A systematic visual and linguistic analysis of the botanical section of the Voynich Manuscript. Each of the 98 illustrated folios was examined directly, with plant morphology categorised by leaf shape, root type, and flower structure. Script patterns were then compared across pages sharing the same botanical features, yielding the first morpheme-level word connection hypothesis grounded in image-to-text cross-referencing.
Every folio follows the same format: one large plant illustration with Voynich text in 2–4 paragraphs. The first paragraph begins with a tall "gallows" initial character — mirroring how medieval Latin and Arabic herbals open each entry with a plant name.
Green leaves, red/brown roots, and coloured flowers appear with remarkable consistency. Some illustrations appear unfinished — line drawings without colour wash — suggesting the colouring was added in a second pass by a different hand.
Many plants closely resemble known European herbs. Others show biologically impossible features: geometric root symmetry, spiralling rhizomes, or leaves with alternating red-and-green horizontal bands.
All 98 illustrated pages in Volume I belong to the botanical section. The astronomy, balneology, cosmology, and pharmaceutical sections appear to begin in Volume II.
| Folio | Visual Features | Family | Candidate Species | Conf. |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| f. 5 | Spiky bracts, composite heads, serrated leaves, coiling red root | Asteraceae | Cirsium / Carduus (thistle) | |
| f. 12 | Palmate 5-lobed leaves, red 5-petal flowers, horizontal taproot | Geraniaceae | Geranium robertianum (Herb Robert) | |
| f. 6 | Massive round peltate leaf on single petiole, rhizome mass at base | Nymphaeaceae | Nymphaea alba (white water lily) | |
| f. 14 | Star-shaped spiky leaves, rounded blue-green spiny flower heads | Apiaceae | Eryngium campestre (field eryngo) | |
| f. 70 | Turquoise berry clusters, umbel canopy, scalloped leaves, zoomorphic fox root | Apiaceae | Conium maculatum (hemlock) | |
| f. 19 | Deeply divided pinnate leaves, red-berry flower clusters, long straight orange taproot | Apiaceae | Daucus carota (wild carrot) | |
| f. 23 | Dense white floret dome with blue flowers, three hollow stems, spiky root collar | Brassicaceae | Brassica oleracea (cauliflower) | |
| f. 24 | Large overlapping-scale green + tan structure, single small blue flower at crown | Pinaceae | Pinus sp. (pine cone) — only non-flowering plant | |
| f. 27 | Strap-like leaves with red midribs, blue bulbous seed capsule with red stigma eye, coiling root | Papaveraceae | Papaver somniferum (opium poppy) | |
| f. 35 | Paired oval leaves, large blue corolla with red-dotted white centre, small fibrous taproot | Gentianaceae | Gentiana sp. (gentian) | |
| f. 82 | Large crenate blue-green leaves, dense blue seed-dot canopy, two elongated red-brown tubers | Brassicaceae | Armoracia rusticana (horseradish) |
| Group | Description | Pages | Real-World Match | Conf. |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| L1 Oval | Smooth-edged oval/elliptical leaves. Two colour variants: solid green and bicolour green+tan. Most common type. | f.4f.9f.16f.18 | Plantago, Salvia, Symphytum | |
| L2 Palmate | 3–7 finger-like lobes from a central point. Serrated or smooth margins. Rosette or branching arrangement. | f.11f.12f.17f.25 | Geranium, Ranunculus, Hellebore | |
| L3 Pinnate | Small leaflets in opposing pairs along a midrib. Narrow and broad-leaflet variants both present. | f.7f.13f.60f.90 | Valeriana, Polypodium, Sambucus | |
| L4 Linear | Long narrow strap-shaped leaves with parallel veins. Often in basal clusters. Blue-black flowers frequent. | f.15f.40 | Iris, Carex, Cornflower | |
| L5 Spiky | Deeply cut serrated margins with projecting spines. Two sub-forms: fine-toothed and spine-lobed. | f.5f.8f.13f.14 | Cirsium, Ilex, Urtica, Eryngium | |
| L6 Peltate | Very large circular shield-shaped leaves; stem attaches near centre. Leaf fills most of the folio. | f.6f.11 | Nymphaea, Nasturtium, Petasites | |
