I'm not sure he pays attention to what other people have said or written about the VMS. He seems to be off on his own journey, using his own ideas (many of which are historically inaccurate) and a lot of nonstandard terminology.
I'm not sure a researcher would WANT to be credited in his papers since it would make it look like some of the wrong information came from the person cited. Being credited is not always an advantage.
As it is, I'm not even sure the plant ID of Paris quadrifolia is correct, as you can see from my comments. It's called Paris quadrifolia because it has four leaves and everyone in the Middle Ages drew it with four leaves. The VMS plant has 10 leaves. No one accidentally adds 6 leaves, so either it's a different plant or the illustrator was trying to express something different about plants (or about something else).
If it's not a correct ID, then whether there is credit or not will eventually become a moot point. It might be Paris (or Trientalis, or a number of other plants)... but it is not drawn like P. quadrifolia and it is most certainly not Aconitum.
I'm not sure a researcher would WANT to be credited in his papers since it would make it look like some of the wrong information came from the person cited. Being credited is not always an advantage.
As it is, I'm not even sure the plant ID of Paris quadrifolia is correct, as you can see from my comments. It's called Paris quadrifolia because it has four leaves and everyone in the Middle Ages drew it with four leaves. The VMS plant has 10 leaves. No one accidentally adds 6 leaves, so either it's a different plant or the illustrator was trying to express something different about plants (or about something else).
If it's not a correct ID, then whether there is credit or not will eventually become a moot point. It might be Paris (or Trientalis, or a number of other plants)... but it is not drawn like P. quadrifolia and it is most certainly not Aconitum.