Interesting thought about f49v: the column of numbers on the folio corresponds to lines and starts at line 2. The meaning of these has been debated, and I don't think there's consensus - finding info on them is much harder.
Anyway, if we had a method where the first line is a 'seed', isn't it conceivable that these markings are related and that's why they start at line 2? Perhaps, when explaining the system to other scribes, the author made a page where the patterns he uses are more clearly evident? And this is why the initials look separated (we know line beginnings have a different glyph distribution) and weird.
What is the consensus around these numbers?
Anyway, if we had a method where the first line is a 'seed', isn't it conceivable that these markings are related and that's why they start at line 2? Perhaps, when explaining the system to other scribes, the author made a page where the patterns he uses are more clearly evident? And this is why the initials look separated (we know line beginnings have a different glyph distribution) and weird.
What is the consensus around these numbers?