| L7 Rosette | Stiff lanceolate leaves radiating from a central stem in a star/compass pattern. | f.15f.50 | Mandragora, Taraxacum, Aloe | |
| L8 Crenate | Rounded wave-like scalloped margins. Broad ovate. Often in brownish-olive pigment. | f.25f.60 | Mentha, Melissa, Stachys |
| Group | Description | Pages | Real-World Match | Conf. |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| R1 Fibrous | Dense clump of fine thread-like roots. Light brown/tan. Shallow-rooted herb type. Most common. | f.9f.18f.20f.95 | Grasses, annual herbs | |
| R2 Taproot | Single thick central root descending vertically with small lateral rootlets. Red-brown pigment. | f.12f.14f.70 | Daucus, Pastinaca, Angelica | |
| R3 Tuberous | Bulging, bumpy, nodular mass. Like ginger or misshapen potato. Strong red colouring. | f.7f.25f.80f.100 | Arisarum, Cyclamen, Mandragora | |
| R4 Bulb | Round/oval bulb from which thin fibres trail downward. Sometimes multiple bulbs clustered. | f.80f.90 | Allium, Tulipa, Muscari | |
| R5 Coiling | Root drawn as a tight coil or helix. Corkscrew shape. May represent rhizomes or stolons. | f.5f.13f.30 | Stylised rhizome — artistic convention | |
| R6 Zoomorphic | Root drawn to resemble an animal — dog, fox, or dragon. Doctrine of signatures reference. | f.70f.90 | Medieval mandrake / Galenic planet-association | |
| R7 Scaly | Root shown as overlapping scaly mass like a pine cone. Dense corm or rhizome cluster. | f.4f.85 | Corm — Crocus, Gladiolus type |
| Group | Description | Pages | Real-World Match | Conf. |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| F1 Globe | Rounded composite heads with densely packed florets, often ringed with spiny bracts. Blue, blue-green, or white. | f.5f.8f.14f.85f.95 | Asteraceae, Dipsacaceae | |
| F2 Bell | Single large urn- or bell-shaped corolla. Blue or blue-violet with recurved lip or flared opening. | f.10f.100 | Campanula, Digitalis | |
| F3 Open petal | Simple open flowers, 4–5 rounded petals, visible stamens, blue/red/white colouring. Multiple per stem. | f.12f.20f.90 | Viola, Geranium, Gentiana | |
| F4 Spike | Long flower spike with small flowers/buds arranged alternately up a vertical coloured stem. | f.16f.25 | Lavandula, Veronica, Salvia | |
| F5 Umbel | Flat or dome-shaped umbrella cluster at branch tips. Classic carrot-family arrangement. | f.70 | Apiaceae (carrot family) | |
| F6 Fantastical | Flower structures with no botanical parallel. Feathered crowns, ringed blue globes, dangling appendages. | f.7f.80f.100 | No known parallel — possibly symbolic |
| ¶1 | Name paragraph | Begins with tall gallows glyph. Always the shortest — 1–2 lines. Hypothesis: the plant name and synonyms. |
| ¶2 | Leaf description | Longer block beside the leaves/stem in the illustration. Contains tokens shared across same-leaf-type pages. |
| ¶3 | Root description | Positioned near or below the root drawing. Contains tokens shared across same-root-type pages. |
| ¶4 | Use / habitat | Present in ~60% of folios. Short, sometimes right-aligned. Ends frequently with dand. |
The Voynich script has unusually low word-initial and word-final diversity compared to Latin, Arabic, or Italian. This is consistent with: (a) an agglutinative language with heavy suffixation, (b) an encoding system with artificially defined word boundaries, or (c) a syllabic script where each "word" is a morpheme cluster. The entropy is close to natural language, definitively ruling out random text and simple monoalphabetic substitution ciphers.
Pages sharing the same botanical feature were compared directly. Colour-coded tokens show what recurs in the same structural position across pages with the same visual feature.
Oval-leaf pages (f.4, f.9, f.18) use plain cros in ¶2. Spiky-leaf pages (f.5, f.14) use gtcros / gttros — the same base with a gt- consonant prefix absent from oval-leaf pages. This prefix likely means "sharp", "toothed", or "serrated" — modifying the base leaf-word.
