19-04-2024, 10:50 AM
Hi Bernd,
Thanks, what you say makes sense.
During this research, we tried to avoid delving into botanical aspects too much. This took more time and effort than any of my previous research projects - if more botanical depth had been included, it would have taken us years. In this regard, it was probably not the best idea to call the lobes "tepals", while I could have just called them lobes. We were so caught up in the A/B differences, where it went wrong, the mess of Q8, which features were relevant and which weren't.. that botany wasn't really on our minds.
(Also, I spent what feels like a whole day learning how to do simple animation just to make that silly intro to the video :| )
Regarding pressing, I think there are arguments for and against, but this really deserves its own thread. The A/B distinction, no matter what may have caused it, was our primary focus.
In the detail of the viola you selected, you can actually see how the connection of the stalk to the flower is similar to the "stem-root line" (closed off). So I think there are arguments in favor of stylistics, irrelevant of the type of example that was used.
I also agree that flower types are a prime example of something that cannot be purely stylistic. I do think there is daisy-insertion going on though, even if there may be a botanical explanation. The shape is still that of the dotted center with lobed "petals". The reason why I think it is sometimes forcedly inserted (as part of the original drawing, I don't mean afterwards by someone else) is f40. On the verso of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. , there is You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. , which also has a "daisy" inserted.
The bottom line for me is that B uses this "daisy" a lot, no matter what it represents. We also noticed while filming the video that usually, the participants had a very easy time picking them out. It's like B gets this stylistic rigidity on top of the botanical selection of Asteraceae.
I agree, and appreciate the correct terminology, though I think using this kind of language would make the post impossible to read for a general, international audience. Even the word "calyx" was new to our test subjects in the video
What you say about the 5-sepal calyxes of certain bell-shaped flowers is especially interesting. Such things do undeniably show that there is a certain botanical awareness within these drawings.
I wonder what you think about veined leaves. Cary and I were talking about this while writing the blog post, and it does appear that plants generally have veined leaves. Now, they will be more visible on some plants than others, but as far as I can see, they are quite visible in Asteraceae. Would the fact that A is much more likely to draw full veins be a more convincing indication of stylistic preference?
Thanks, what you say makes sense.
During this research, we tried to avoid delving into botanical aspects too much. This took more time and effort than any of my previous research projects - if more botanical depth had been included, it would have taken us years. In this regard, it was probably not the best idea to call the lobes "tepals", while I could have just called them lobes. We were so caught up in the A/B differences, where it went wrong, the mess of Q8, which features were relevant and which weren't.. that botany wasn't really on our minds.
(Also, I spent what feels like a whole day learning how to do simple animation just to make that silly intro to the video :| )
Regarding pressing, I think there are arguments for and against, but this really deserves its own thread. The A/B distinction, no matter what may have caused it, was our primary focus.
In the detail of the viola you selected, you can actually see how the connection of the stalk to the flower is similar to the "stem-root line" (closed off). So I think there are arguments in favor of stylistics, irrelevant of the type of example that was used.
I also agree that flower types are a prime example of something that cannot be purely stylistic. I do think there is daisy-insertion going on though, even if there may be a botanical explanation. The shape is still that of the dotted center with lobed "petals". The reason why I think it is sometimes forcedly inserted (as part of the original drawing, I don't mean afterwards by someone else) is f40. On the verso of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. , there is You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. , which also has a "daisy" inserted.
The bottom line for me is that B uses this "daisy" a lot, no matter what it represents. We also noticed while filming the video that usually, the participants had a very easy time picking them out. It's like B gets this stylistic rigidity on top of the botanical selection of Asteraceae.
Quote:Bottom line - while the plants may be fantastic, they consist of parts which are botanically more or less correct and show that the artist(s) were quite familiar with floral anatomy.
B: The daisy- type Asteraceae composite-flowers displaying disc florets, sometimes ray florets and an involucre in ventrolateral or ventral view
A: Pentamerous (?) often campanulate flowers with a calyx that has 3 partially fused sepals visible, mostly in lateral view, non-campanulate flowers also in ventrolateral view as typical for many dicot flowers.
However neither do I have an explanation how this fits together with the strange leaves and roots nor why we largely have pentamerous flowers in A and Asteraceae only in B. But I think we can say it's not merely artistic style but meant to depict a different type of plants in A and B.
I agree, and appreciate the correct terminology, though I think using this kind of language would make the post impossible to read for a general, international audience. Even the word "calyx" was new to our test subjects in the video
What you say about the 5-sepal calyxes of certain bell-shaped flowers is especially interesting. Such things do undeniably show that there is a certain botanical awareness within these drawings. I wonder what you think about veined leaves. Cary and I were talking about this while writing the blog post, and it does appear that plants generally have veined leaves. Now, they will be more visible on some plants than others, but as far as I can see, they are quite visible in Asteraceae. Would the fact that A is much more likely to draw full veins be a more convincing indication of stylistic preference?
