23-08-2018, 10:53 AM
Already in the first publication by Tucker and Talbert it became clear that the interpretation of the illustrations is fundamentally flawed.
The question which details in the drawings are relevant, and which are not, is answered by matching with the hypothesis. It does not take into account whether, from a historical perspective, these drawings should be expected to be accurate.
The viola bicolor vs. tricolor is a typical example. Here, tiny and (in reality) uncertain details are taken as evidence. In other herb identifications, mis-matches are ignored whenever it fits.
It's again an example where the evidence is made to match the theory, rather than the other (and correct) way round.
The question which details in the drawings are relevant, and which are not, is answered by matching with the hypothesis. It does not take into account whether, from a historical perspective, these drawings should be expected to be accurate.
The viola bicolor vs. tricolor is a typical example. Here, tiny and (in reality) uncertain details are taken as evidence. In other herb identifications, mis-matches are ignored whenever it fits.
It's again an example where the evidence is made to match the theory, rather than the other (and correct) way round.