Plagiarising Science Fraud

Plagiarising Science Fraud
Newly Discovered Facts, Published in Peer Reviewed Science Journals, Mean Charles Darwin is a 100 Per Cent Proven Lying, Plagiarising Science Fraudster by Glory Theft of Patrick Matthew's Prior-Published Conception of the Hypothesis of Macro Evolution by Natural Selection

Saturday 27 June 2015

Patrick Matthew is No Longer Buried in Oblivion

Trumpet form the rooftopsAttribution
Scottish Daily Mail page 21 Friday April 11 2014

Darwin’s cat is well and truly out of the bag.

On Friday the 11th April a national newspaper, the Scottish Daily Mail, ran the following story on a body of research that has been unfolding here on Best Thinking from the start of 2014.
Caven (2014, p.21):

Did Darwin copy ideas for Origin of Species?

‘For centuries he has been credited with laying the foundations surrounding the theory of evolution.
Almost single-handedly Charles Darwin transformed the way people thought about the natural world and how it evolved over time.
But there has been a suspicion that the English-born naturalist and geologist established his theory on the strength of earlier work carried out by a Scottish scientist.
Critics now suspect Darwin only wrote his Origin of Species after reading the work of Patrick Matthew, writing nearly three decades earlier.
The explosive new claims of alleged plagiarism more than 150 years ago were revealed last night by a top criminologist during the Festival of Science in Edinburgh.
Dr Mike Sutton, of Nottingham Trent University, insisted that, without the contribution of the Scot, Darwin may never have written his theory.
He said: “Until now, Matthew has been credited with having discovered the theory prior to Darwin but no one has been able to prove to within reasonable doubt that Darwin read – or was otherwise influenced by – his prior-published discovery of 1831.”
But thanks to the latest hi-tech research methods, the criminologist has unearthed newly discovered literature that proves seven naturalists – three of whom were well known to Darwin – cited Matthew’s book years before 1859, when the Origin of Species was published.
Dr Sutton admitted the mystery may never be solved.
But he added: ‘This unique and brand new discovery is one of many newsworthy bombshells now blasting to smithereens current mythical Darwinist accounts of the origin of Darwin’s Origin of Species.’


Caven, B, (2014) Did Darwin copy ideas for Origin of Species. The Scottish Daily Mail. April 11th. p. 21.

Note: The blog post was first published on Best Thinking April 13th 2014
Visit the Patrick Matthew website to learn more about the true biological father of natural selection.

Read the book that reveals the new facts that re-told the story of the discovery of natural selection

Sunday 21 June 2015

Green Ink Analysis

I thought it might be useful to actually go out into the field and collect some examples of "green ink analysis".
Here is my contribution to get the collection rolling.
This one from a creationist website - scroll down to find the "green ink" bits (click).
If the subject matter on that creationist site is also of interest it is discussed here.

Patrick Matthew and Intelligent Design

Dr Mike Weale - Reader in Statistical Genetics - of Kings College London thinks evidence supports his unique conclusion that the full theory of natural selection was first proposed from a premise that it was designed by supernatural intelligence - Here

Friday 19 June 2015

Scotland's Greatest Scientific Discovery?

Trumpet form the rooftopsAttribution
Darwin and Wallace were influenced by Matthew's prior-discovery, replicated it and then claimed zero-prior knowledge of it.
1. Daniel C. Dennett (1996) :
‘…the single best idea anyone has ever had, I’d give it to Darwin, ahead of Newton and Einstein and everyone else. In a single stroke, the idea of evolution by natural selection unifies the realm of life, meaning, and purpose with the realm of space and time, cause and effect, mechanism and physical law.
2. We know it is not Darwin’s original idea. Matthew discovered and published it 27 years before Darwin and knowledge contamination from Matthew's published discovery to Darwin and Wallace happened pre-1858 (Sutton 2014).
Wallace. Moreover, we now know that, despite each man claiming to have done so, that neither Darwin nor Wallace discovered it independently either. Because in 2014 I published my unique discovery of multiple instances of Matthewian knowledge contamination of the work of Darwin and Wallace.

4. There can be now only one independent discoverer of natural selection!
5. Do you think, as do I, that this new discovery of who really discovered the World’s greatest scientific discovery, which was then misappropriated by those attributed with independently discovering it, is an important discovery in its own right? If so, then please trumpet it from the rooftops.


The Scots need now to add this discovery to their already impressive list of great Scottish discoveries. So far, it's off their radar - See Top 20 Discoveries Made in Scotland   


Dennett, D. C. (1996) Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life. Great Britain. The Penguin Press.
Sutton, M. (2014) Internet Dating with Darwin: New Discovery that Darwin and Wallace were Influenced by Matthew's Prior-Discovery.

NOTE: Visit for more information.

Monday 15 June 2015

Patrick Matthew's theory of natural selection was read by naturalists before1858

Amazingly, Darwin really did have the audacity to claim that Matthew's book on trees was literally unread by any naturalists before 1860.

