Antonio wrote:And what does it mean that some may not be plants? You leave me speechless. Thinking that there is no guarantee that there is a relationship between script and drawings is a challenge to common sense
Antonio, I don't know how much you have looked at the plants, but they are not all drawn the same way.
Some are naturalistic and quite identifiable.
Some appear to have mnemonic parts.
Some appear to be stylized.
They don't all necessarily serve the same purpose. They might not even all be drawn by the same person. I would say there is strong evidence that there are two different painters. It's not just the way one slaps the colors on and the other is careful, it's also the way the colors are mixed. So, if there are several scribes, and at least two painters, then there might be more than one person who worked on the plants.
There are two sections, large plants and small plants, and these are drawn differently as well. They might be the same illustrator, but specific parts of the plants are included that differ from one section to the next, so these two sections (large plants and small plants) might not serve the same purpose either.
And, as Koen has suggested, they might not all be plants. Some of them might be allegorical concepts expressed in the shape of plants.
As for whether there is a relationship between script and plants assumes first of all that the text is meaningful. Second, it is, quite simply, a very big assumption. I hope they are related, but no one has proved that they are related.