On 55v, there is a note: This recipe seems to be taken from Albertus Magnus: https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k97691521/f57.item.r=raifort
As it turns out, the link takes you to a book of "the Secrets of Albertus Magnus" printed by a publisher active betw 1784-1984 (or some similar span of years--Epinal/Pellerin). There are many pseudonymous "secrets of Albertus magnus" published from the late 14th century on, and they may well contain this recipe, but this note is not a scholarly reference, altho it is kind of useful info for the person who wants to explore further.
What to do? Any thoughts? I cannot think of brief definitive editorial-comment-like way of saying "this recipe may be associated with the pseudonymous Secrets of Albertus Magnus" without giving some sort of reference to back that up. My different scholarly and information-loving instincts are at war here.... Maybe I should be thinking of the editorial comments not as definitive statements, but, like the rest of the Edition, an invitation to further research and exploration...
We had discussed using language that was not definitive, like "this could" or "potentially" etc. We could also end comments like the one here with "...More research is needed"