Making excuses for not having read the one book in the world he most needed to read and cite because his own work replicated so much that had been published in it 27 years before he and Wallace claimed to have independently discovered the same complex theory, alighted upon the same four words to name for it and highly idiosyncratic examples to support and explain it, Darwin's letter of reply to Matthew's claim to priority was published in the Gardeners' Chronicle (1860). Penned on April 13, and forwarded to the Chronicle by his best friend Joseph Hooker (published on April 21 1860), Darwin wrote:
"I have been much interested by Mr Patrick Matthew's communication in the Number of your Paper, dated April 7th. I freely acknowledge that Mr Matthew has anticipated by many years the explanation which I have offered of the origin of species, under the name of natural selection. I think that no one will feel surprised that neither I, nor apparently any other naturalist, had heard of Mr Matthew's views, considering how briefly they are given, and they appeared in the Appendix to a work on Naval Timber and Arboriculture. I can do no more than offer my apologies to Mr Matthew for my entire ignorance of his publication.'
It is emphasized in my book (Sutton 2014) Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret    that Darwin's claim about Matthew's book was a fallacy, because other naturalists - indeed important naturalists known to both Darwin and Wallace - did read and then cite Matthew's book pre-1860. Matthew did tell Darwin about Loudon's 1832 review in 1860, but that information, that Loudon was a naturalist, seems to have passed under everyone's radar as being a lead worth following up.
Before my 'game changing' discovery of 2014, that a further six naturalists read Matthew's book, many Darwinists, credulously reprinted Darwin's fallacy that none read it as though it is, of itself, answer enough without further commentary on its likelihood of being true. And with no commentary on the fact that Matthew's published letter of reply proved it untrue. In other words, Darwinists used their namesake's excuse that no naturalists read Matthew's book as a perfectly reasonable reason for Darwin supposedly not reading Matthew's book. Darwinists simply reprinted Darwin's letter claiming that no naturalist had read Matthew's book. By so doing, their behaviour was akin to Christians reprinting what they call 'the Gospel truth" as though it should stand, unquestioned, on its own as the literal truth.
I pick on the following four Darwinists merely to serve as examples of this credulous attitude and Supermyth-spreading behavior:

  1. Stephen J Gould    (1987, p. 336, in 'The Flamingo's Smile: Reflections in Natural History'.unquestionably reprints Darwin's letter as though it is unquestionably right.
  2. Michael Shermer (2002)    In Darwin's Shadow: The Life and Science of Alfred Russel Wallace: A Biographical Study on the Psychology of History also reprinted Darwin's explanation, without a word of doubt in the likelihood of its veracity, but claimed instead - incredibly - that it was good evidence that Darwin was hardly an ideological plagiarizer.
  3. Rebecca Stott (2012, p. 11)     Simply reprints Darwin's fallacy verbatim as though it were true, failing to question the likelihood that it might not be the literal truth.
  4. Andrew Norman (2013, p. 169) in Charles Darwin: Destroyer of Myths    admirably felt it necessary to investigate - and so affirm - Matthew's claim that his book received prominent reviews, but less admirably, Norman also unquestionably reprinted Darwin's letter as though Darwin's word alone that no naturalist had read Matthew's book was the unquestionable "gospel truth". In other words, Norman thought it necessary to investigate Matthew's claim that his book had been read and reviewed, but not to undertake a BigData facilitated review of the literature, as I did in 2014, to investigate the extent of the fallacy of Darwin's claim that no naturalists had read it. Moreover, Norman knew about the naturalist Loudon's review of Matthew's book but he failed to mention therefore that Darwin had written a fallacy by claiming no naturalist read Matthew's book. Moreover, Norman failed to follow up by failing to look at the intellectual links between Loudon and Darwin. Had Norman done so he would have found that after reading Matthew's book that Loudon edited two of Blyth's influential papers - that both greatly influenced Darwin - and he would have found that Loudon was well known to Darwin's friends William and Joseph Hooker and to their closest associates.

Picking up on Darwin's cue of 1860, some writers were not quite so audacious as to reprint without question Darwin's claim that literally no naturalists read Matthew's book pre-1860, Nevertheless, they greatly implied it had gone unread by naturalists.

Loren Eiseley (1957) in Darwin's Century (p. 127) writes: "Matthew's system perished, ...because it had been published obscurely by an obscure man..."
Bowler (2013) in Darwin Deleted    (p. 58) implies Matthew was unread: "Having a basic idea, even publishing it, has no effect if the publication is obscure..."
Millhauser (1959) in Just before Darwin   (p. 72) implies the same by dismissing it as some kind of working man's manual: "And there is that remarkable fellow Patrick Matthew, whose Naval Timber and Arboriculture (of all the practical books in the world)...."
Dawkins (2010) In Bill Bryson's edited collection   : 'Seeing Further   (p, 209) does the same as Millhauser did before him: "...wouldn't he have published it in a more prominent place than the appendix to a manual on silviculture?"
Conclusion and reflections on the science-cult that worships Darwin
The Patrick Matthew Supermyth was born out of the egregious failure of Darwinists to abide by the motto of the Royal Society "Nullius in Verba". Instead, they literally believed without question what Darwin claimed in his defense for replicating Matthew's prior published theory, Namely, they believed - and so thought not to question - Darwin's audacious defense that literally "neither I, nor apparently any other naturalist, had heard of Mr Matthew's views."
Had they not credulously treated Darwin's claim as the literal "gospel truth" then Darwinist scholars would have, as necessarily skeptically open minded scientists, surely have done as I did in 2014. Namely, they would have investigated it. Had they investigated it, then they, before I, would have found that seven naturalists cited Matthew pre- 1858, and that four were known to Darwin and that three played major roles at the epicenter of influence of his pre-1858 work on natural selection.
The fact that I, a social scientist, proved Darwin's claim to be not only fallacious but highly suspect in light of which naturalists did in fact read Matthew's book pre-1858 is confirmatory evidence that Darwinists totally believed their namesake's claim that literally no naturalists had read Matthew's ideas before Matthew drew their attention to his book in 1860.
Before my research, it does not appear that any other scholar has pointed out that John Loudon, who reviewed Matthew's book, was a naturalist.

