Diane > 05-10-2016, 12:25 PM
-JKP- > 05-10-2016, 09:58 PM
(05-10-2016, 12:25 PM)Diane Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I'd like some help from other members to clarify a point for the introduction to a book of essays.
I was unaware until fairly recently that the Friedman group had formed a general opinion that plants in the manuscript's botanical section were formed as composites.
Having discovered the fact independently - and presented an explanation of the way in which the pictures are structured, the system informing the 'pictorial annotations' at the roots and identified about forty folios' worth, I was later informed that the general idea had been stated in d'Imperio's book.
So my question is this.
Between 1912 and the publication of Mary's book in 1978
and
(separately)
between 1978 and when I began publishing my own work (from 2010)
had anyone ever looked into that issue, or defined any of the plants as composites, or explained any folio in that way?
Otherwise it looks as if d'Imperio's general statement was ignored for the first thirty years, and now that an independent investigation has provided explanation and demonstration - now that is being ignored, while the general statement is increasingly repeated...
Is that the case, or is there a precedent body of research that I've overlooked? Please rack your memories..
Thank you.
Diane > 06-10-2016, 09:57 AM
VViews > 09-10-2016, 11:47 AM
Diane > 12-10-2016, 05:39 AM
-JKP- > 12-10-2016, 09:47 AM
VViews > 12-10-2016, 10:06 AM
Diane > 12-10-2016, 12:22 PM
Linda > 25-11-2016, 11:38 PM
-JKP- > 26-11-2016, 03:19 AM