The animal is left white because it is white in reality. The other animals that are depicted are not white in reality.
And I think exactly the fact that the coloring is clumsy and inconsistent tells us the reason why especially this page raises questions about whether or not the paint is original. There are other sections of the manuscript where color has been applied with much more care and apparent skill than this one.
On the other hand, the penmanship on this page is fine, with quite some detail and variation that is in some places all but ruined by the paintjob. Other folios prove that someone involved had the skill and will to colorize nicely, leading to the assuption that the reds and blues and greens on pages like these have been added by a later hand.
About Stolfi's markers, they are there, but they could mean anything. Maybe they mark specific dates or locations or whatever. We just don't know.
And I think exactly the fact that the coloring is clumsy and inconsistent tells us the reason why especially this page raises questions about whether or not the paint is original. There are other sections of the manuscript where color has been applied with much more care and apparent skill than this one.
On the other hand, the penmanship on this page is fine, with quite some detail and variation that is in some places all but ruined by the paintjob. Other folios prove that someone involved had the skill and will to colorize nicely, leading to the assuption that the reds and blues and greens on pages like these have been added by a later hand.
About Stolfi's markers, they are there, but they could mean anything. Maybe they mark specific dates or locations or whatever. We just don't know.