To create a defensible list one should approach it the same way as with the castles with the dovetail battlements. Pretty sure they come from the same place.
Then there are about 170 classical medicinal plants where were used around 1400. These represent a second possibility of qualification.
Recipes and how often and for what they were used is another possibility.
A violet and castor bean meet these criteria and they look exactly the same.
The meadowsweet keeps it visually exactly the same. special feature the tubers in the root.

If I consider northern Italy as a possible place of origin, I will certainly find the plants in Italian medizinnischen manuscripts also.

Some test against historical practice and traditions would be welcome, though I'm not sure what it should look like. The comparison to the battlements isn't entirely fair: with the battlements, we have one positively identifiable item. We identify the item (swallowtail battlements) and check where it occurs. But when it comes to the plants, we would make an assumption about the nature and purpose of the VM plant collection, and then compare them to other known collections. But how can this help us when the VM does not overlap that much with known traditions, and we can only guess as to its purpose?

But this is what it interesing about B.408, it seems to be  the first scientific herbal outside the normal tradition

In the meantime, it is assumed that the VM was created according to the C14 method around 1400-1440.
If I accept this, I must also accept that no plant can come from America.
If I accept now that pinnacles, from me also still crowns are massgeben, then I can also assume that no plant speaks for Africa or Far East.
There is nothing unfair about it if I include the possibilities also for the plants.
If one reads the recipes in the books always the same plants are mentioned, that is noticeable. What was used in the region has first priority.

I sent my data so that one can work with it even if they are now in the wrong place.
Whether they are all correct is not yet important, but they all meet the most important criteria.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

I do not see the water lily as a real medicinal plant where to see in the VM. It was used, but mainly only as a chastity remedy in the monasteries. But is not a classical medicinal plant and was removed from the register around 1700.
In my opinion it is the hazel root. It looks similar, is classic and appears in many recipes.

My opinion, it is a good idea to make a list. But then you should do it right and not fall back on any old lists where are also still questionable.

Translated with You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (free version)

I am transcribing Ethel's notes now together with Marco, and one thing I can say is that she took this very seriously and seems to have approached the images with scientific curiosity. I have never been a fan of Sherwood's work, on the other hand.

It seems sensible to me to exclude plants from the Americas. But using what appeared in traditional herbals as a guiding principle might be too restrictive.

And then produce a list of those illustrations for which there is a consensus. As above.

Which VMs researchers, original and modern, should be included? Will they produce a list of the 'most certain' plant ID's?

Is there a consensus on f46v? Costmary was an ID by E. Velinska.

Some VMs illustrations clearly seem to be more realistic than others. But what is the purpose or value of this realism? Is it a guide to something further? Is there a relationship between the illustration and the written text? If so, what is it? If not, then what?

Is all written text equally valid - or is some text marked out as more significant than other examples?

It's been awhile since the last post on this thread but I noticed there are still some plants in the VM that haven't yet been identified with any reasonable certainty, at least not that have been added by Koen as such in his first post this thread. So I hope no one minds this newbie jumping in.

The first one I thought I would take a crack at is You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. I don't know if any of you have ever tried this but I made a clean image of the plant (white background) and then You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. but mostly what I got were copies of the same image and f3r, nothing helpful in the results. I also tried looking through the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. but nothing there either. So I went through what others had suggested here on this site and I concurred with a couple of them and some of all that led me to couple of new ones:

Callisia navicularis (new)
Kalanchoe daigremontiana (in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. separate thread about his IKEA plant but I don't think anyone said which species of Kalanchoe)
Polypodium cambricum (new)
Polypodium vulgare (in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. in his 25-08-2022 post this thread)

I don't really think You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is it. It hasn't been in the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. very long, though its Genus has been since You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., and it's not native to Europe and there are too many differences between it and You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (perhaps other visually similar plants would meet the criteria). But I was struck by the similarities:

      

I think Koen's You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is a better candidate. The roots are similar to You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and they share other similar features plus it's found in Europe, it has medicinal value and visually it has a lot of variety. However, it appears to have entered the taxonomy only as of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., though it's Genus entered it in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view..

Here are a few images:

 

 

That's not to say that just because both these species weren't in the taxonomy in the 1400s that they couldn't have existed back then, perhaps even have been encountered, if not also planted, by the author of the VM.

More to follow on the other two plants proposed above.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., from You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. in his 25-08-2022 post this thread, listed there as suggested by Stephen Bax (click You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. for the page on his site and scroll to 3r for more detail). This fern has been in the taxonomy since 1753 and was widely used for medicinal purposes in Europe since ancient times, especially France. The root of Kalanchoe daigremontiana in the previous post is closer to the VM drawing but the fact that P. Vulgare was in wide use in Medieval Europe and the similarities in the stem and leaves make it a better candidate. Note how in the VM drawing the stem is two-tone and there appear to be vein lines running through it, which is similar to the coloring of the midrib in one of the sample images below.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (French site, INPN P. Vulgare species pages)

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (2008 European Medicines Agency Paper about P. Vulgare, page 8)

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (2021 Frontiers in Pharmacology article about P. Vulgare, Introduction, paragraph 5)

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (1978 archeological paper on plant remains in Cracow, PDF pages 15 and 117, specifically)

  

  

I will add details for Polypodium cambricum in the next post.

(17-06-2023, 04:19 PM)merrimacga Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I don't really think You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is it. It hasn't been in the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. very long, though its Genus has been since You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., and it's not native to Europe and there are too many differences between it and You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (perhaps other visually similar plants would meet the criteria).

Update regarding Callisia navicularis: I did some more digging and it was in the taxonomy earlier but as Tradescantia navicularis in 1877 (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. 1, You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. 2). I haven't traced it back further than that yet.

Also about Callisia navicularis, it bears some resemblance to You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., which Aga included in his PDFs on VM plant IDs (click You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. for his 14-12-2019 post in a separate thread, click You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. for the PDF page 4 where he suggested this plant ID). Sorry Aga for missing that. A. pyramidalis is a better candidate because it is native to Europe and was widespread in Medieval times plus it was used for medicinal purposes.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (direct PDF download, doesn't go to a webpage first; Uppsala, c. 1655, and Turku, c. 1757, archaeobotanical paper from 2018 with macrofossil finds noted for A. pyramidalis at Turku site)