This is a good question, and it touches on two frustrating (but hard to fix) points Voynich researchers have to deal with:
Additionally, we can't always assume that "known" manuscripts have been looked at from the angle you'll be looking at them. Maybe you're interested in handwriting, but manuscript x has only been studied for its imagery.
Often, finding the right manuscripts involves a bit of luck, and maybe hours of search time. There may be shortcuts, but those are all case-dependent. It would indeed be interesting if we knew when and where new herbal manuscripts were digitized, but I have no idea how we could find out.
About the em-dashes, don't worry. A dash doth not a chatbot make
- It's hard to figure out what's been written about a certain topic/MS before.
- The various online manuscript repositories and their browsers are a nightmare to navigate (how I wish they'd push for a shared standard).
Additionally, we can't always assume that "known" manuscripts have been looked at from the angle you'll be looking at them. Maybe you're interested in handwriting, but manuscript x has only been studied for its imagery.
Often, finding the right manuscripts involves a bit of luck, and maybe hours of search time. There may be shortcuts, but those are all case-dependent. It would indeed be interesting if we knew when and where new herbal manuscripts were digitized, but I have no idea how we could find out.
About the em-dashes, don't worry. A dash doth not a chatbot make


![[+]](https://www.voynich.ninja/images/collapse_collapsed.png)