People have claimed this before, in an attempt to come to terms with those plants that are impossible to identify. My suspicion is that this is wishful thinking, and there is no decent proof or even small indication that this is the case.
On the other hand, there are counter examples. The water lilly combines flower, leaf and root of the same plant. The same goes for the castor oil plant, the viola and so forth.
If we zoom in on the viola, we also see that "combining parts of different plants" is a poor explanation for what the VM actually does. The viola is expertly rendered, it is almost too realistic for a manuscript like the VM. Yet what does it do? It flips all three flowers upside down.
While there is no evidence for the "thematic combination" hypothesis, there is plenty of evidence for something else: the VM manipulates plant parts to suit it's needs. Think of the many strange roots. Those aren't brought in from other plants - no plant has roots that look like a feline, or two mammals facing each other, or an eagle, or two human faces. Certain flowers and leaves have been manipulated beyond reasonable natural possibilities as well.
I believe it is very important to recognize that the VM makes intentional changes to the way it would naturally draw plants. We know it can draw them naturally, but it chooses not to do so in many cases. These changes generally take the image further away from a naturalistic representation of a plant.
To put it another way, if the VM simply recombined parts of existing plants, it would still not look as bizarre as it does. Even if it combines parts of different plants in some occasions (maybe it does, I don't know), it seems clear to me that one or more other transformative principles have a greater impact on our inability to identify the plants.
On the other hand, there are counter examples. The water lilly combines flower, leaf and root of the same plant. The same goes for the castor oil plant, the viola and so forth.
If we zoom in on the viola, we also see that "combining parts of different plants" is a poor explanation for what the VM actually does. The viola is expertly rendered, it is almost too realistic for a manuscript like the VM. Yet what does it do? It flips all three flowers upside down.
While there is no evidence for the "thematic combination" hypothesis, there is plenty of evidence for something else: the VM manipulates plant parts to suit it's needs. Think of the many strange roots. Those aren't brought in from other plants - no plant has roots that look like a feline, or two mammals facing each other, or an eagle, or two human faces. Certain flowers and leaves have been manipulated beyond reasonable natural possibilities as well.
I believe it is very important to recognize that the VM makes intentional changes to the way it would naturally draw plants. We know it can draw them naturally, but it chooses not to do so in many cases. These changes generally take the image further away from a naturalistic representation of a plant.
To put it another way, if the VM simply recombined parts of existing plants, it would still not look as bizarre as it does. Even if it combines parts of different plants in some occasions (maybe it does, I don't know), it seems clear to me that one or more other transformative principles have a greater impact on our inability to identify the plants.
![[+]](https://www.voynich.ninja/images/collapse_collapsed.png)