This is a placeholder page.

I have a mass of information on the Voynich Manuscript plants on my hard drive and I am uploading them and linking the pictures as I have time. This is not easy, since I am working long days, these days, but I’ll get the task done as quickly as I am able.

Most of my notes about the Voynich and my plant identifications were done in 2007 and 2008. I glanced at the Voynich manuscript in the early hours of the morning when I should have been sleeping, amassed a database of over 13,000 plants (how, I don’t know since I had many personal responsibilities, was working very long hours and was not feeling well at the time) and came up with identifications for as many of the VM plants as possible. Those stolen minutes I spent with the VM were therapeutic for me. I have always loved both puzzles and plants.

After compiling my notes and cleaning them up toward the end of 2008, I looked around the Web to see what others had done and discovered that my identifications and theirs, except for some very obvious plants like the viola, didn’t match at all. At first this concerned me, but then I decided it was unimportant. They had their opinion, I had mine. Their identifications didn’t seem right to me and I decided to leave my notes as they were and let the world decide which ones were correct rather than stressing over the discrepancies. Except… that I never found time to upload them.

Far too many years went by before I set up this domain to share my thoughts with the Voynich community, and I find it somewhat shocking that life could speed from 2008 and 2013 with little more than a few glances at the document I so thoroughly loved. The VM gave me an escape from the daily stresses of coping with a globalizing economy and I had to give up even that.

So… the plant identifications I am uploading are grammatically comprehensible versions of my original notes from 2008 and what you see are my thoughts from five years ago. If I win a lottery and find some free time, I’ll read them over again and see if the information needs to be updated. As it is, this is the best I can do for now with what little free time I have.

The Spiny Fruit Plant

The moment I saw it, Voynich 6v reminded me of spiny-fruit plants like chestnuts, the castor oil plant, datura, and wood avens.

Plant 6v features an upright, relatively slender stem, star-shaped leaves with seven lobes and a somewhat upright cluster of bluish-green “fruits”. There are small blue dots on the fruity shapes that may signify more spines pointing in the direction of the viewer or perhaps some other anatomical or color aspect of the plant.

There is a faint suggestion of a main vein on each of the leaf lobes and the leaf margins are serrated. The painting is somewhat rough and the blue ink appears to have been on the dry side when applied. No attempt was made to extend the ink into the spines, so either the painter couldn’t be bothered or didn’t have a fine enough brush, or wanted the spines to stand out as lighter than the rest of the plant.

The leaves are drawn opposite but the fruits are alternate and one fruit, a larger one, is oddly placed near the base of the plant. The roots are long and relatively slender, numerous, have not been colored in, and have a tendril-like character.

Integration with Text

The plant occupies most of the right-hand side of the page, stretching from the bottom to nearly the top, where it pokes into the upper lines of text except for the two lines at the top.

The text has been worked around the fruits at the top and continue down the rest of the page on the left, sometimes slightly crowding the drawing and almost overlapping.

Prior Identification

Edith Sherwood has identified Plant 6v as Eryngium maritimum (sea holly), but I don’t see many commonalities other than color and the general arrangement of the leaves.

Sea holly has the flower heads closely associated with the leaves—each head is perched tightly within a whorl of leaves. In contrast, the Voynich plant has a separate stem for each spiny head and there is no association with the heads and the leaves. The Voynich plant has a cluster of heads, whereas each sea holly head is perched on the end of a leafy stem and their shape tends to be slightly more conical than round.

Another significant difference between sea holly and the Voynich drawing is the association of the leaves with the stem. Sea holly leaves, which are more holly-like than star-like, are closely attached to the stem, whereas Plant 6v has distinct stems leading from the main stalk to the star-shaped leaves.

Finally, the leaves of sea holly are fairly deeply indented and pointy whereas the Voynich leaves have modest, even serrations that are more often found on soft-leaved plants.

Even if inexpertly drawn, I am inclined to believe the Voynich plants are somewhat botanically accurate even if sometimes stylized, and I doubt the illustrator would have completely dissociated the leaves from the heads and from the main stalk if this were intended to represent Eryngium maritimum.

If not Eryngium maritimum then what are plausible alternatives?

