I am not in favor of any particular species per se. I think we need to examine the strongest candidates because they present the most probable opportunities for a positive comparison. Obviously the correct VMs plant identification is necessary before text comparison can start, and all we have to go on there is the VMs illustration. The text comparison needs to be based on plants of the same identification, apples to apples, not petunias to pistachios. It is also important to have good historical text sources *for* comparison.
The second comparison is totally based on the nature of the text, as it is found in the VMs. Is it all one section, long or short, or is it two sections, or is it three? What other clues can be derived from the VMs text?
If this doesn't work for the 'pick of the litter' candidates, it will be less likely to work for other choices. If the doesn't work for the best possibilities, then finding linguistic connections in the botanical section is probably not feasible, and investigators of comparative texts will need to look elsewhere.
The second comparison is totally based on the nature of the text, as it is found in the VMs. Is it all one section, long or short, or is it two sections, or is it three? What other clues can be derived from the VMs text?
If this doesn't work for the 'pick of the litter' candidates, it will be less likely to work for other choices. If the doesn't work for the best possibilities, then finding linguistic connections in the botanical section is probably not feasible, and investigators of comparative texts will need to look elsewhere.