The pictures don't have text in them.

Saw the pictures of the animals and thought, 'hope the pictures of the herbs are better than the animals' and then read below "The botanical imprecision of the 160 pictures, in any case, would have made identification of particular plants in nature difficult."

Doesn't seem like the book would have been real useful.

I believe the commenter who I was originally responding to was talking about prints of the art in the article, not a reprint of the book.