Alternative Identifications

Let’s discuss datura first, since I think it can be eliminated. Datura, also known as thorn apple or devil’s apple has spiny fruits somewhat like a chestnut, but they tend to be a little less round than the Voynich fruits and, depending on the species, the leaves are more palmate or sometimes similar to a dandelion shape than star-shaped. The veins in VM 6v leaves are distinctly placed in a star.

Chestnut trees (Aesculus and Castanea) are stately plants with somewhat star-shaped leaves and spiny fruits. In some species the fruits can be eaten. In others, they are toxic. The leaves of Aesculus more closely resemble Plant 6v than Castanea, but nevertheless differ in an important way—each of the lobes in the star is distinct from the leaf beside it and sometimes rounded at the attachment point instead of blending into the next lobe. While chestnut trees will occasionally have seven lobes, more often there are five or six.

Cyclanthera langaei has a star-like arrangement of leaves but, like Aesculus, the leaf lobes are distinct from each other rather than merging in the center and the spiny fruits are a little more elongated than the VM fruits. It is from a part of the world unknown to Europeans in the 15th century.

Magnolia hypoleuca has lobed leaves like Aesculus, but they typically have six lobes not seven and the spiny fruit is more elongated than the VM plant.

Ricinus communis is an age-old medicine and source of castor oil, which is used to treat constipation and sometimes skin conditions. Ricinus can also be highly toxic. Like VM 6v, the leaves of Ricinus are distinctly star-shaped with a prominent central vein and serrated margins. The fruits are round and stand on their own stem above the leaves and at some times of the year have a bluish-green color (at others times they are bright red).

The stems can be pale greenish or red and turn grayer as they get older. They are moderately slender compared to the overall proportions of the plant, making Ricinus a better candidate for the VM plant than chestnut trees, which have thick trunks. While Ricinus leaf lobes can vary, Ricinus communis very often has seven lobes. Ricinus leaves tend to be alternate and Plant 6v shows them as opposite, so the correspondence between them isn’t perfect, but enough elements match to give it some consideration.

It’s my opinion that of the plants mentioned so far, Ricinus communis has more characteristics in common with Plant 6v than the others.

Posted by J.K. Petersen

Description

Plant 5v occupies about 2/3 of the page and is positioned under a 5 1/3-line block of text. The plant has an interesting oval shape in the center, rather decorative looking, a profusion of serrated or toothed leaves somewhat asymmetric in distribution (as opposed to a mint plant, for example, which branches very regularly).

There is a rounded brownish root with medium-thick tendrils extending out to the sides. The stem is only very lightly colored, with a soft brownish wash.

The leaves are mostly green, although some have been left lighter and some slightly brownish. It appears that the leaves of this plant may not be highly consistent in color or perhaps it’s later in the season and some leaves have begun to wither.

The flowers are at the ends of the stalks, have five petals, are colored red, a color not often used in the VM (most of the reds are brick red) and the calyx has been colored blue on the inside, but remains unpainted on the outside. A couple of the heads nod. This may be a characteristic of the plant or it may be a means of showing the flowerheads from a different angle.

The somewhat irregular, meandering path of the stems looks to me like this may be a vine, and since vines often intertwine, the oval shape in the top center may simply be a way of representing an intertwining vine.

Previous Identifications

Edith Sherwood has identified this as Malva sylvestris. While there are some similarities, there are also some significant differences. Malva leaves have a more fanlike shape, while Plant 5v appears more palmate serrated. Malva flowers emerge from the stem nodes, while the VM plant shows the flowers more concentrated at the ends of individual stalks. The ends of the petals of Malva tend to be broader and blunter than Plant 5v, which as more pointed petals. Malva roots tend not to be as tumescent as the root on Plant 5v.

Other Possibilities

The petals and plump root lead one to wonder if the VM plant is Anemone, for example, Anemone hortensis. It has palmate leaves, the stems curve somewhat, and the flower petals are a bright cheery red. But it’s not quite a match to Plant 5v. A. hortensis has more than five petals, the hairs emerging from the fleshy part of the root tend to travel down rather than sideways (and are finer), and the calyx doesn’t come up around the base of the flower in the same way as illustrated in Plant 5v. Also, A. hortensis leaves, while being palmate, are not serrated or toothed.

Many of the same things could be said of Paeonia officinalis. It has palmate leaves, bright red flowers, thickened roots, and stems that sometimes curve. But the leaves are really more odd pinnate than palmate, they’re not serrated, and the bumpy roots tend to orient more downward than sideways and to be connected with “strings” in a way that isn’t emphasized in the VM plant. There are five petals, but the calyx doesn’t quite match Plant 5v.

