I am not convinced by the provenance history of the VMS

[JoJo_Jost]

As I’ve already mentioned here, I, too, believe that some of these could be simple depictions of plant cross-sections.

From this post onward:

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

These structures do not necessarily have to be diatoms; based on their basic structure, they also occur in plants—as is so often the case, very small structures arise within larger structures because these are simply mathematical, biological, and physical processes that inevitably “must” lead to these formations.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

In this context, I examined whether the theory of plant cross-sections was anachronistic for the 15th century. It is not. At that time, magnifying stones—made from polished rock crystal or quartz—were indeed in use.

It is therefore not necessarily logical to conclude from this that the manuscript was created much later.

Also, many of the larger vessels have feet, which doesn’t quite fit either, and as I show here, some of the vessels could easily be turned into tubes—which aligns with the tubes on the previous pages:

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

And here you can see that these vessels were also used in a somewhat different way:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

From this perspective, there are many other possibilities for what these vessels could be—I don’t really see them as microscopes.