Why the Voynich Zodiac - isn't

[Anton]

I counted the number of nymphs/stars for each diagram. Assuming that each nymph holds a star (and only one), the number of stars would equal the number of nymphs plus the "extraneous" stars in the centre of the diagram (if any).

March/Pisces: 19 outer ring, 10 inner ring, 2 extraneous.
Total: 29 or 31

April:
Light Aries: 10 outer, 5 inner
Dark Aries: 10 outer, 5 inner
Total: 30

May:
Light Taurus: 10 outer, 5 inner
Dark Taurus: 10 outer, 5 inner
Total: 30

June/Gemini: 5 outer, 16 middle, 9 inner
Total: 30

July/Cancer: 12 outer, 11 middle, 7 inner
Total: 30

August/Leo: 18 outer, 12 inner
Total: 30

September/Virgo: 18 outer, 12 inner, 1 extraneous
Total: 30 or 31

October/Libra: 20 outer, 10 inner
Total: 30

November/Scorpio: 4 outer, 16 middle, 10 inner, 1 extraneous
Total: 30 or 31

December/Sagittarius: 4 outer, 16 middle, 10 inner
Total: 30

Over the ten "months" the running total is 299 (or 303 if we count extraneous stars in). Supposing the two missing months have also 30 nymphs each with no extraneous stars, the running total for the year would be 359 (or 363 if we count extraneous stars). Assuming each of the missing months could have had up to two extraneous stars, the running total could make it up to 367.

Judging by this number, and also by the fact that the "backbone" of the design is the 30-piece cycle (with the exception of Pisces), the whole stuff might be the author's own proposal of a lunisolar calendar. To the extent of my knowledge, historic lunisolar calendars were either alternating 29-day and 30-day months or were comprised of 30-day months exclusively. I'm not aware of lunisolar calendars featuring just one 29-day month with all other months being 30-days (this if we count only nymphs) or comprised of a mix of 30- and 31-day months (this if we count stars as well).