r, if you look closely you can see 2 whorls of ray florets around a central disc, only the upper one has been painted in blue. There are a number of Asteraceae with a very similar flower shape like Gaillardia.

[attachment=8440]
[attachment=8441]

Due to the disc shape, when pressing such flowers you will usually see the center. Depending on the flatness of the flower disc they will either be preserved in ventral (full frontal) or ventrolateral (half front, half side) view. In both cases the center is visible.

In contrast, A-type campanulate (bell-shaped) flowers pretty much have to end up in lateral view when pressed. It's very hard to press a campanulate flower in ventral view so you can look into the center. Again you usually see exactly what we find in the manuscript, all petal tips are visible in 2 rows but not the center.

[attachment=8443]

The 3-lobed calyx of A-flowers is consistent with pentamerous (consisting of 5 parts) flowers of most dicots. The calyx consists of 5 sepals but only 3 are visible from lateral view. Note that such flowers in the VM usualy have 4 or 6 petals rather than 5 as it is common in most dicot flowers.

[attachment=8444]
[attachment=8445]

Another interesting case is the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. 'violet' with 2 leaf shapes which indeed exist in Viola arvensis due to stipulae that look very much like what we see in the drawing. Also I think this is the only VM drawing which presents flowers in both dorsal and ventral view. In an idealized botanical drawing you'd usually want to show flowers from many different angles. Mostly that's not the case in the VM, maybe because the plants were pressed in a way that only preserved flowers in one orientation?

[attachment=8448]
[attachment=8447]
[attachment=8446]

Bottom line - while the plants may be fantastic, they consist of parts which are botanically more or less correct and show that the artist(s) were quite familiar with floral anatomy.
B: The daisy- type Asteraceae composite-flowers displaying disc florets, sometimes ray florets and an involucre in ventrolateral or ventral view
A: Pentamerous (?) often campanulate flowers with a calyx that has 3 partially fused sepals visible, mostly in lateral view, non-campanulate flowers also in ventrolateral view as typical for many dicot flowers.

However neither do I have an explanation how this fits together with the strange leaves and roots nor why we largely have pentamerous flowers in A and Asteraceae only in B. But I think we can say it's not merely artistic style but meant to depict a different type of plants in A and B.

[attachment=8449]

@Bernd
You are right. At least one of the draughtsmen was very accurate. What looks like a star is the point where the next flower emerges.
If you look closely at the pictures, they seem almost one to one.

Hi Bernd,

Thanks, what you say makes sense. 

During this research, we tried to avoid delving into botanical aspects too much. This took more time and effort than any of my previous research projects - if more botanical depth had been included, it would have taken us years. In this regard, it was probably not the best idea to call the lobes "tepals", while I could have just called them lobes. We were so caught up in the A/B differences, where it went wrong, the mess of Q8, which features were relevant and which weren't.. that botany wasn't really on our minds.

(Also, I spent what feels like a whole day learning how to do simple animation just to make that silly intro to the video :| )

Regarding pressing, I think there are arguments for and against, but this really deserves its own thread. The A/B distinction, no matter what may have caused it, was our primary focus. 
In the detail of the viola you selected, you can actually see how the connection of the stalk to the flower is similar to the "stem-root line" (closed off). So I think there are arguments in favor of stylistics, irrelevant of the type of example that was used.

I also agree that flower types are a prime example of something that cannot be purely stylistic. I do think there is daisy-insertion going on though, even if there may be a botanical explanation. The shape is still that of the dotted center with lobed "petals". The reason why I think it is sometimes forcedly inserted (as part of the original drawing, I don't mean afterwards by someone else) is f40. On the verso of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. , there is You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. , which also has a "daisy" inserted.

The bottom line for me is that B uses this "daisy" a lot, no matter what it represents. We also noticed while filming the video that usually, the participants had a very easy time picking them out. It's like B gets this stylistic rigidity on top of the botanical selection of Asteraceae. 

Quote:Bottom line - while the plants may be fantastic, they consist of parts which are botanically more or less correct and show that the artist(s) were quite familiar with floral anatomy.
B: The daisy- type Asteraceae composite-flowers displaying disc florets, sometimes ray florets and an involucre in ventrolateral or ventral view
A: Pentamerous (?) often campanulate flowers with a calyx that has 3 partially fused sepals visible, mostly in lateral view, non-campanulate flowers also in ventrolateral view as typical for many dicot flowers.

