Not sure if my observation is original but here it is: The first plant is most likely some species of moss, with setae and calyptrae shown quite clearly.
![[Image: f095r2_crd.jpg]](http://voynich.nu/q17/f095r2_crd.jpg)
I find the botanical section of the manuscript frustrating, but it appears to me that there is overrepresentation of non-vascular plants and of bog plants (Nymphaea, Drosera, mosses of many kinds). Considering the postulated subalpine origin of the manuscript, perhaps the authors had great familarity or knowledge relating to alpine bogs and their medicinal uses.
Possible fit for the image would be a species of Fissidens
![[Image: Fissidens_exilis,I_MWS46960.jpg]](https://www.discoverlife.org/IM/I_MWS/0469/320/Fissidens_exilis,I_MWS46960.jpg)
![[Image: Fissidens_exilis,I_MWS46958.jpg]](https://www.discoverlife.org/IM/I_MWS/0469/320/Fissidens_exilis,I_MWS46958.jpg)
I find the botanical section of the manuscript frustrating, but it appears to me that there is overrepresentation of non-vascular plants and of bog plants (Nymphaea, Drosera, mosses of many kinds). Considering the postulated subalpine origin of the manuscript, perhaps the authors had great familarity or knowledge relating to alpine bogs and their medicinal uses.
Possible fit for the image would be a species of Fissidens