Note a more detailed account of these  events and Darwinist errors in interpreting them can be found in my blog post The Patrick Matthew supermyth
More details about Matthew can be found on

Darwin ripped pages out of notebooks, scribbled over words and burned his private letters: Proof Darwin's notebooks and correspondence is not a fossil record of independent discovery or of everything he thought, did, found out about, heard about, read, wrote or otherwise recieved

One particularly naive and incredibly weak Darwinist defense against the strong-evidence of Charles Darwin's plagiarism of Patrick Matthew's prior published hypothesis  of natural selection is that his notebooks and two unpublished essays  reveal that he arrived at the theory independently from 1837 to 1859.

This argument is one that Professor Peter Bowler has popularized - that Darwinists such as Richard Dawkins regularly deploy to seek to dismiss the strong evidence for Darwin's plagiarism of Matthew's prior published hypothesis of natural selection. This is simply one more desperately biased argument among many - all of which can be refuted quite easily with logic, reason and hard facts

Peter Bowler (1983, p. 158) Evolution: the history of an idea, (1st and all revised editions). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. p158    :

".... Darwin's notebooks confirm that he drew no inspiration from Matthew or any of the other alleged precursors."

This silly Darwin biased argument holds no water. Let me explain why not:
  1. We no longer owe Darwin the benefit of the doubt that all scholars should start out with when it comes to their honesty. Darwin is newly proven a serial liar on the question of Matthew's priority and on the question of his own knowledge pre 1859 (see Sutton 2015) So it would be unreasonable of us not to accept the reasonable likelihood that Darwin fabricated the dates on those notebooks. Although his Zoonomia notebook of 1837-38 is accepted as the date and evidence for when Darwin first began writing about the broad concept of ideas approximating Matthew's (1831) earlier published work on natural slection, the earliest dates that we might reasonably concur - from evidence beyond Darwin's own words - that we can be fairly confident Darwin wrote anything (for sure) on natural selection are 1847. That is the year when Darwin claims to have sent a copy of his 1844 essay to Joseph Hooker. And 1857 is when Darwin sent Asa Gray an abstract of the same essay (see my previous blog post for the supporting references to both private disseminations of Darwin's 1844 essay). It is notable, therefore, that 1847 was the same year that Darwin met with Robert Chambers, author of the (1844) Vestiges of Creation - who had earlier read Matthew's 1831 and cited it in 1832. Both Darwin and Wallace admitted Chambers was a great influence on their work on natural selection!  Some kind of Matthewian knowledge contamination seems rationally more likely than not in light of this new discovery (Sutton 2014)  that Chambers had cited Matthew,
  2. Darwinists repeatedly confuse Darwin's private notebooks and letters as some kind of objective fossil record of what he did or did not do or know. As I explain in my position paper, Darwin - like all of us - was no robot. Consequently, he did not write down or record everything he did or knew. Darwinists themselves know this - when it suits them - because they know that Darwin never could tell his publisher - who demanded to know - where exactly he found the term 'natural selection' in the literature. Darwin could only write. fallaciously, that the term was in abundant use in the literature. Moreover, Darwin's Darwinists even refer to some of Darwin's most important private documents as his "torn apart notebooks". And many have remarked on the extent to which letters in the Darwin archive are simple "missing". In reality, it is no secret that much of Darwin's correspondence - and letters he received - are "missing". Wallace's original Ternate paper is "missing". Darwin tore his own notebooks apart and ripped out many pages from his notebooks. What those pages contained we will never know. Darwin habitually rendered whole sections of his own handwriting illegible by scribbling over it. Relying therefore on the insensible argument that what survives of Darwin's letters and notebooks show that he slowly and independently of Matthew's prior published book discovered the bombshell hypothesis of natural selection is just plain silly. Darwinists do themselves a great intellectual disservice by relying upon such daft-as-a-brush reasoning as some kind of strong evidence that their namesake arrived at the theory of natural selection independently of Matthew, because we now newly know that both Darwin and Wallace were influenced and facilitated pre-1858 by naturalists who they knew - who they said were a great influence upon them - who had cited Matthew's 1831 book, which contained the full theory of natural selection   , in the literature before 1858 (Chambers) and by another (Blyth) whose editor (Loudon) had reviewed it and remarked on its originality on the topic of "the origin of species" and by Wallace's own Sarawak paper editor (Selby) who sat with Darwin on various scientific committees many times pre 1858 and had both Darwin's father and his great friend Jenyns as house guests - where Matthew's book sat in his library, having been purchased for him in 1840 by the great and influential naturalist Jardine - no less.Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, Darwin not only tore pages for his notebooks he also burned his correspondence, which was common practice. Letters in and no longer in the Darwin archive prove it. For example, Hooker's 1862 letter to Darwin instructs Darwin to burn material. Moreover, an account is given by Francis Darwin that his father systematically burned his letters
Visit the Patrick Matthew website for more information and news about Patrick Matthew []

NOTE (POSTSCRIPT) Further refutation of the notion that Darwin's private essays and notebooks confirm hi discovered the concept of macro evolution by natural slection independently of Matthew is in my peer review science essay on knowledge contamination (Sutton 2016).

