- Options
- Login
- Desktop Style
Options
Matching Plant Images Internally
- Matching Plant Images Internally
-
RE: Matching Plant Images Internally
Mauro > 9 hours ago
(10 hours ago)Bernd Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I didn't create this list, I took it from the file from the first page of this thread. Maybe you want to contribute to it? It seems I can't edit it though.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Very nice tool which I hadn't seen before, thank you (and thanks to Mark Knowles for building it!)
To Jorge Stolfi: for some reason I cannot access your files on Unicamp (connection times out), but it could be my connection. -
RE: Matching Plant Images Internally
Jorge_Stolfi > 9 hours ago
(10 hours ago)Bernd Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I didn't create this list, I took it from the file from the first page of this thread. You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. in the image is indeed an error, sorry about that. Your list is far more stringent, it's hard to decide where to draw the line.
My criterion is that the two figures should be the same drawing, not just the same or similar plants. That is, the pose (arrangement of branches, leaves, and rootlets) and the perspective (point of view) should be the same, too. Allowing for differences in number of parts, and on details that a scribe is expected to change while copying.
The Herbal-Herbal match f39r-f95r2 does qualify by this criterion (and I have added it to my webpage). They differ in the number and thickness of rootlets, but these differences resulted from the scribe of f95r2 having a slightly better understanding of perspective than that of f39r. He made the width and spacing of the foreground rootlets bigger in proportion to those of the background ones.
I would say (not with much confidence) that the Pharma f102 scribe had a better grasp of the actual shape of the plants than the scribe(s) of the Herbal section. On the roots of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and f23r, for example, the Pharma versions seems to allow for more naturalistic interpretations, whereas the Herbal versions have extra detail that preclude it.
On f1v, the three lobes definitely look like stubby cylinders with flat distal ends; whereas those of the Pharma version can be interpreted as three wings with a flat (?) bottom and a "Gaussian" top.
On f23r, the Pharma version can be interpreted as a flat bunch of thick roots radiating out horizontally in all directions, seen edge-on, with the roots truncated after a short distance. Whereas the Herbal version is drawn in such a way that that interpretation is not viable.
Anyway, another important point to keep in mind is that the Pharma sketches were clearly meant to show parts of plants. So when a Pharma sketch shows a leaf on top of a root, one should not assume that the leaf sprouted directly from the root. But the Herbal scribe apparently did so...
Also, in the Pharma section, the roots and fruits with flat ends and tops are quite possibly cutaway views, meant to show how the thing looks inside or how it is sold in markets or pharmacies. If that is the case, it seems that the Herbal scribe(s) missed this point, too...
All the best, --stolfi -
RE: Matching Plant Images Internally
Jorge_Stolfi > 8 hours ago
(9 hours ago)Mauro Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.To Jorge Stolfi: for some reason I cannot access your files on Unicamp (connection times out), but it could be my connection.
It works for me from my home PC, which should not get special tretament from the university server.
The full-page herbal images are inaccessible, though (gives "you have no permission"..>) I will try to fix that. EDIT: FIXED
All the best, --stolfi -
RE: Matching Plant Images Internally
Koen G > 4 hours ago
I agree with Bernd that f48r+v should be included in any overview of the most significant matches. The similarity of the roots is much stronger than that of most other proposals. I would put them right up there with something like f47v. (An unusual clustering, by the way).
I am hosting the spreadsheet, by the way, it was created to have a bit more of an overview. If anyone wants to be able to edit it, just let me know
(The fancy looks of the sheet were done by someone else).