03-08-2022, 11:22 AM
I think it's a good idea to establish beforehand which parts of the image are most important to aid us. For example:
* Some people get hung up on the lack of a head, but this makes no sense: lacking a head is a common feature of VM zoomorphic roots. So looking for something that lacks a head is counterproductive.
* Usually, VM roots stay under the (imagined) ground line. Roots don't tend to rise far above the spot where the green stem transitions into the roots. But these "feathers" do, and significantly so. Therefore, the fact that the top feathers point straight up and rise above where the "head" would have been, seems significant.
* VM plants are rarely (if ever) perfectly symmetric, and these roots aren't either. Yet the overall design still appears to be a symmetric one.
* The hole for the head is suspicious. Was it made on purpose, or was an existing hole incorporated into the drawing? If it was made on purpose, this should be an extremely important part of our assessment. If it existed already, it may not be important at all.
* Some people get hung up on the lack of a head, but this makes no sense: lacking a head is a common feature of VM zoomorphic roots. So looking for something that lacks a head is counterproductive.
* Usually, VM roots stay under the (imagined) ground line. Roots don't tend to rise far above the spot where the green stem transitions into the roots. But these "feathers" do, and significantly so. Therefore, the fact that the top feathers point straight up and rise above where the "head" would have been, seems significant.
* VM plants are rarely (if ever) perfectly symmetric, and these roots aren't either. Yet the overall design still appears to be a symmetric one.
* The hole for the head is suspicious. Was it made on purpose, or was an existing hole incorporated into the drawing? If it was made on purpose, this should be an extremely important part of our assessment. If it existed already, it may not be important at all.