What solid proof do we have of when Darwin (a newly proven liar) first wrote anything at all on natural selection?

Towards a Timeline of Absolute Solid Facts in the History of the Discovery of Natural Selection
Here is something of interest. If we stick entirely to what we can only know 100 per cent for sure, we must accept the fact that science fraudsters have in the past created elaborate paper trails to seek to prove they originated/discovered/ proved something themselves. Therefore, it is not enough that Darwin wrote dates on his unpublished notebooks or any other unpublished documents, We shouldn’t work from the premise that he was totally honest because we know he was capable of outright lying and otherwise being exceedingly “economic with the actuality” – for example we know he lied when he wrote that Matthew’s book had “remained unnoticed” because the year before Matthew told him that John Loudon and an unnamed professor of natural history had read and understood their significance. So those dates on his notebooks and essays could be a fabrication of Darwin’s. 
Many of Darwin's letters are missing, Many pages of his notebooks are torn out.  One of his notebooks is even described as being his "torn apart notebook",

Working upon the premise that there was no one conspiring with Darwin (conspiracies do happen but I’ve always plainly and deliberately steered clear of the notion in this story of scientific discovery) then the first move towards any solid proof we have of when Darwin understood natural selection is when he sent his private 1844 essay to is best friend Joseph Hooker. All we have to go on in this case is the date that correspondence between Hooker and Darwin informs us that Darwin’s best friend,Joseph Hooker, was sent a copy of that 1844 essay in 1847. See:

Outside of the evidence (comprising only letters between Hooker and Darwin – supposedly copies of genuine originals saved by Darwin) of correspondence between Darwin and his best friend Hooker (note: Hooker also proved himself dishonest by way of his letter that misled the Linnean Society to believe that Wallace had consented to having his paper jointly read by Darwin’s before the Linnean Society in 1858) is that Darwin sent an abstract of his 1844 essay to the US botanist Asa Gray in 1857.  We can see the substantial evidence for this from their correspondence.

What we know for a fact is that 1855 is the year that Wallace’s Sarawak paper was published in the journal edited by Selby – and that Selby had read and cited Matthew’s book in 1842.

So – accepting the premises that there was no conspiracy – then the earliest “proof” we have of when Darwin understood natural selection is as late as 1847. If we take Darwin’s proven dishonest best friend, J. Hooker, out of the equation then we are left with Asa Gray- who we can be fairly certain was sent an abstract of Darwin’s 1844 essay in 1857 (at least according to the copy we have of Darwin's letter of 1857) – which is two years AFTER Darwin read Wallace’s Sarawak paper, which was edited by Selby who had read Matthew’s book and cited it in 1842! Incidentally, Selby ordered a copy of Matthew’s book in 1840 – when he wrote to his friend the famous naturalist Jardine to ask him to get his a copy.

So there we have it:

(1) . Based on the premise that two proven liars – who lied to help Darwin achieve priority for the discovery of natural selection (Hooker for Darwin in 1858 and Darwin for himself in 1861 and again when Darwin lied in 1860  that no naturalist had read Matthew's prior published hypothesis - a lie which Hooker approved) were not conspiring and lying in this particular case then the earliest “proof” we have that Darwin understood natural selection is not his essays of 1842, nor his essay of 1844 – because we have only Darwin’s unreliable word for it that he penned those essays on those dates – Instead it is 1847.

(2) If any reader finds they simply cannot trust that 1847 “proof” coming as it does from the words alone of two proven liars on the very topic it is about, then we are left with a date of 1857. Which is two years AFTER Wallace’s Sarawak paper was published.

With the facts plainly stated. With the premises upon which they are based plainly stated. With the facts of Darwin’s and Joseph Hooker’s dishonesty when it came to winning Darwin priority, then members of society must now decide which date they feel safe with. Personally, mine is 1857.
These hard facts alone are a powerful argument for awarding the Originator – Patrick Matthew – full priority over Darwin for the discovery of natural selection.

Internet Dating with Darwin: New Discovery that Darwin and Wallace were Influenced by Matthew's Prior-Discovery

Mike Sutton is the author of Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret the book that famously used big data analysis to prove that Darwin and Wallace committed the world's greatest science fraud.

Contrary to current Darwinist knowledge beliefs, Matthew's 1831 book, revealing and detailing his discovery of natural selection, was cited before 1858 by three naturalists who played key pre-1858 roles in facilitating and influencing Darwin’s and Wallace’s published ideas on natural selection

Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace claimed to have discovered natural selection independently of Patrick Matthew. Matthew's discovery of the 'natural process of selection', which was published 27 years before Darwin's and Wallace's papers were read before the Linnean Society in 1858. In 1861, in the third edition of the Origin of Species, Darwin wrote: 'In 1831 Mr Patrick Matthew published his work on 'Naval Timber and Arboriculture,' in which he gives precisely the same view on the origin of species as that (presently to be alluded to) propounded by Mr Wallace and myself in the 'Linnean Journal,' and as that enlarged on in the present volume. Unfortunately the view was given by Mr Matthew very briefly in scattered passages in an Appendix to a work on a different subject, so that it remained unnoticed until Mr Matthew himself drew attention to it in the 'Gardener's Chronicle,' on April 7th, 1860.' To date, there has been no hard evidence suggesting that Darwin’s or Wallace’s work was influenced by Matthew. However, newly discovered literature reveals seven naturalists cited Matthew's book before 1858. Three played key pre-1858 roles facilitating and influencing Darwin’s and Wallace’s published ideas on natural selection. They are: Loudon – who edited and published Blyth’s acknowledged influential articles on evolution; Chambers, author of the 'Vestiges of Creation' – which both Darwin and Wallace also acknowledged influenced their work; and Selby – who, in 1855, edited and published Wallace's Sarawak paper on organic evolution. Consequently, it would surely be a mere tri-coincidence amazing beyond rational belief that of only seven naturalists known to have actually cited Matthew's book that three played pivotal roles at the very epicentre of influence and facilitation of Darwin’s and Wallace's pre-1858 ideas on natural selection. These new discoveries mean that Matthew now has full scientific priority for the theory natural selection, because not only did he publish it first, that publication had a major influence on Darwin and Wallace pre-1858. Furthermore, in light of a computer mediated plagiarism check, other evidence regarding Darwin's and Wallace's record of dishonesty, and six newly detected lies told by Darwin to archive primacy for the discovery of 'natural selection', it is proposed that Darwin and Wallace committed science fraud when they claimed no-prior knowledge of Matthew's discovery and ideas.


In the field of evolutionary biology, Patrick Matthew (1831) is acknowledged as the first discoverer of the theory of natural selection (e.g.: Clarke, 1984, Dempster 1983, 1996, Hallpike 2008; Wainwright, 2008, 2011, Dawkins 2010). He discovered the process, and then fully articulated and disseminated it in his book: ‘On Naval Timber and Arboriculture’ (hereafter NTA) with major Edinburgh and London publishers, 27 years before Charles Darwin’s and Alfred Wallace’s papers were famously read before the Linnean Society (Darwin and Wallace 1858), and 28 years before Darwin (1859) principally reproduced Matthew’s hypothesis, albeit supported by a great and unique synthesis of confirming evidence, in the Origin of Species(hereafter Origin).

The current consensus of scientific opinion is that Matthew should not be attributed with full priority over Darwin and Wallace, nor should he be ranked alongside them as an immortal great thinker in science; because it is believed that he failed to influence anyone with his ideas. For example, Judd (1909; p.342) wrote:

‘…Matthew anticipated the views of Darwin on Natural Selection, but without producing any real influence on the course of biological thought…’

Charles Wells and Edward Blyth are the only other contenders for priority for the theory of natural selection. Like Matthew, Wells (1818) wrote upon the subject of adaptation to environment and subsequent varieties within species. Like Matthew, he saw the important difference between artificial and natural selection. Like Matthew, he wrote about humans and mentioned other animals, but unlike Matthew, he made no mention of trees or plants and most crucially, did not write about new species emerging over millions of years by way of divergence from a common ancestor. Critically, as Eiseley (1959 p. 122) observed, ‘There is no clear expression of unrestricted deviation in unlimited time.’

Eiseley (1979, p. 96) made much of Blyth having a direct and major influence upon Darwin’s ideas on natural selection:

‘The historical documents which establish Edward Blyth as not merely a Darwinian precursor but in fact a direct intellectual forebear in a phylogenetic line of descent are to be found in aging files of periodicals in grimy cellars of old libraries. Originally published in the Magazine of Natural History in 1835, 1836 and 1837, the essays…show that Blyth indeed belongs to the royal line’

page 1
page 2
Blyth (1835, 1836), whose work was published after Matthew’s, was one of Darwin’s prolific correspondents and influential informants. He wrote about adaptive varieties of different animals. However, as an unwavering creationist, Blyth believed that variation occurred only within existing species. Much has been made by a few (e.g. Eiseley 1979; Davies, 2008) of Darwin’s cited acknowledgement of the influence upon him of some of Blyth’s articles and failure to cite others. Yet none who note areas of Blyth’s certain un-cited influence upon Darwin take account of the fact that all of Blyth’s ideas were published at least four years after Matthew’s published breakthrough of 1831. More tellingly, his two key papers (Blyth 1835. 1836), which reveal an understanding of the natural process of selection, were published in the Magazine of Natural History in the time that it was both owned and edited by the Scottish botanist John Loudon. That fact, though previously unremarked, is significant. Because Loudon (1832) had earlier reviewed Matthew’s book (see also: Matthew 1860a) and remarked positively upon its author’s unique ideas on what he referred to as ‘the origin of species.’ Consequently, the likelihood of Blyth’s work benefiting from Matthewian knowledge contamination via Loudon is, if not absolutely certain, at the very least, enormously high. Therefore, both the post-NTA date of Blyth’s published papers and his editor’s prior-knowledge of Matthew’s unique discoveries must, in absence of obvious bias, now engender highly significant doubt that Blyth’s published work on the topic came independently of Matthew’s unique discovery and original ideas.
At the time of writing, Darwin and Wallace are commonly, yet - it now turns out - fallaciously, believed to have each discovered natural selection independently of Matthew and independently of one another. Taken alone, the information about Loudon, which is presented here for the first time, absolutely refutes Dawkins' articulation of the Darwinian knowledge-belief that Blyth, Darwin and Wallace discovered natural selection independently of Matthew (Dawkins 2010, p.107):

‘I singled out Darwin and Wallace as the two nineteenth-century naturalists who independently solved the riddle of life. But claims of priority have been made on behalf of at least two other nineteenth-century writers, Patrick Matthew and Edward Blyth. If those claims are upheld, it should be a matter of some national pride that all four independent discoverers of natural selection were British.

