You're going to have a hard time convincing me that an accurate drawing of Euphorbia (even if it's accurate in a crude way) is actually an inaccurate and highly stylized drawing of angelica.
Euphorbia really has leaves like this and branching stalks like this, and fruits like this. Archangelica doesn't resemble the drawing in any way, not even highly stylized if you look at the overall way VMS plants are drawn. Certain things are drawn in certain ways. It would have to be a different iconography for this plant to be interpreted as Archangelica.
Here is Euphorbia fruit and, on some species, they do come in threes, and stick up like that.
It isn't necessary to turn the drawing into a different plant (that it doesn't resemble) in order for the fruits to have a double meaning. Why can't Euphorbia fruit have a double meaning? It's named after a famous doctor to an ancient king and the resemblance to a scepter or a guardian angel might be a reference to this important person.
Euphorbia really has leaves like this and branching stalks like this, and fruits like this. Archangelica doesn't resemble the drawing in any way, not even highly stylized if you look at the overall way VMS plants are drawn. Certain things are drawn in certain ways. It would have to be a different iconography for this plant to be interpreted as Archangelica.
Here is Euphorbia fruit and, on some species, they do come in threes, and stick up like that.
It isn't necessary to turn the drawing into a different plant (that it doesn't resemble) in order for the fruits to have a double meaning. Why can't Euphorbia fruit have a double meaning? It's named after a famous doctor to an ancient king and the resemblance to a scepter or a guardian angel might be a reference to this important person.