Fig 1.
Historical timeline of 16th-century Italian herbaria.
Fig 2.
The Rome herbarium puzzle.
Fig 3.
The En Tibi herbarium (A) and specimens of Anemone hortensis (B) and Tulipa sylvestris (C).
Fig 4.
Botanical similarity between the En Tibi and five contemporary herbaria.
100%: exact similarity; 75%: large similarity; 50% partial similarity; 25%: vague or coincidental similarity; 0%: similarity. The similarity with the Rome herbarium is estimated for Erbario B and at a second step combined Erbario B and Erbario C (See Fig 2 and S1 Appendix).
Fig 5.
En Tibi (A) vs. Rome herbarium (B), and Cibo painting (C). See also S4 Appendix.
Fig 6.
Ranunculus arvensis (left) and R. gracilis (right) in the En Tibi (A) and Rome herbarium (B).
Fig 7.
Salix x rubra in the En Tibi (A) and Rome herbarium (B). Galls are indicated with arrows.
Fig 8.
Scrophularia canina in the En Tibi (A) and Rome herbarium (B).
Fig 9.
Examples of handwriting of the En Tibi, Rome herbarium and candidate makers.
En Tibi index and content (A); Erbario B index (B); Erbario C index (C); Gherardo Cibo (D); Francesco Petrollini (E).
Fig 10.
Type S (short-tip; left) and type L (long-tip; right).
Fig 11.
Parchment fragments found during the En Tibi’s restoration.