VMs: RE: Voynich

["GC" <glenclaston@xxxxxxxxx>]

Not just Brumbaugh.  Feely and Strong both felt this to be a
sunflower, probably based on a short paper by Hugh O'Neill, the
first that I know of to identify this plant as a sunflower.

GC

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-voynich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-voynich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Jorge Stolfi
> Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2002 3:47 PM
> To: Voynich Ms. mailing list
> Subject: VMs: Re: Voynich
>
>
>
>     > > 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
>