02-04-2017, 03:30 PM
(This post was last modified: 02-04-2017, 08:18 PM by -JKP-.
Edit Reason: added pic, cleaned up wording
)
Notice how they group the Symphytum (Consolida) species in the above examples and one of them always has round knobby roots? That's Symphytum bulbosum, it's a specific species with round roots. The other species have long finger-like roots and some have tap roots.
I think many of the VMS plants are hard to recognize for the simple reason that they are drawn differently. But if you know the plant and really look at them and verbalize the individual characteristics, they express the plant accurately. For example You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. has droopy flowers, long-corn-like leaves (mostly opposite), and a strange, big brown asymmetric root.
Well... guess what, Consolida/Comfrey, a particular species of comfrey, is like that. It has droopy flowers, opposite, corn-like leaves (long and fairly narrow), and a large brown, asymmetric root. It's called Symphytum tuberosum and in terms of roots, it's the third kind of Symphytum (note that Pulmonaria used to be included in this group in the middle ages, they thought it was the same species as Symphytum and often drew it the same, but added dots to the leaves). It's not a 100% ID, but it's one worth considering as a possibility.
Do the other herbals draw it the same way? Nope. Most of the old herbals emphasize the leaf whorl at the bottom (not all, but many), only some of them show the leaves growing up the stem, the way the plant actually looks and the way the VMS does it. Also, many of the old herbals show the flowers standing up, but the plant doesn't look like that (Sloane 4016 shows the flowers correctly). If the VMS plant is Symphytum tuberosum, it is more accurate than many, especially the root. Later drawings (16th century) get the roots right, but many still draw the flowers standing up rather than following the good example in Sloane 4016.
So how do we account for this difference in interpretation?
Well... some people copy pictures, as we can see from the many examples, but if you were somewhat familiar with the plant and were working from a list of notes of the characteristics of the plant, it might come out the way it's done in the VMS (let's say you didn't have a sample, but someone wrote a description as was common in many of the early botany books, descriptions but no picture—even Pliny is like this). I think some of the VMS plants may have been drawn from samples (like Viola), but not necessarily all of them, maybe these harder-to-pinpoint plants are drawn from written descriptions.
P.S., I'm not certain of this VMS ID. I can't account for the double-bulb shape behind the flowerheads, Symphytum tuberosum doesn't have these, but Symphytum caucasicum does have small roundish buds (unopened) behind the top flowers that open first, that might be represented this way.
I think many of the VMS plants are hard to recognize for the simple reason that they are drawn differently. But if you know the plant and really look at them and verbalize the individual characteristics, they express the plant accurately. For example You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. has droopy flowers, long-corn-like leaves (mostly opposite), and a strange, big brown asymmetric root.
Well... guess what, Consolida/Comfrey, a particular species of comfrey, is like that. It has droopy flowers, opposite, corn-like leaves (long and fairly narrow), and a large brown, asymmetric root. It's called Symphytum tuberosum and in terms of roots, it's the third kind of Symphytum (note that Pulmonaria used to be included in this group in the middle ages, they thought it was the same species as Symphytum and often drew it the same, but added dots to the leaves). It's not a 100% ID, but it's one worth considering as a possibility.
Do the other herbals draw it the same way? Nope. Most of the old herbals emphasize the leaf whorl at the bottom (not all, but many), only some of them show the leaves growing up the stem, the way the plant actually looks and the way the VMS does it. Also, many of the old herbals show the flowers standing up, but the plant doesn't look like that (Sloane 4016 shows the flowers correctly). If the VMS plant is Symphytum tuberosum, it is more accurate than many, especially the root. Later drawings (16th century) get the roots right, but many still draw the flowers standing up rather than following the good example in Sloane 4016.
So how do we account for this difference in interpretation?
Well... some people copy pictures, as we can see from the many examples, but if you were somewhat familiar with the plant and were working from a list of notes of the characteristics of the plant, it might come out the way it's done in the VMS (let's say you didn't have a sample, but someone wrote a description as was common in many of the early botany books, descriptions but no picture—even Pliny is like this). I think some of the VMS plants may have been drawn from samples (like Viola), but not necessarily all of them, maybe these harder-to-pinpoint plants are drawn from written descriptions.
P.S., I'm not certain of this VMS ID. I can't account for the double-bulb shape behind the flowerheads, Symphytum tuberosum doesn't have these, but Symphytum caucasicum does have small roundish buds (unopened) behind the top flowers that open first, that might be represented this way.