- Options
- Login
- Desktop Style
Options
Matching Plant Images Internally
- Matching Plant Images Internally
-
RE: Matching Plant Images Internally
Mark Knowles > 29-09-2023, 03:39 PM
When it comes to joining or matching up entries take the following example:
My match 88 is You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and f100r[1, 2]
My match 90 is You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and f99r[4, 1]
And therefore logically if we trust these matches we can then match
f99r[4, 1] and f100r[1, 2]
(Or have one big match f96v and f99r[4, 1] and f100r[1, 2])
We can then, for example, compare the label text against these two illustrations.
Quite a few entries can be joined/matched like these. -
RE: Matching Plant Images Internally
ReneZ > 30-09-2023, 03:18 PM
(27-09-2023, 03:12 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.My matches "7", "11", "12", "13", "14", "18", "28", "34", "37" and "50" are "root" matches
My matches "24", "25", "26", "42", "44" and "48" are "leaf/flower" matches
Maybe we should have an extra column called match type which can then be: "root", "leaf/flower" or "general". (We could have "leaf" and "flower" as two separate types)
Within this framework it makes sense for there to be about double the number of small plant drawings when compared with large plants.
I think that it is a good idea to add a column (or more) to add details about the type of match.
While the quality of a match in general is subjective, there are still some less subjective aspects which could be added, for example whether or not the plant fragments in the pharma section includes a copy of part of the larger plant.
It is not likely to be so simple that the matches are two to one, one for the root, and one for the leaf/flower.
Of the total of 239 (remaining) plant fragments, 220 include a root, 183 include a leaf or leaves, and only 23 include flowers or fruit.
There are 134 (remaining) large plants, taking into account that on 5 pages there are two.
I think that it will take some looking for patterns, before one can say if there is any helpful relationship.
I think that it is justified to be hopeful, because I found a first indication of this some years ago - I am not sure how generally known this is:
The two (large) fragments that are next to each other on the bottom of f102r2 appear in full on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. respectively. This is on the same bifolio. If one were to remove the bifolios in between, one would also see these two plants next to each other in the same alignment. -
RE: Matching Plant Images Internally
Koen G > 30-09-2023, 04:22 PM
(30-09-2023, 03:18 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The two (large) fragments that are next to each other on the bottom of f102r2 appear in full on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. respectively. This is on the same bifolio. If one were to remove the bifolios in between, one would also see these two plants next to each other in the same alignment.
This is the kind of thing I would be most interested in finding out. It's kind of tricky because both sections are out of order. To really be able to play around with this, one should reproduce the bifolios separately and see how they can be reordered in a way that makes sense in relation to the other section. I've been thinking of a way to do this digitally, but it's really tricky since bifolios can also be flipped, kind of doubling the number of possible combinations. The best way I can think of is to print bifolios physically on paper. -
RE: Matching Plant Images Internally
Ruby Novacna > 30-09-2023, 07:10 PM
If the roots of 102r2 and 18v are the same, the label of 102r2 koldarod would be equivalent to the last word of 18v ykol.dom, which confirms
my assumption that EVA m is r...something.
kol darod 102r2
ykol.dom. 18v -
RE: Matching Plant Images Internally
Mark Knowles > 30-09-2023, 08:26 PM
I think completing the Folio #2 Column in the spreadsheet is the most important task. Once that is done there are a lot of different directions that this research could be taken. I will try to help filling in the remaining entries in the Folio #2 Column. -
RE: Matching Plant Images Internally
ReneZ > 01-10-2023, 06:19 AM
I have the entries up to 30, so perhaps work from the end, backwards? -
RE: Matching Plant Images Internally
ReneZ > 01-10-2023, 06:34 AM
(30-09-2023, 04:22 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I've been thinking of a way to do this digitally, but it's really tricky since bifolios can also be flipped, kind of doubling the number of possible combinations. The best way I can think of is to print bifolios physically on paper.
The MS has 52 sheets or bifolios. I am using a numbering which is reflected in the IVTFF transliteration files. The page variable $Q gives one letter for each quire (A-T where P and R are missing) and the variable $B numbers the sheets (1...6) outward to inward for each quire. So, A1 is the outermost sheet of quire 1.
The three sheets with pharmaceutical drawings are Q2, S1 and S2.
One could add the sheet code as a column for each plant drawing.
Excel allows one to sort the data by any column (but be careful when doing it - keep a safety copy).
This will eventually allow all sorts of pattern matching.
Note that, by looking at the progression of container 'complexity', one can (very tentatively) conclude that the planned order of the three pharma sheets may have been:
S2, followed by S1, followed by Q2. They would not have been nested as they are now.
Putting them in this order, with the binding in the same place as it is now, creates a consistent sequence of containers. -
RE: Matching Plant Images Internally
Koen G > 01-10-2023, 04:20 PM
(01-10-2023, 06:34 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.S2, followed by S1, followed by Q2. They would not have been nested as they are now.
Putting them in this order, with the binding in the same place as it is now, creates a consistent sequence of containers.
Do you mean each sheet individually as its own 'quire'?
Side note: it's astonishing how often similar looking plants appear to be on the same bifolio, e.g. You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. . -
RE: Matching Plant Images Internally
ReneZ > 01-10-2023, 07:22 PM
(01-10-2023, 04:20 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Do you mean each sheet individually as its own 'quire'?
That is indeed what I meant.
By the way, I filled in all the missing folio and row/position numbers for the plant fragments. A check from someone/anyone might not be a bad idea. -
RE: Matching Plant Images Internally
Koen G > 01-10-2023, 08:48 PM
I ended up making some miniature bifolios (double sided) to play around with:
So should we add a column that will allow us to sort per Pharma position in the order suggested by Rene? I agree with the order of the bifolios (if they can be called that, with the foldouts and all), but it's a puzzle to determine how they would best be bound in the MS to give the optimal progression of containers.