VMs: Re: Voynich

[Jorge Stolfi <stolfi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

    > > Were you the one to demonstrate that f33v is not a sunflower?
    > > Thus showing that Brumbaugh's idea that the ms. must date from
    > > post 1493 is not convincing.
    > 
    > I do not know who originally debunked the sunflower theory of
    > the plant drawing in f33v. I refer you to Stolfi's excellent
    > commentary concerning the "sunflower":
    > 
    > http://www.dcc.unicamp.br/~stolfi/voynich/98-01-17-sunflower/

Thanks for the comment. However, as others have quickly pointed out,
Brumbaugh's "sunflower" is not f33v but f93r. (By the way, the 2nd
plant in the top row of f101v could be a draft of the same plant.)

The resemblance is indeed better for f93v, but the main arguments
against f33v also apply here. Namely, from what I have read in the
net, the original wild Helianthus annuus has a small seed core
compared to the petals. The large cores of present-day cultivated
varieties (which have now escaped back to the wild) are the result of
extensive breeding in Europe, after the plant became popular there.

Moreover, the leaves and stalks of f93v seem to be a poor match
to those of real sunflower plants.  

One must keep in mind also that the VMs drawings have no size
scale, so the flowers of f93v also resemble those of chamomille,
or thousands of other members of the same family.

All the best,

--stolfi