Dragons, Dogs & Amadillos?

[DONJCH]

In the figure "pangolin" there is a significant error, on the basis of which, along with others (as in the images of the legs of the cancer, the lack of the axis of rotation of the weigher, the input of the trigger of the crossbow (?)), we can say that the artist was not a scientist (at least in area of zoology and mechanics).

Fishes, snakes, armadillos, pangolins have scales, which are directed in the opposite direction, relative to the picture of "pangolin" in VMS. Otherwise, animals will cling to walking around surrounding objects.

Wladimir, are you assuming that the head is therefore on the right? Koen's picture shows the head on the left, which would put the scales in a more natural orientation. Therefore this makes the picture unfinished. I believe there are signs of a rushed or incomplete finish elsewhere in the VMS, is that so?

Koen's picture seems a remarkably good match.

[-JKP-]

I've always assumed the head is on the right (even though the "scales" go the wrong way) because it looks like a tucked-under head and the left looks sort of like a tail, but... if you take out that little round circle that looks like an eye then it would be possible to interpret it as a somewhat fishy tail and who knows... maybe the left side was unfinished and someone added a tail.

The nose of one of the zodiacs was added by someone else, some of the missing breasts may have been added by someone else, so I suppose it's possible someone else might have thought the right-hand side was a head, rather than a tail and might have added a tail on the left of an unfinished drawing.

If we take out the parts where the ink is darker, we're left with something like this:

   

[Koen G]

Now it looks like it's burrowing.

Now another possible explanation for the scales is that the copyist mirrored the examplar picture, got distracted halfway and then drew scales on normally. But that's all speculation.

[-JKP-]

This creature has a long nose, long ears, a furry back, and a furry tail (England, c. 1315), so it's not hugely different from our VMS "pangolin" or the dead-looking critter in the green pond.

Can you guess what it is?

   

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

It's a crocodile Royal MS 2 B VII.

[R. Sale]

Ears on a crocodile, hmmm?

Note wavy lines to represent water.

[Koen G]

That's rather in line with my view on the creature, "some aquatic beast". I'm not sure if we can be more precise.

[-JKP-]

That's rather in line with my view on the creature, "some aquatic beast"...

That crossed my mind when I saw it, Koen. And, as far as I know, you are the only person so far to suggest an aquatic beast. Plus you didn't just pull the idea out of the air. It was a process of looking through bestiaries that got you there.

[Koen G]

That crossed my mind when I saw it, Koen. And, as far as I know, you are the only person so far to suggest an aquatic beast. Plus you didn't just pull the idea out of the air. It was a process of looking through bestiaries that got you there.

I will try to finish this blog post tomorrow, I've got it sitting at around 75% (which I'm sure you understand as the master of drafts )

[-JKP-]

I will try to finish this blog post tomorrow, I've got it sitting at around 75% (which I'm sure you understand as the master of drafts )

I do!! It's an albatross that's difficult to shed. The last 25% is often a false summit, very deceptive.

Nothing to do but keep truckin' until the real one finally emerges.

[Linda]

If we take out the parts where the ink is darker, we're left with something like this:

Am i not seeing some pics? I didn't see the one Koen posted that you are talking about either, is it somewhere else?