[Imagery] There are 131 large plant folios in the Voynich Manuscript

[MarcoP]

There are 131 full-page plant illustration pages, aka Large Plant pages) in the Voynich Manuscript.

These are as follows:
Quire 1-7:
on f1v-56v (111 illustrations)
Quire 8:
on 57r, 65r & v, 66v (4 illustrations)
Quire 15:
on 87r & v; 90r1, r2, v1, v2 (6 illustrations)
Quire 17:
on 93r-96v (10 illustrations)

Among these, there are a few instances where two plants are depicted on a single page.
These are:
f27r, f40v, f42r, f43v, f87v.
Another way of looking at this total then, is to say there are 136 large plants depicted in the Voynich Manuscript.
But it is unclear to me whether some of these pages that show two plants are meant to depict two stages of growth of the same plant or two distinct plants.

Hi VViews,
I total 129 "large plant" pages. Did you notice that f12 is missing?

Also, You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is often seen as illustrating two different plants (a vine with berries entwined to an oak). This is clearly different from the other two-plants pages you identified, still I think they are two different plants.

[VViews]

Thank you MarcoP!
I will change the total count, you are right about f12.
As for 35v: I guess this one is open to interpretation.
Of course, I tend to agree that this probably shows two plants intertwined in the oak&ivy style, as has been You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. on the forum in but I still feel this is ambiguous: as in the "edera nigra" illustrations,  it could be the illustrator just meant to depict the vine and the support plant is just there as an accessory, and also they can both be seen emerging from the same root.
For the moment I will add this one as "ambiguous", unless there is a consensus here that it should be two.

[MarcoP]

As for 35v: I guess this one is open to interpretation.
Of course, I tend to agree that this probably shows two plants intertwined in the oak&ivy style, as has been You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. on the forum in but I still feel this is ambiguous: as in the "edera nigra" illustrations,  it could be the illustrator just meant to depict the vine and the support plant is just there as an accessory, and also they can both be seen emerging from the same root.
For the moment I will add this one as "ambiguous", unless there is a consensus here that it should be two.

I agree on the apparently accessory function of the "oak". Also, the text in this page seems to consist of a single paragraph, while in the other pages where two plants are illustrated the text seems to be made of more then one paragraph (quite possibly, the different plants are discussed in different paragraphs).