Taking a change in perspective, rather than propose this is a situation that is "either/or", it seems to function well enough if interpreted as being "both/and". *It* is both a line pattern and a leaf margin. At least it is a leaf margin within the realms of VMs ambiguity. But it is only "both/and" with the qualification that the traditional, heraldic interpretation of the line pattern has long been absent in historical VMs investigation.
This is another situation that conforms quite well with the dual interpretation scenario. One interpretation is well known. Botany is obvious: these are plants - something like plants. And heraldic interpretation, while it's clearly there, it has, for much of contemporary investigation process, essentially been 'off the radar'.
At the same time, it is clear that the traditional interpretation is relevant because it applies to the VMs cosmos. This demonstrates that the creator of the VMs knew and used the traditional interpretation. However, it is the lack of this traditional information and vocabulary that thwarts attempts at modern understanding.
Has anyone found any equally clear examples of nebuly lines used in *pre-1500s, botanical* illustrations? Is there something comparable?
This is another situation that conforms quite well with the dual interpretation scenario. One interpretation is well known. Botany is obvious: these are plants - something like plants. And heraldic interpretation, while it's clearly there, it has, for much of contemporary investigation process, essentially been 'off the radar'.
At the same time, it is clear that the traditional interpretation is relevant because it applies to the VMs cosmos. This demonstrates that the creator of the VMs knew and used the traditional interpretation. However, it is the lack of this traditional information and vocabulary that thwarts attempts at modern understanding.
Has anyone found any equally clear examples of nebuly lines used in *pre-1500s, botanical* illustrations? Is there something comparable?