bought it: New Grammar of Ornament.
At first glance the examples seem to be more about cataloguing the different structures for creating patterns than about actual ornaments as embellishments.
The title “A new grammar of ornament” seems a bit too eager to refer back to and build upon the 1856 book Grammar of Ornament. The focus in the new one is very much on the grammar part. Categories like “Minimal triangular with dots” and “minimal triangular with lines” primarily refer to how individual parts in the pattern relate to eachother while at the same time choosing to consider only the most elementary units of ornament: dots, lines, shapes. This may be intentional so that the focus actually stays on the grammatical rules underlying the patterns. But then why are the examples in the old grammar so much richer?