The frog

[ReneZ]

If the Vms botanical folios were a Latin herbal - which they're not IMO - [...]

I am unclear about what is meant with "Latin herbal".
Latin is a language and the language of the Voynich MS (if there is any) is unknown, so in this sense the Voynich MS is most certainly not a Latin herbal.

Munich clm 337 is a herbal in Latin, but it is a translation of a Greek herbal.
Does it qualify as a "Latin herbal"?

The Voynich MS was penned down in the first half of the 15th century (this is almost certain).
This was done in (larger) central Europe. That includes northern (but not southern) Italy.
This is not certain, of course, but it is very likely, and therefore it makes complete sense to compare the Voynich MS with other manuscripts that were written in preceding centuries.

The meaning of the frog on f102r2 remains an open question. It is so unusual that it's worth looking into.

I'm sorry, but the reference to the "peacock tree frog" is certainly wrong, for several reasons.
It's not a frog that likes to climb up a "peacock tree" but a tree frog that sounds like a peacock.

At least, I think it is agreed that the not very well drawn animal is a frog. Rather similar frog drawings may be found in Megenberg's "Buch der Natur".