Another Darwinist, Bowler (2014, p. 54), similarly wrote as though he knew for sure that Matthew's published and significant contribution to knowledge had no influence upon Darwin or Wallace:

‘Patrick Matthew may well have stated the idea of natural selection as early as 1831, but he did nothing to explore its implications or to persuade his readers that it had the potential to revolutionize biology. His contribution is worth noting, but to suggest that it provides the basis for dismissing Darwin as the true founder of the theory is to misunderstand the whole process of how scientific revolution happens.’

With the above argument, Bowler shows his reliance upon myths to create illicit made-for Matthew greatness-exclusion criteria. Because he ignores the fact that other great discoverers, such as Mendel, Fleming, and Higgs, did not take their ideas forward. Others did. The main academic priority issue, therefore, in the story of Matthew, Darwin and Wallace is simply to determine whether or not Matthew influenced Darwin's or Wallace's work in the same field. If he did then it was Matthew who started the scientific revolution that Bowler is writing about.

Focusing upon that question of influence, we do know that Matthew fully articulated his discovery of natural selection in a publication 27 years before Darwin and Wallace (1858) replicated it. And we know that both Darwin (1859) and Wallace claimed to have also discovered natural selection independently of one another (Darwin and Wallace 1858). Darwin (1860 and 1861) specifically claimed no-prior knowledge of Matthew’s discovery and Wallace (1871; 1905) less specifically, simply claimed to have discovered it independently. However, as a result of my discovery of who did read Matthew's (1831) book, we now newly know that both Darwin and Wallace were, at the very least, indirectly influenced pre-1858 by Matthew's 1831 published breakthrough of his discovery and explanation of the 'process of natural selection.'

Darwin is currently, yet fallaciously, hailed as an immortal great discoverer and thinker on the subject of organic evolution because, mythically, he alone is recognised as first to take his own independent discovery of the theory of natural selection forward, with many confirmatory evidences, knowingly, and solely, convincing others of its veracity and phenomenal importance.

Darwin made a number of excuses for not having read NTA. However, a careful examination of the literature refutes all of those excuses. Additionally, this article challenges the current knowledge consensus that Darwin and Wallace discovered natural selection independently of Matthew. Because new evidence proves that NTA was read by at least seven naturalists, three of whom were at the epicentre of influence and facilitation of Darwin’s and Wallace’s published ‘discoveries’. Furthermore, all three were part of his close social network and two of those three were personal associates of Darwin and Wallace. This discovery of the Citing Seven was made in 2014 only because it is now possible to search over 30 million documents in Google’s library project for precise words and terms by precise publication dates. Without this hi-tech 'Internet dating' breakthrough, what I found in a few weeks could not have been discovered in a dozen lifetimes of expert library research. In sum, my discovery is yet another recent knowledge breakthrough that could not have been made without the facilitation of what is currently known as 'big data' analysis. Thanks to new 'big data' technology, for the first time we can begin to understand exactly what 19th century naturalists really did with Matthew’s discovery of natural selection in the previously shrouded 27 years between its publication and Darwin’s and Wallace’s claimed immaculate conception and replication of it (Darwin and Wallace 1858).

page 2
page 3
The disconfirming evidence for Darwin’s excuses for not having read NTA is considered in Part I of this article. Part II presents newly discovered information about who did read NTA pre-Origin. Finally, Part III presents a conclusion that is nothing less than a bombshell for the history of science. Namely that, despite Darwin’s and Wallace’s claims to have discovered natural selection independently of NTA, those claims are impossible to sustain rationally in light of newly discovered incontrovertible facts about the naturalists they knew who read NTA and the acknowledged roles played by those naturalists in influencing, editing and facilitating their published ‘discoveries’.

Part I
Darwin’s and Wallace’s Excuses Examined

Contrary to currently accepted ‘knowledge’ that Matthew’s (1831) ideas on natural selection went unread pre-Origin because they are contained solely in the appendix of NTA (e.g. Mayr 1982, Gould 2002, Bowler 2003), any complete reading of the book proves this to be a myth. By way of example, the following samples of text from the main body of NTA are sufficient to dis-confirm the Appendix Myth:
Matthew (1831, p.301)

‘Our author's next implied assumption, that a tree produces best timber in a soil and climate natural to it (we suppose by this is meant the soil and climate where the kind of tree is naturally found growing), is, we think, at least exceedingly hypothetical; and, judging from our facts, incorrect The natural soil and climate of a tree, is often very far from being the soil and climate most suited to its growth, and is only the situation where it has greater power of occupancy than any other plant whose germ is present. The pines do not cover the pine barrens of America, because they prefer such soil, or grow most luxuriant in such soil; they would thrive much better, that is, grow faster in the natural allotment of the oak and the walnut, and also mature to a better wood in this deeper richer soil. But the oak and the walnut banish them to inferior soil from greater power of occupancy in good soil, as the pines, in their turn, banish other plants from inferior sands – some to still more sterile location, by the same means of greater powers of occupancy in these sands. One cause considerably affecting the natural location of certain kinds of plants is, that only certain soils are suited to the preservation of certain seeds, throughout the winter or wet season. Thus many plants, different from those which naturally occupy the soil, would feel themselves at home, and would beat off intruders, were they once seated. We have had indubitable proof in this country, that Scots fir grown upon good deep loam, and strong till (what our author would call the natural soil of the oak), is of much better quality, and more resinous, than fir grown on poor sand (what he would call the natural soil of the Scots fir), although of more rapid growth on the loam than on the sand; and the best Scots fir we have ever seen, of equal age and quickness of growth, is growing upon Carse land (clayey alluvium).’

