Currier A/B split is not what we thought it was!

[Labyrinthinesecurity]

Do you still hold the claim that there are regular differences in plant images on Currier A and Currier B pages?

Nice question! Let me clarify, I believe there are 2 questions : 
Question 1) I claimed that the switch sided with the features of the Herbal morphometrics and against Currier in some folia of the manuscript. I'm still investigating this, but I think I was wrong. The switch is pretty much aligned with Currier and the Herbal morphometrics.

Question 2) there are differences in plant images on Currier A and Currier B pages, but I am not part of the team who figured this out; its Gheuens, K. and Rapaport, C. 
I have verified that their classification aligns with Currier A and B, and I can tell you that, if the features are correctly assigned to each plant, the align is quite robust, so their claim sounds good. But it is a bit circular, since the mapping between features and languages was made "after the fact". There are no held-out folios in that story. Still, their finding is remarkable (just my personal opinion)