19-02-2017, 11:43 PM
While I'm still not sure that the section with images of plants is a real herbal section, in the same time, I think that those facts that, probably, some exotic plants are depicted here can't be ignored. At least, there some reason must be to depict a pangolin (or armadillo) in the manuscript, a quite not usual animal for European herbal manuscripts.
The following assumption is speculative, without doubt, but pretty attractive, as for me. I think that the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. represents the plant Drosera (known in Europe) and some people agree with this. I know that Dioanea muscipula once was suggested as an identification of the plant on the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. . Of course, it doesn't fit, as a post-Columbian American plant, it is an artifact (along with Sunflower), as it is accepted in relates to the VMs parchment dating. But I don't understand not this. Why the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. ? The You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is the best candidate for Dionaea muscipula. Moreover, it could be logical to put the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (insectivorous) on the same folio.
![[Image: ca958310df6b5b4afc4ac45276273863.jpg]](https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/ca/95/83/ca958310df6b5b4afc4ac45276273863.jpg)
My main point here is not an identification of particular images, my point is that it is rather important to study the plants in the herbal section, than the waste of time, even if the text is not about herbs. There must be strong reasons for those depictions.
The following assumption is speculative, without doubt, but pretty attractive, as for me. I think that the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. represents the plant Drosera (known in Europe) and some people agree with this. I know that Dioanea muscipula once was suggested as an identification of the plant on the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. . Of course, it doesn't fit, as a post-Columbian American plant, it is an artifact (along with Sunflower), as it is accepted in relates to the VMs parchment dating. But I don't understand not this. Why the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. ? The You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is the best candidate for Dionaea muscipula. Moreover, it could be logical to put the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (insectivorous) on the same folio.
My main point here is not an identification of particular images, my point is that it is rather important to study the plants in the herbal section, than the waste of time, even if the text is not about herbs. There must be strong reasons for those depictions.