09-05-2017, 11:23 PM
(09-05-2017, 04:16 PM)MarcoP wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I agree that Voynich You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is particularly intriguing when compared with the illustrations in the Cambridge ms. If the plant was meant to represent water-lily, the root and leaf are too good to be derived from a textual description: they were clearly originally drawn by someone who knew the plant very well. Could it be something else than waterlily, described as having roots and leaves similar to Nymphaea and a flower similar to waterlily? Was it derived from a good but flowerless illustration of waterlily and the illustrator decided to add a lily-like flower?
Marco, I have a fairly long blog that answers your questions that I posted in 2013 along with some of the other plant IDs and then took down again because, well, the honest truth is I thought I could solve the VMS and I was worried this particular blog, which goes into more detail than the others, would give away too much.
I can't get at the files right now, it will have to wait until evening, but I will post it now, as these questions about 2v keep coming up and I wrote about them in significant detail.