Potentilla has palmate leaves very similar to Voynich 5v, a vine-like quality and can sometimes have significantly enlarged roots, but the flowers are usually yellow and there are four petals, typically with more rounded margins than Plant 5v, rather than five.

Other than the roots and serrated, palmate leaves, the VM plant doesn’t resemble Aconitum (Monk’s hood) or Acanthus. Aconitum and Acanthus have distinct upward-growing stalks and a spike of hooded flowers quite different from the viny, more delicate nature of Plant 5v.

Cortusa matthioli warrants some consideration. It has enlarged roots, somewhat palmate, serrated leaves (though not as distinctly palmate as the VM plant), a somewhat curvy appearance, and lovely fucschia-colored starlike blossoms at the ends of the stalks, each with five petals. Of particular interest is the way some of the flowers nod more than others, just as shown in the VM drawing. But there are also differences. Cortusa has a more upright, rather than viny, growth habit, most of the leaves come from the base, just above the root, rather than along branching stems, and the single stem extends quite far from the lower leaves. It resembles Saxifrage or Primulus in general proportions rather than looking like a vine with leaves coming from the nodes as in Plant 5v. Still, it might be worth keeping Cortusa on the table, at least for now.

Manihot could be considered also. It has swollen roots, flowers at the ends of the stalks, and reddish stems but the leaves are more digitate than palmate and are not serrated.

There are some Geraniums that merit consideration, that have enlarged roots, palmate leaves, sometimes of gently curving stems, flowers at the ends of the stems that are sometimes red or bright pink, but the flower heads tend to have more flowers on each, in some cases arranged in umbels, and the petals tend to be more rounded than starlike.

Ranunculus shares many characteristics with wild Geranium in addition to which, it has a more viny habit than Geranium, setting out runners to propagate more plants. While many Ranunculus have a thick mass of tendrils, some species have bulbous roots. The leaves tend to be more lacinate than the VM plant, and some are quite rounded (similar to strawberry plants), but some are similar to VM 5v, as well. Most Ranunculus are yellow, but some are pink. The main difference between Ranunculus and Plant 5v is that Ranunculus petals tend to be very rounded, rather than pointed.

Potentilla and Ranunculus can be hard to tell apart, they share similar leaves, growth patterns, and blossoms, except that Potentilla has four petals, Ranunculus five. VM 5v has five.

Osmorhiza shares some characteristics with Plant 5v. It has a fleshy root, palmate, leaves (although they are more frondlike- than 5v), and delicate flowers at the ends of the stems, but the flowers tend to be arranged in umbels and are typically white. The calyx is more vase-shaped as the plant nears fruiting and the flower petals less distinct than Plant 5v.

Where vines are concerned, Convolvulus should always be considered, and it has enlarged roots (I always use the term “root” loosely since some roots are actually swollen stems rather than swollen roots), but the leaves tend to be larger and not quite so distinctly palmate as Plant 5v, and more importantly, the flowers are trumpet-shaped, with fused petals, rather than small and star-like.

The South American giant potato, a vine with somewhat palmate leaves, might be in the running, but the flowers are more trumpet-shaped and the leaves often more digitate, and unserrated.

I think it’s more likely that Plant 5v is Bryonia. Bryonia roots are more swollen than Malva, and have additional tendrils shooting out to the sides. The leaves are palmate, as in the VM drawing, and the flowers are more concentrated at the ends of individual branching vines. The petals of Bryonia are pointed, and more starlike than Malva and the calyx tips peek out from between the flower petals as they do in the VM drawing. The meandering quality of the VM plant is quite typical of Bryonia. The parts that don’t fit the VM drawing are the lack of tendrils (Bryonia has very distinct spiraling tenrils), and the color of the flowers. Bryonia flowers are almost always white, occasionally yellow. Red flowers, especially a red that stands out from other reds in the Voynich Manuscript, isn’t characteristic of Bryonia.

Nevertheless, in terms of the other characteristics, Bryonia should probably be considered. Is it possible Plant 5v flowers are painted red because they eventually turn into red berries? That might be a stretch, but until a better contender than Bryonia is found, maybe it’s possible. Or maybe the VM plant is something related to Bryonia, which is from the Cucurbitaceae family.