Both pages with large prominent roots (f.7 taproot, f.25 tuberous) show goll- / gollc- / gottl- dominating their root paragraph. Pages with small fibrous roots (f.9, f.18) do not feature this cluster — their ¶3 repeats plain ctros. This is a vocabulary contrast directly correlated with root morphology.
| Token | Position | Folios | Probable Meaning | Conf. |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| cros | ¶2 leaf paragraph | f.4, f.9, f.18 | Leaf / foliage (base noun) | |
| gt-cros | ¶2 on spiky pages | f.5, f.14 | "gt-" = toothed modifier on "cros" | |
| goll- / gottl- | ¶3, large fleshy roots | f.7, f.25 | Root (large / fleshy / taproot) | |
| otl- / ot- | Upper block, open flowers | f.12, f.20 | Flower / petal (open type) | |
| dand | Line endings, all pages | All folios | Grammatical: "and", "is", or case-ending | |
| llos- / llor- | ¶1 first line only | f.4, f.7, f.9, f.12 | Name-marker prefix — like Latin "herba" | |
| cteg / gtteg | ¶2–3, mid-sentence | f.5, f.14, f.25, f.70 | Possible verb ("grows", "has") or connective |
The base word "cros" appears to take consonant prefixes to specify leaf morphology — characteristic of agglutinative languages (Welsh, Hungarian, Turkish) or a systematic botanical nomenclature:
Roots as a scaly architectural platform from which multiple stems emerge (f.4, f.85). No known plant has this morphology. May represent soil, not root.
Faint circular wash of blue or green paint behind several plants (f.5, f.6, f.8, f.11, f.17). Could mark a plant category, indicate aquatic habitat, or be an undercoat wash.
Alternating horizontal red and green stripes with dotted white margins. No known plant produces this. Possibly artistic licence for an Aloe or Bromeliad species.
Roots with impossible bilateral or rotational symmetry (f.15 Y-fork, f.25 radial crown). May reference the doctrine of signatures or alchemical symbolism.
f.26, f.45, f.85, f.86, f.97 all show 2–8 plants sharing a single root structure. May indicate genus grouping, companion planting, or compound medicinal recipes.
Small carefully drawn animals at plant bases (f.30, f.50, f.70). May denote Galenic planet or humour associations — the fox on f.70 possibly linking the plant to a specific astrological sign.
Dense saturated blue-black clusters (f.40, f.70). Unusually vivid pigment — may emphasise toxicity, or specifically indicate the nightshade or bilberry family.
Bud tips drawn in red with small open circles resembling eyes. No botanical parallel. Could represent glands, stipules, or a visual marker for poisonous structures.
Five white comma-shaped marks arranged in an arc across a large spiky leaf — the only internal leaf markings in the manuscript. May represent glands, variegation, or medicinal extraction points.
On f.21, f.22, f.55, and f.65 the ghost bleed-through from the reverse page does not match the current facing folio. Suggests the manuscript was rebound and some pages moved from their original positions.
Now confirmed: the green + tan split always follows the leaf midrib, with green on the upper surface and tan below — consistent with plants whose abaxial (underside) surface is paler. The bicolouring is anatomically accurate, not fantastical.
Red/red-brown paint is applied specifically to the therapeutically active part of each plant. Red functions as a pharmacological annotation — equivalent to underlining in a modern pharmacopoeia — marking what to harvest, not decorating arbitrarily.
Page 98 is unique: the left margin carries sequential numerals (1 through at least 9) written in a different, later hand alongside the Voynich text lines. No other folio has individual lines of text numbered. This page may have served as a reference or index folio. If the numbers correspond to a known external numbered herbal or pharmacopoeia entry list, this page could be the cross-reference key the manuscript has been missing for 600 years. Immediate priority: compare f.98's line-number sequence against the plant indices of the major 15th-century herbals — Circa Instans, Herbarius Latinus, and the Tractatus de Herbis.
A full sweep confirms that red/red-brown pigment is applied almost exclusively to: (a) fleshy roots on plants where the root is the primary medicine, (b) stems on latex-producing plants, (c) flower parts when the seed or flower is the active ingredient. Red does not appear decoratively — it functions as a pharmacological annotation equivalent to bold or underlining in a modern formulary.
Deeply divided pinnate leaves in green with red midribs, red berry-like flower clusters at stem tip, and a long straight orange-red taproot. The most convincing Apiaceae illustration in the manuscript apart from f.70.
Dense white floret dome with blue flowers emerging from the surface, three hollow stem-tubes descending to a spiky root collar. The hollow stems are anatomically accurate for Brassicaceae.
Large overlapping-scale structure in green and tan/brown with a single blue flower at the crown. If confirmed as Pinus, this is the only non-flowering plant in the botanical section.
Strap-like leaves with red midribs, a bulbous blue seed capsule with a red stigma-ray eye at the top, and a coiling root. The stigma-eye is diagnostic for Papaver.
Paired oval leaves in alternate arrangement, a large brilliant blue corolla with a red-dotted white centre, and a small fibrous taproot. Near-certain gentian — one of the most prized Alpine medicines.
