A possible source for the "modern italian copy"

[-JKP-]

I understand what you guys mean, but I'm not sure if I can agree. Purely from an artistic perspective, the drawing on the right looks like it took more effort than the one on the left. Also, the roots have the same core shape and layout, just more has been added on the right to make them look more natural. It's almost as if someone tried to "normalize" the plant drawing. If their intention was to show someone else what the VM is all about, surely they wouldn't have bothered with the more refined roots?

There are a lot of things that don't match, like the last two words on the bottom right.

I keep wondering if the person had access to the original for a limited amount of time and filled in the parts they didn't remember correctly based on current conventions (roots, some of the text??). Or maybe if someone asked them to copy the page, maybe the person asking didn't say what it was for (didn't emphasize that an exact reproduction was needed because they didn't want to give away where they got it or what they were doing with it???).

I find it almost as perplexing as the manuscript itself.