J.K. Petersen

Postscript Jan. 18, 2018: Since I originally posted the above blog, in July 2013, more public domain images have become available, so I am including them now, so you can see why I feel that Geranium/Pelargonium/Erodium should be considered as one of the possibilities for this plant. Many geranium species have palmate leaves, and some of them, like the one on the right (G. maculatum) and the larger picture at the bottom (G. glutinosum), have somewhat viny stalks that curve a bit and spread more than some of the upright species.

Geraniums (often called stork’s bill or crane’s bill) are commonly represented in medieval herbal manuscripts and books of recipes (with Geranium sanguineum as one example). Geranium palustre (which also resembles the VMS drawing) is said to have been spread across Europe by soldiers packing fodder for their horses and mules:

Geranium robertianum (a very widespread plant also known as herb Robert) was used medicinally in the early days, and is still used as a mosquito repellent:

Description

Folio 5r consists of two blocks of text followed by a plant picture that reaches almost to the bottom of the page.

The overall shape of Plant 5r is fairly typical of a number of woodland species. It has a long stalk with a whorl of leaves, another shorter length of stalk and a flower, bud, or fruit at the top. There are long sepals extending from the calyx that curve down from what resembles a single berry.

The roots are irregularly shaped with what appear to be modest tubers and extend to the sides like rhizomes.

The leaf whorl consists of about nine leaves and they have been painted alternately green and a slightly lighter green, possibly to help distinguish one from the next. The tips curl under in a manner that might be characteristic of the plant or which might indicate that it’s later in the year, as several plants with this basic structure do tend to curl both in the leaves and the sepals later in the year when the berry or other seed pod is fully ripe.

Prior Identifications

Edith Sherwood has identified 5r as Arnica montana, a flowering plant with elliptical basal leaves, a long stem, and a single yellow flower at the top. However, the VM illustrator has positioned large leaves high on the stem rather than a ground-level whorl of smaller leaves that differs noticeably from A. montana. Also, while Arnica montana frequently has a single stem, it can also branch and put out a flower at the end of each stem. VMS Plant 18r probably better represents Arnica montana (or one of its relatives) than Plant 5r. It seems unlikely that Plant 5r is Arnica montana.

Other Possibillities

There are a number of plants similar to Plant 5r in general arrangement, including Plants 15v, 27r, 29r, 42v, 44r (and possibly 55v, 35r and 28r). The shape of the leaves and their direction vary, as do the shape and number of berries, but they have the single-stalk, stem-whorl-off-the-ground shape in common.

The high stem whorl brings to mind a variety of plants like star flowers, cucumber root, trilliums, bunchberries (dwarf dogwood), and paris. They all have a lower stalk, a whorl of leaves, an upper stalk (usually a little shorter than the lower stalk), and a flower head at the top, often with a berry-shaped fruit forming later in the year. One might include Panax (ginseng) in this group, except that it has branching leaves. Plant 55r may have a short lower stalk and it’s difficult to tell whether Plant 35r has a long lower stalk, or a short stem and a long tap root. Judging by the color the stalk has been painted, it may be short.

It can also be debated whether 28r belongs in this group. At first glance it looks like it might, but the elaborate detailing on the upper “stem” may be part of the flower head and may come immediately out of the leaf whorl, in which case it doesn’t have an upper stalk like the previous examples.

There are also VM plants with the same basic shape as 5r that can be thought of as “double-decker” versions, with two sets of leaves, including 19v and 87r, but it’s important to try to discriminate between double-decker plants and drawings meant to represent plants that put out runners (e.g., strawberry plants). Plant 47r may be an example of a plant with a runner rather than with two tiers of leaves.

It’s tempting to declare that Plant 5r might be Paris, but the European versions of Paris rarely have this many leaves. There are some species of Paris with longer, more numerous leaves, but they tend to grow in Malaysia.

Other Possibilities

Plant 5r has a number of traits similar to star flower, also called Indian potato. Star flower (Trientalis latifolia) has a long stem and a whorl of elliptical leaves, but there are usually only about five leaves, and the stems tend to curve under the leaves when it begins to fruit, and the fruits are small and delicate. Also, star flower has quite a distinctive root, like a thumb, similar to Indian cucumber (an eastern cousin to the star flower), but quite small, and doesn’t match Plant 5r.

