The Voynich Ninja

Some tube roots:

[attachment=14403]

And some plants coming out of tree stems:

[attachment=14404]

(26-02-2026, 09:34 AM)Skoove Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Do we have a more concrete date than 15th century for this MS? Do we know which tradition this manuscript is taking its plants from?

Seems to be from the "Psuedo-Apuleius" family, which is influenced by Dioscorides "De materia Medica" (at least, according to grok.. it seems to check out though)

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

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

Ms. Plut. 73.16 is another example that has been pointed out by @bi3mw here:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

I thoroughly recommend Beasley's PHD thesis... You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(27-02-2026, 04:03 PM)eggyk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Seems to be from the "Psuedo-Apuleius" family, which is influenced by Dioscorides "De materia Medica" (at least, according to grok.. it seems to check out though)

The answer is in the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view..

Don't trust grok. Trust Marco.

(27-02-2026, 11:28 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The answer is in the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view..

Don't trust grok. Trust Marco.

I don't understand, was the information in my post wrong?

Yes, the herbal illustrations are those of the alchemical herbals, not pseudo-Apuleus.

Of the two herbals in your post, the first (Canon.Misc.408) is also an alchemical herbal, while the second (Fir. Plut. 73.16) is a pseudo-Apuleius.

(28-02-2026, 02:39 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Yes, the herbal illustrations are those of the alchemical herbals, not pseudo-Apuleus.

Of the two herbals in your post, the first (Canon.Misc.408) is also an alchemical herbal, while the second (Fir. Plut. 73.16) is a pseudo-Apuleius.

Well, I apologise then? There is a reason why I put "according to grok" in the post. If theres something wrong posted just say why it's wrong instead of just stating not to trust grok. I don't trust grok, that's why there was a disclaimer..

The plant drawings seem very similar between those two categories, at least to my eye. Why is one classified differently to the other? What makes the plants in this manuscript an alchemical herbal style and not a pseudo-apuleius style? If I look at marco's post, it says they are the "so-called alchemical herbals" and a google search for "alchemical herbals" returns effectively nothing other than than that exact voynich ninja thread so i'm basically out of luck here.