[split] f35v parallels "oak and ivy"

[MarcoP]

I see your point, Marco, though I still find the situation puzzling. How could the VM be dependent on the Tractatus tradition, but at the same time revert to a property that was present in hypothetical Arab exemplars, the loose winding?

I would say that the "loose winding" in the VMS could be the same as the berry grapes in Manfredus: their similarity with Or.289 is mediated by direct observation of plants. Vines are sometimes loose and their fruits can appear in globular clusters (like in the Arabic, Manfredus and Voynich manuscripts) or "umbrella-like" clusters (like Egerton). Their climbing can also be more or less tight depending not only on the species, but also on the individual vine and host.
If you compare the Egerton and the BNF illustrations, you get an idea of how large a difference can sometimes be ascribed to the author of the "copy".

And which host tree would be meant for the 747 Ivy? If the leaves in its exemplar looked like this, I can see how they gave rise to a "correction" towards oak on various occasions. The different leaf edges in the VM and different structure of the branch might also point towards a more complex relation. The manuscripts are likely related, but perhaps not as closely related as one would think at first sight.

In the case of the Egerton / BNF manuscripts, they are related, but they are not just copies. Manfredus was evidently keen to be naturalistically accurate.
The relation between the VMS and the Tractatus de herbis cannot be that of a simple copy.
When comparing Leiden Or.289, Egerton 747, BNF 6023, the most conspicuous deviation in the VMS is that the vine has no leaves. A possible explanation for this is that we are seeing something similar to the most original section of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. Voynich illustrations might be based on a textual description: details from available manuscripts (and possibly from actual plants) have been assembled together, with the result of producing hybrids that look familiar but are impossible to classify exactly. Of course, this is purely speculative, but the Trinity ms is so similar, with its deceptively familiar plants which turn out to be unidentifiable exotic species, that I can't see why a similar process might not have happened in VMS.

I think the lack of leaves is strong evidence for the Voynich plant not being "ivy". I find the parallel with BNF 6823 convincing, so I believe the illustrator of the VMS was familiar with BNF 6823 or a close copy of it and deliberately altered it. As in the Trinity ms, the text could explain both why ivy was used as a model and why the Voynich plant differs. The Trinity ms is a precedent for this kind of mixing of different plant images on the basis of a textual description.