Viola (odorata or tricolor)

[Jorge_Stolfi]

Rene and Jorge, I’m interested in your thoughts on why you consider this illustration as specifically more likely to represent Viola triolor rather than Viola bicolor. As you know, the argument that You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is more likely the latter has been made by well-credentialed botanical experts, but is typically rejected for extraneous reasons, which conflicts with a proper analysis of the botanical features.

I cannot give much weight to their opinions since they are based on the color patterns of the flowers, and I believe that the colors are spurious.  There is evidence that they were applied centuries after the outlines were drawn, by someone who could not read the text and did not know which plants the figures were supposed to represent.  (And, frankly, I suspect that it was some bored kid who used the VMS as coloring book.)

If I understand their jargon correctly, their other argument is that the shape of the topmost leaves of V. bicolor is a better match than V. tricolor:
   
Here is a You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view..

I would say that this detail is small compared to the magnitude of errors that the artist could make even when copying from nature.  Neither of the two species gives a perfect match for the topmost leaves, anyway.

And then of course there is the matter of V. bicolor's native range.  

I presume that you will take that as evidence that the VMS was written at least a century later than the C14 date -- which is how long it would take for a rare inconspicuous flower of North America to be noticed and find its way into the VMS.  

But since I am quite convinced that the writing was not long after the C14 date, I take that instead as evidence that You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. was not meant to be V. bicolor...

All the best, --stolfi