The following warnings occurred:
Warning [2] Undefined variable $can_link - Line: 6 - File: showthread.php(1658) : eval()'d code PHP 8.5.12 (Linux)
File Line Function
/inc/class_error.php 157 errorHandler->error
/showthread.php(1658) : eval()'d code 6 errorHandler->error_callback
/showthread.php 1658 eval




About the binding(s?) and missing folios
#34
(11-12-2025, 02:25 PM)LisaFaginDavis wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.... That leaves the Rose, bound as is, and quires 15, 17, and 19 - the herbal bifolia in this section are almost certainly out of place and, as Stolfi noted, the pharma bifolia are likely singulions as well.

About Quire 15, it seems interesting that the four folios 87 (Botanical), 88 (Pharma), 89 (Pharma), 90 (Botanical) are so close in terms of bigram frequencies (as You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., PCA plot from the previous post in that thread). I am looking forward to seeing if Colin’s analysis confirms that those two bifolios are closely related….

   
Reply


Messages In This Thread
RE: About the binding(s?) and missing folios - by MarcoP - 12-12-2025, 08:07 AM

Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  The missing folios 59-64 ReneZ 39 53,722 20-08-2019, 03:36 PM
Last Post: nickpelling

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 3 Guest(s)