However neither do I have an explanation how this fits together with the strange leaves and roots nor why we largely have pentamerous flowers in A and Asteraceae only in B. But I think we can say it's not merely artistic style but meant to depict a different type of plants in A and B.

I agree, and appreciate the correct terminology, though I think using this kind of language would make the post impossible to read for a general, international audience. Even the word "calyx" was new to our test subjects in the video  What you say about the 5-sepal calyxes of certain bell-shaped flowers is especially interesting. Such things do undeniably show that there is a certain botanical awareness within these drawings. 

I wonder what you think about veined leaves. Cary and I were talking about this while writing the blog post, and it does appear that plants generally have veined leaves. Now, they will be more visible on some plants than others, but as far as I can see, they are quite visible in Asteraceae. Would the fact that A is much more likely to draw full veins be a more convincing indication of stylistic preference?

It made me very happy to see that you are producing new Voynich YouTube content!
The sound and video quality is so much better compared to the old interviews. Bravo!
The topic was also very interesting, and it was easy to understand.
I am absolutely willing to chip in a few bucks to support further production.

Many thanks to @Koen and all the other contributors for this video. Since I once went the long way of categorizing the plants myself (without result), I can well imagine how much effort and work is behind the plant characteristics found.

(19-04-2024, 01:32 PM)joben Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It made me very happy to see that you are producing new Voynich YouTube content!
The sound and video quality is so much better compared to the old interviews. Bravo!

Wow, thanks for noticing! I actually got an external microphone 

Rene pointed out to me that something had gone wrong with the table listed for "Flowers seen from the side". This should now reflect the correct folios.

(19-04-2024, 10:50 AM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I wonder what you think about veined leaves.

I think it's a stylistic preference and from what I have seen, venation is absent or wildly inaccurate in many herbals. If faithfully reproduced, venation can be valuable to identify plants, see
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

I see no reason why the leaves drawn with veins in the VM should have them and others not.
The cases where the petiole ends in the middle of the leaf could represent the abaxial (under) side of the leaf. This side would usually have more prominent venation. Let's look at the plants with veined leaves and use + for the presumed adaxial (upper) and - for the presumed abaxial (under) side where the petiole reaches into leaves:

 f2v +
 f5v -
 f6r +
 f6v -
 f7r +
 f8r +
 f9v +
 f13r -
 f16v -
 f19r +
 f20r +
 f23v -
 f25r +
 f25v +
 f27r +
 f28v + (?)
 f30r +
 f36r -
 f41v + (?)
 f42r +
 f87v +
_______
15+ / 6-
So the veins = leaf underside hypothesis can pretty much be rejected.

In contrast we have petioles intruding leaves without veins:
f9r, f11r(?), f13v, f16r, f36v, f37v, f93v, You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
In You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. the petiole appears to connect in the leaf center but on the invisible underside so I am not sure this counts. It does not intrude the drawn leaf. Anyway, this seems to correlate to leaf shape and they do appear to represent undersides most of the time. All leaves with intruding petiole have an overall circular shape and are either orbicular or digitate. We do not find any elongated leaves with this feature.
[attachment=8531]
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is the only case where the petiole reaches into a fruit/flower. Rather than the terrible paintjob suggests this could be an involucre seen from the abaxial side (from 'below') with the dots representing phyllaries (the spines) in frontal view. Something like a burr.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. shows venation in the leaves but none in the stipulae. If you look at the Viola drawing from 1853 I posted above, it also mostly lacks venation in the stipulae, probably because of their small size. But they should at least have a mid-vein. So this ultimately is a stylistic choice.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. appears to have some venation on the lowermost leaves which are connected by 2 petioles or stems
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. only has smaller 'bracts' with veins while the large main laves do not.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (B page) is weird, only few leaves have rudimentary venation and the petioles appear to be partly intruding into the leaves. It has a strong resemblance to f36r.

By the way, you still have  a mistake in your blog post in the section 'Typical A-calyx shape'
'It has a bulbous bottom and three tepals – the spiky leaves that surround the petals.'
You mean sepals not tepals. A tepal is a sepal that looks like a petal. All clear?