Maybe Indian cucumber (Medeola virginiana), a member of the lily family, should be considered. The roots are thumb-shaped and are larger and longer than those of star flower. They grow out sideways and are big enough to be eaten and could somewhat resemble the roots of Plant 5r. Notice that the roots of 5r have not been painted brown or reddish-brown like so many of the other plants. It’s very common for plants of the lily family to have light or white-colored roots, as do those of Indian cucumber. M. virginiana has another trait in common with Plant 5r—a distinctive berry topping the stem above the whorl of leaves.

M. virginiana is a closer match than star flower, but differs from Plant 5r in that it usually has two tiers of leaves and there are no distinctive filaments extending out beyond the fruit. Sometimes the fruits are single, but often there are three or more.

Eranthis cilicica, a Mediterranean plant, doesn’t look like Plant 5r until you dry it, and then the leaves curl under and the fruit sticks straight up above the leaves, but it doesn’t have prominent filaments nor is the fruit round.

Which brings us to Paris. Paris is actually quite a good match for Plant 5r. It has a whorl of leaves a number of inches from the ground and it forms a berry-like fruit cupped by long sepals. The light-colored root extends to one side.

Paris quadrifolia, as the name implies, as four leaves but they tend to spread out from the stem rather than curling under. P. quadrifolia is a Eurasian plant that is physically similar to Indian cucumber but belongs to a different family. It’s unusual to find examples of P. quadrifolia with more than four leaves.

Most Paris species don’t grow in Europe. There is a wide variety of these spidery plants known as Paris or Daiswa gracing the forests of Malaysia and northern India, often at higher elevations. Eastern species frequently have between six and nine leaves and many of them have two tiers of leaves. Some form a single berry-like fruit. Others have a ring of smaller fruits that look like the bumps on the end of a hairbrush. Some have a knobby root, others have finer root hairs. Most of them have long slender structures between the fruit and the top whorl of leaves the resembles a calyx (or might be a calyx). Some of them are a good match for Plant 5r but the ones that are closest in terms of roots, leaves, and fruit often have two tiers of leaves, rather than the single whorl of leaves on Plant 5r.

Summary

Since there are several possible candidates for Plant 5r, I’m reluctant to single out any one of them as the most likely just yet but I’m quite certain 5r is not Arnica montana. It’s much more likely that Plant 18r, if it’s not Calendula may be Arnica Montana.

Posted by J.K. Petersen

Folio 4r – Interpretations

It’s rare for me to look at other researchers’ plant identifications. I’m worried I might be unduly influenced and lose whatever objectivity I may have. The only ones that I’ve perused with any regularity are those by Edith Sherwood, mainly because they pop up frequently on Google when searching for general plant information.

I made an exception for the plant on Folio 4r, however. because my curiosity got the better of me. Was I seeing something different from others? or rehashing old ground?

My first search took me, predictably, to Edith Sherwood’s site where Plant 4r is identified as alpine saxifrage (Saxifraga cespitosa). Once again, as I have on the majority of Sherwood’s IDs, I have to disagree—while the leaves and seed capsules may look superficially similar, there are some important differences between  S. cespitosa and Plant 4r:

• S. cespitosa does not have the stiff-looking linear leaves of Plant 4r.
• S. cespitosa leaves are palmate and grow mainly around the base, not up along the stem. They also do not form the long branches found in 4r, preferring a more rosette-like habit.
• The seed capsules of S. cespitosa are rounded, but that’s where the similarity ends—there is no little knob at the top, nor are the sepals positioned as they are on 4r.

Given these significant differences, I don’t think it’s likely that Plant 4r is S. cespitosa.

My second search took me to a recent post (July 2013) by Ellie Velinska. where she summarizes some of the IDs already extant on the Web, including one by Steve D. that identifies Plant 4r as Flax (Linum usitatissimum). Steve did a good job of finding a seed capsule with characteristics similar to 4r—it has a rounded center, surrounding sepals, and a central “knob.” Also, the narrow leaves are arranged along the stem rather than forming a basal rosette. I think it’s a more valid proposal than Sherwood’s S. cespitosa but I wasn’t completely convinced the VM illustrator intended L. usitatissimum because flax leaves would not typically be represented with green and red leaves, or with very short, tight leaves. I felt there were plants that might match Plant 4r more closely.