And (p.302-303)

‘The use of the infinite seedling varieties in the families of plants, even in those in a state of nature, differing in luxuriance of growth and local adaptation, seems to be to give one individual (the strongest best circumstance-suited) superiority over others of its kind around, that it may, by overtopping and smothering them, procure room for full extension, and thus affording, at the same time, a continual selection of the strongest, best circumstance-suited, for reproduction. Man's interference, by preventing this natural process of selection among plants, independent of the wider range of circumstances to which he introduces them, has increased the difference in varieties, particularly in the more domesticated kinds; and even in man himself, the greater uniformity, and more general vigour among savage tribes, is referrible to nearly similar selecting law – the weaker individual sinking under the ill treatment of the stronger, or under the common hardship.

As our author's premises thus appear neither self evident, nor supported by facts, it might seem unfair, at least it would be superfluous, to proceed to the consideration of his conclusions and corollaries.’

As demonstrated, page 302, which from the main body of NTA, not its Appendix, is where Matthew named his discovery the ‘natural process of selection.’ Incidentally, his term has only one grammatical correct anagram: ‘process of natural selection,’ which is the term Darwin (1859) used nine times in the Origin.
Pages 301 to 303 of NTA reveal that Matthew saw the competition between species as a struggle for existence identified by two closely related concepts: that successful species have a ‘power of occupancy’ being ‘most circumstance suited’ to their environment. These ideas were later represented by Herbert Spencer’s (1864) phrase: ‘survival of the fittest’, which is not entirely dissimilar to a sentence Matthew penned for NTA’s appendix (1831 p.385): ‘Nature tests their adaptation to her standard of perfection and fitness to continue their kind by reproduction.’

page 3
page 4
Reproducing large swathes of text from NTA in a letter published in the Gardener’s Chronicle, Matthew (1860a) made Darwin aware that his unique ideas about natural selection were in the main body of NTA as well as its appendix, Darwin acknowledged that fact when he wrote, in turn, to his friend and botanical mentor Joseph Hooker, asking him to approve, sign and then forward to the editor of the Gardener’s Chronicle his response to Matthew’s claim of scientific priority (Darwin 1860a):

The case in G. Chronicle seems a little stronger than in Mr. Matthews book, for the passages are therein scattered in 3 places. But it would be mere hair-splitting to notice that.— If you object to my letter please return it; but I do not expect that you will, but I thought that you would not object to run your eye over it.— My dear Hooker it is a great thing for me to have so good, true, & old a friend as you. I owe much to science for my friends.’

The seed of the myth that Matthew’s discovery was buried solely in the appendix of NTA was perhaps planted 28 years earlier in Loudon’s[1] review (1832):

‘One of the subjects discussed in this appendix is the puzzling one, of the origin of species and varieties; and if the author has hereon originated no original views (and of this we are far from certain), he has certainly exhibited his own in an original manner.

Despite his private acknowledgement to Hooker that Matthew’s ideas were in various parts of NTA, Darwin’s subsequent public reply to the Gardener’s Chronicle no doubt propagated the myth that Matthew’s wrote only briefly about natural selection and that his discovery was hidden solely in an appendix to an ostensibly unsuitable book (Darwin 1860b):

‘I think that no one will feel surprised that neither I, nor apparently any other naturalist, had heard of Mr. Matthew's views, considering how briefly they are given, and that they appeared in the appendix to a work on Naval Timber and Arboriculture.’

In a letter to the French naturalist Quatrefages de Bréau (Darwin 1861), Darwin again excused himself for not having read NTA. This time he portrayed Matthew as an obscure writer and, by immediate association, implied that forest trees was an inappropriately obscure topic to enclose the discovery of the unifying theory of biology. Only this time Darwin portrayed the record of the discovery as briefly scattered rather than appendix bound:

‘…an obscure writer on Forest Trees, in 1830, in Scotland, most expressly & clearly anticipated my views – though he put the case so briefly, that no single person ever noticed the scattered passages in his book.’

Then, in the third edition of the Origin, Darwin switched-back to portraying Matthew’s discovery as being brief and scattered in an appendix only. By so doing he created the full blown Appendix Myth, which serves to this day as the best solution to the otherwise unsolved science problem of Darwin’s and Wallace’s independent replication of Matthew’s published prior-discovery of the ‘natural process of selection’ (Darwin 1861a):

‘In 1831 Mr. Patrick Matthew published his work on 'Naval Timber and Arboriculture,' in which he gives precisely the same view on the origin of species as that (presently to be alluded to) propounded by Mr. Wallace and myself in the 'Linnean Journal,' and as that enlarged on in the present volume. Unfortunately the view was given by Mr. Matthew very briefly in scattered passages in an Appendix to a work on a different subject, so that it remained unnoticed until Mr. Matthew himself drew attention to it in the 'Gardener's Chronicle,' on April 7th, 1860.’

Most interestingly, Wallace later admitted that Matthew had first discovered natural selection and additional laws of evolution. That admission appears to have passed without further remark by Darwin and Wallace scholars, which is surprising since Wallace went on to dub Matthew one of the most original thinkers of the first half of the 19th century (Wallace 1879, p. 142):

‘Mr. Matthew apprehended the theory of natural selection, as well as the existence of more obscure laws of evolution, many years in advance of Mr. Darwin and myself, and in giving almost the whole of what Mr. Matthew has written on the subject Mr. Butler will have helped to call attention to one of the most original thinkers of the first half of the 19th century.’

