16-08-2019, 09:47 PM
To me, the root looks brown, but naming colours is a cultural thing leading to great potential for misunderstanding. It is the same brownish red that is used for a significant number of roots in the MS.
The problem is more fundamental.
Herb drawings in the early 15th century should not be expected to be close to natural. That was a much later invention. A typical problem is with the placement of the leaves (parallel / alternate), and this is clearly wrong for the viola, as should be expected.
The water lily (nymphaea) or nymphoides has multiple interesting issues.
A water lily flower has six petals, nymphoides has five, but the Voynich MS drawing has four.
Water lily is typically found in herbal manuscripts, but I am not aware of any case where nymphoides is included.
No water lily looks like the Voynich MS drawing, but it looks more than anything like a plain old lily.
Apart from the number of petals.
But that was also draw incorrectly in herbals, as already discussed You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
The problem is more fundamental.
Herb drawings in the early 15th century should not be expected to be close to natural. That was a much later invention. A typical problem is with the placement of the leaves (parallel / alternate), and this is clearly wrong for the viola, as should be expected.
The water lily (nymphaea) or nymphoides has multiple interesting issues.
A water lily flower has six petals, nymphoides has five, but the Voynich MS drawing has four.
Water lily is typically found in herbal manuscripts, but I am not aware of any case where nymphoides is included.
No water lily looks like the Voynich MS drawing, but it looks more than anything like a plain old lily.
Apart from the number of petals.
But that was also draw incorrectly in herbals, as already discussed You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.