09-10-2016, 11:47 AM
Diane,
I don't really know if you'll consider this relevant, but one of the most common ideas about the Voynich plant illustrations has long been that they represent grafted plants.
To me it seems that there isn't much difference between saying that folio x shows a graft between two or more plants and saying that it is a composite.
The nuance might be that in the first case the "composite" occurs in real life and is reflected in the drawing and in the other the composite exists only in the drawing.
If we entertain the possibility of "ideal" grafts that the author imagines could be done, then there really is no difference between saying an image represents a graft or a composite.
I don't really know if you'll consider this relevant, but one of the most common ideas about the Voynich plant illustrations has long been that they represent grafted plants.
To me it seems that there isn't much difference between saying that folio x shows a graft between two or more plants and saying that it is a composite.
The nuance might be that in the first case the "composite" occurs in real life and is reflected in the drawing and in the other the composite exists only in the drawing.
If we entertain the possibility of "ideal" grafts that the author imagines could be done, then there really is no difference between saying an image represents a graft or a composite.