[split] color annotations?

[MarcoP]

The fact remains that in the VM these annotations are extremely limited in comparison to other examples, and the few we have are ambiguous. 

I am not aware of a great number of examples of color annotations, so it's difficult for me to say if the VMS is peculiar or not in this respect. It would be interesting to know what a skilled paleographer has to say on the subject. In his 2016 paper, Touwaide didn't comment on these annotations being strangely limited.

Voynich ms illustrations contain instructions about the colors to be applied to pen drawings, according to the different parts of plants. Such instructions mention the name of the color to be applied (Voynich f4r), but in German, a peculiar fact that does not seem to be compatible with a Northern Italian origin of the manuscript.

For what is worth, in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., I identified 9 color annotated plants on a total of more than 300 illustrations. One could say that those are limited too.

A simple "g" is the worst ever color annotation in Germanic languages because it can mean both green and yellow. Also grey and gold.

I agree on the interest of the usage of the ambiguous "simple g" in German. The Vicenza Bertoliana ms 362 parallel pointed out by Rene is great also because it presents both "rot" and the simple "g" in the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. illustration. In other illustrations from the Bertoliana ms (this example was posted by JKP), yellow is indicated as "gel".

One could think that green is some kind of default as leaf color, so a "g" in a leaf was meant to indicate that? But, again, I am not a paleographer and possibly there are better explanations for this interesting practice.