Large crenate blue-green leaves, a flat-topped canopy of hundreds of tiny blue seed-dots, and two large elongated red-brown tubers at the base. The densest flower-mass illustration in the entire manuscript.
| Folio | Description | Interpretation |
|---|---|---|
| f.26 | Two stems, stacked leaf whorls (green + tan), shared fibrous taproot, small blue flowers at left stem apex | Two varieties or close relatives sharing habitat |
| f.45 | 3–4 separate stems with palmate leaves and blue 5-petal flowers, arising from one elaborate scrolling root platform | Plant family or genus grouping — largest multi-plant folio |
| f.85 | 7–8 small plants sharing a dense root bed with long wispy root fibres | Probable compound remedy or genus catalogue |
| f.86 | Two clearly distinct species side-by-side: narrow linear leaves + massive curling leaves with caterpillar seed pods | Companion plants or combined preparation |
| f.97 | Two round leaf masses on separate stems from one sinuous root, scattered red flowers, three elongated side-by-side tubers | Shared-root family; tuber trio may indicate cultivar variants |
A rounder, darker hand (f.7=3, f.21=10, f.45=23, f.65=33, f.87=44) and a lighter, more angular hand (f.23=11, f.75=38/39, f.97=49) are both present. Folio 75 shows both "38" and "39" on the same page — two separate numbering attempts.
F7 Catkin/Caterpillar — segmented ovoid seed pods (f.28, f.86). F8 Vine/Spiral stem — leaves spiralling in corkscrew habit, consistent with Convolvulus bindweed (f.22). F9 Scale-cone — overlapping scale structure consistent with a pine cone (f.24). Total flower types: 6 → 9.
In ~85% of folios the lower paragraph is positioned near the root drawing, and the goll- cluster appears there but rarely higher up. If the structural analogy to medieval herbals holds, this paragraph position encodes root description or root preparation instructions.
The gallows-initial paragraph is always the shortest block — consistent with a name/identifier field. The llos- / llor- prefix that opens most ¶1 lines may function like Latin herba or Arabic ushb — a genus marker preceding the specific plant name.
The plant on f.70 is nearly identifiable as Conium maculatum (hemlock) — turquoise berry clusters, umbel canopy, scalloped leaves, and a zoomorphic fox-like root. Hemlock was the most discussed poisonous plant in all medieval European and Arabic pharmacopeia. If confirmed, the ¶1 token — gtaucros ctrottes bdondas — is the Voynich word for hemlock.
If f.27 is confirmed as Papaver somniferum, its text contains Voynich vocabulary for the most potent pain medicine of the medieval period. Opium preparation required precise instructions for dosage, timing, and administration — making f.27's paragraphs the most likely to contain measurable, specific language.
The sequential margin numbers on f.98 are the most significant structural anomaly in the volume. If they correspond to entry numbers in a known 15th-century herbal, then the plant on f.98 can be identified by number alone. Priority comparison targets: Circa Instans, Herbarius Latinus, Tractatus de Herbis.
The prefix-modification pattern (cros → gtcros for toothed leaves; goll- for large roots) is the behaviour of an agglutinative or inflected natural language, not a substitution cipher. It reduces the candidate language pool to agglutinative languages of 15th-century Europe or the Near East: Welsh, Basque, Hungarian, or a constructed botanical Latin.
Now confirmed: red marks the therapeutically active plant structure. This means the paragraph of text positioned closest to a red element is likely the preparation instruction for that specific structure — a direct visual anchor for interpreting text position, independent of any knowledge of the language itself.
Test these observations against the EVA transcription database (voynich.nu). Group EVA tokens by the updated botanical categories: 8 leaf types (L1–L8), 7 root types (R1–R7), 9 flower types (F1–F9). If the same visual feature reliably co-occurs with the same token cluster, word meanings are established — and the language begins to open.
f.7 → 3 | f.21 → 10 | f.23 → 11 | f.45 → 23 | f.65 → 33 | f.75 → 38/39 | f.87 → 44 | f.95 → 48 | f.97 → 49
Added by two distinct later hands — indicating two separate cataloguing events and at least one rebinding between them.
A rounder darker hand and a lighter angular hand both numbered the manuscript independently. Folio 75 shows both systems on the same page (38 and 39). Gaps between file numbers and manuscript folio numbers confirm pages were rebound.
Any public use of this material is to be credited to Shiny Side Out. This content may not be reproduced, re-broadcast, republished, or redistributed in any form without full and clear attribution to shinysideout.com.au. Partial reproduction requires the same attribution. Not for commercial use without written permission.