So many of the plant IDs I've seen on blogs are people jumping to conclusions by choosing one part of a plant they recognize and then assuming the other parts are "wrong" or from a different plant. It's even been said, over and over, that they look like different plants pasted together.
One example is the "water lily" at the beginning of the VMS. It has nuphar/nymphaea leaves and a flower that is obviously not from the typical lotus-shaped water lilies, so... I see people explaining this anomaly by saying it is a flower from another plant (or by ignoring the flower altogether). But it's not necessary to come up with such an explanation when there ARE real plants that look like this, they are just less well-known, like the villarsia/menyanthes species. They have this kind of rhizome, this kind of leaf, AND this kind of flower.
As for plant 34v, it's not quite as naturalistic a drawing as some, so I'm not quite as certain about this one as some of the others, but IF those red and green knobs are berries, then it's not a bad way to get across the idea of asparagus, including the berries that are spaced out along the stalks, first green, then red, exactly the right kind of roots, the right kind of coarse base at the stalk, and (depending on the species), the right kind of flowers AND the fact that it is a male/female plant with separate stalks for the sexes could easily inspire an imaginative illustrator to draw "mating" intertwined roots.
There's no need to think of the water lily as a composite plant or even a hybrid plant and there's no need to think of 34v as a composite plant or a hybrid plant. There are plants that fit without having to mix and match parts from different plants.
One example is the "water lily" at the beginning of the VMS. It has nuphar/nymphaea leaves and a flower that is obviously not from the typical lotus-shaped water lilies, so... I see people explaining this anomaly by saying it is a flower from another plant (or by ignoring the flower altogether). But it's not necessary to come up with such an explanation when there ARE real plants that look like this, they are just less well-known, like the villarsia/menyanthes species. They have this kind of rhizome, this kind of leaf, AND this kind of flower.
As for plant 34v, it's not quite as naturalistic a drawing as some, so I'm not quite as certain about this one as some of the others, but IF those red and green knobs are berries, then it's not a bad way to get across the idea of asparagus, including the berries that are spaced out along the stalks, first green, then red, exactly the right kind of roots, the right kind of coarse base at the stalk, and (depending on the species), the right kind of flowers AND the fact that it is a male/female plant with separate stalks for the sexes could easily inspire an imaginative illustrator to draw "mating" intertwined roots.
There's no need to think of the water lily as a composite plant or even a hybrid plant and there's no need to think of 34v as a composite plant or a hybrid plant. There are plants that fit without having to mix and match parts from different plants.