Most certain plant ID's?

[Koen G]

alcoholic

I gave you a warning for ad hominem there, and you're lucky to get off with that. 

Aside the improper remarks, I do understand your general concern. Who do we trust as an authority when it comes to identifying VM plants? Our problem is that the VM lies at a difficult intersection:

- It is not a modern book of plant portraits. If this were the case, botanists and biologists would be our go-to source. But the VM was made by someone who lived 600 years ago, when thoughts on biology and imagery in general were different, and tradition weighed on everything that was produced.
- It does not neatly fall into any of the common families of medieval plant books. This means that those specialized in those traditions (like Touwaide) can only help us so much.

In conclusion, some people can speak with more authority, but not completely so. If it were a set of modern pictures, a plant specialist could be relied on confidently. If it were a common Dioscorides, someone like Touwaide would have written an authoritative volume about it already. But neither of those situations are true.

So I looked for a different approach: which ideas stand the test of time? If people a hundred years ago agreed something was viola, and we still agree it is viola, then that's the best we have.