Historic Identifications

My third search brought me to identifications in the 1940s by Theodore Petersen (no relation), where Centaurium erythraea and Hypericum were suggested. C. erythraea has opposite leaves spaced widely apart, and the seed capsules are long and narrow and not similar to Plant 4r. Hypericum seed capsules are quite variable, from those with two pointed tips to others that resemble a berry, but even those with similar fruits don’t have all the characteristics of 4r and the leaves of Hypericum, while sometimes both green and red, are typically wider and more broadly spaced than Plant 4r.

Hypericum coris has narrow leaves and reddish stems, but lack the knob on the seed capsules, as do the capsules of H. brachyphyllum and H. fasciculatum.  Hypericum repens might be considered except that the leaves are wider and more regularly spaced, rather than clustered, as they are in 4r.

An argument could possibly be made for Hypericum kalmianum, H. linarifolium, or H. cistifolium, as the fruits have both sepals and knob, and the leaves are narrow, but they are more broadly spaced along the stem than 4r and, in the case of H. cistifolium, the leaves are lyrate, a detail the VM illustrator most likely would have noted since lyrate leaves are expressly emphasized on other plants. Also, H. cistifolium has a taproot, rather than the spidery roots of Plant 4r. H. linarifolium and H. lloydii don’t branch in the same way as Plant 4r.

Suggested IDs

When I first saw 4r, it reminded me of rosemary, especially bog rosemary (Andromeda polifolia), which grows throughout Europe. Bog rosemary has short stiff leaves that alternate up along the stems, rounded seed capsules with surrounding sepals and, at one point (as it ripens, before it turns brown and splits), a little knob on the top. The roots are spindly and they spread in all directions.

Dwarf bog rosemary (Andromeda glaucophylla) should also be considered. It has the stiff linear leaves, round, knobbed seed capsules and the upright posture of Plant 4r. The stems are a brownish burnt-orange. It differs mainly in that the leaves are a little longer and less clustered than 4r.

An argument could be made for bog laurel (Kalmia polifolia), especially considering that red and green leaves are often seen together in the fall, but bog laurel has a very long distinct “knob” on the seed capsule, and the leaves are somewhat longer and more broadly spaced than 4r.

Deserving equal consideration to A. polifolia is Loiseleuria/Azalea procumbens, a low, stiff plant that grows in arctic and alpine environments. The leaves are similar to rosemary, short and narrow, the seed capsules are round, with surrounding sepals and a knob that ranges from short to medium-length. The branching pattern is a reasonably good match for Plant 4r and the leaves are mostly opposite, although some are alternate. Given a choice between the two, it’s difficult to decide which is a closer match, especially considering the limited artistic skills of the VM illustrator. It might be meaningful that L. procumbens is far less common than A. polifolia but I wouldn’t want to assert that one is more likely than the other until more information is available.

As for one of the narrow-leaved Hypericum species… it’s possible one of them matches 4r, but the spacing of the leaves is broader than Plant 4r, so it should perhaps only be considered after some of the others.

Postscript: Dec. 2013

Plant Annotations

A later search, about half a year after I had written the above, didn’t take me to a plant ID, as I had expected. Instead, I stumbled on the VoynichCrypt and an interpretation of the symbols on the lower part of the plant stem. There is an intriguing and somewhat complex explanation of the page of symbols as the initials T O 2, extrapolated to signify a biblical reference.

I think the answer is much simpler. First of all, I don’t think it’s T O 2. If you read this as typical handwritten script of the time, it can be read, from top to bottom as lowercase r o t. Lowercase t in medieval manuscripts is often difficult to distinguish from the letter c except for the slightly straighter top bar. There are German-like words sprinkled throughout the VM, including short annotations on other plant pages, a top margin note, and some of the longer text on the last page. They are not quite German, but close. In German rot means red.

My guess is that the 4r stem annotation describes the color of the stem or (more likely, since the painter’s palette was limited) is an instruction for the color to use for painting the stem, just as the leaf on the plant on Folio 1v has a “g” that may stand for “grün” which is green.

So this link didn’t lead to any further information on the identity of Plant 4r, but it was an interesting side tour into some of the more creative interpretations of the manuscript.

Posted by J.K. Petersen

This is a placeholder page.

I have a mass of information on the Voynich Manuscript plants on my hard drive and I am uploading them and linking the pictures as I have time. This is not easy, since I am working long days, these days, but I’ll get the task done as quickly as I am able.