In a letter to Samuel Butler, about Butler’s book: ‘Evolution Old & New’, Wallace went so far as to rank Matthew at least equal in importance to Darwin as an original thinker (Wallace, 1879a):

‘My dear Sir

Please accept my thanks for the copy of "Evolution Old & New" and of "Life & Habitat" you were so good as to send me.

I have just finished reading the former with mixed feelings of pleasure & regret. I am glad that a corrected account of the views of Buffon, Dr. Darwin & Lamarck and especially of Mr. Patrick Matthew, should be given to the world; but I am sorry that you should have, as I think, so completely failed in a just estimation of the value of their work as compared with that of Mr. Charles Darwin; – because it will necessarily predjudice [sic] naturalists against you, & will cause "Life & Habitat” – to be neglected, & this I should greatly regret.

To my mind your quotations from Mr. Patrick Matthew are the most remarkable things in your whole book, because he appears to have completely anticipated the main ideas both of the "Origin of Species" & of "Life & Habitat".’

page 4
page 5
If Wallace was right to describe Matthew as one of the greatest original thinkers of the first half of the 19th century, then it follows that Matthew must surely rank high amongst the greatest of that entire century. And if Matthew was among the greatest original thinkers of an entire century then he is most surely an immortal great thinker of science.

Wallace’s statement about Matthew’s greatness was made by a Victorian naturalist who would have known best on that precise matter second only to Darwin and certainly more than Wells (1973), who alone prosecuted a thesis that Matthew and Darwin failed to understand each others ideas. The implications, therefore, of Wallace’s admission are astounding. Specifically, that if he and Darwin were not influenced by Matthew then they were not influenced by the greatest original thinker there has ever been on the very discovery they each replicated, affirmed with further evidences and then claimed as their own independent discovery.

In light of his prior breakthrough, the sole rationale for denying Matthew a place above or alongside Darwin and Wallace is that he failed to influence anyone with it. And the accepted explanation for why, pre-Origin, all 19th century ‘gentlemen of science’  including Darwin and Wallace  were completely unaware of Matthew’s solution to the problem of species, is that he obscured it away in the appendix of an inappropriately titled and highly specialised manual on naval timber and arboriculture, a book which naturalists would be extremely unlikely to read. Moreover, according to this solution, to what is effectively the science problem of Darwin and Wallace’s independent replication of Matthew’ ideas, Matthew failed to sufficiently promote his discovery. Typical examples of this ‘blame Matthew’ solution can be found in Darwin (1861a), Wallace, (1871), Hamilton (2001) and Dawkins (2010).

Turning first to examine the claim that Matthew’s discovery was hidden solely in the appendix of NTA, as this article has already as demonstrated, that claim is completely disconfirmed by pages 301-303 of NTA. It is further disconfirmed by many other examples within NTA (see Appendix One, Sutton 2014). Having disconfirmed the Appendix Myth, it is appropriate to examine the veracity of Darwin’s second excuse that no naturalist would have read Matthew’s book because it was on a subject unlikely to appeal to naturalists. Dawkins’ articulation of this rationale typifies it well, because he dually seeks to explain that the reason why no naturalist would have read NTA was due to Matthew’s failure to understand the great importance of his own discovery. Dawkins (2010. p.209):

Did he see the explanation for all of life, the destroyer of the argument for design? If he had, wouldn’t he have put it in a more prominent place than the appendix to a manual on silviculture?’

The general acceptance of this obscure topic argument clearly has its provenance in Darwin’s (1861a) deployment of the same excuse. In reality, this excuse is more remarkable in its inaccuracy than the simple Appendix Myth. Whilst it is beyond the scope of this article to provide a lengthy explanation of just how historically misinformed this excuse is, sufficient criticism to disconfirm its veracity can be furnished by just a few key facts. Wainwright (2011), for example, correctly notes, the subject of naval timber was an important subject for the British Empire in the first half of the 19th century. Timber was the raw material that drove the industrial revolution. That Matthew had chosen the subject of timber to publish his great hypothesis is not at all incongruous. Contrary to popular modern opinion, it was timber, not textiles, that was the most important product and prime mover of the Industrial Revolution (Brineley pp. 72-73). Timber was required for ship building and in even greater quantities for production of alkalis for textile manufacture. Unsurprisingly, therefore, Robert Lindley, the economic botanist and great friend of William Hooker, who had his own book reviewed directly above a review of NTA (Loudon 1832), went on to write two books that included the subject of naval timber (Lindley 1839, 1853).

Growing oak for naval ships was an important concern of science in the first half of the 19thcentury. This is no better evidenced than by the fact that Martin Rees, current President of the Royal Society, in his chapter within the same book in which Dawkins (2010) claims Matthew’s big scientific idea was inappropriately published in a book on silviculture, reveals that in 1662 John Evelyn – a founding member of the Royal Society  presented a scientific paper of major importance before the Society entitled: ‘Sylva or A Discourse of Forest-Trees and the Propagation of Timber in His Majesty's Dominions.’ Two years later, Evelyn (1664) published his paper as a seminal book (see Rees 2010) entitled: ‘Sylva, or a discourse of forest-trees, and the propagation of timber’.

Most tellingly, Darwin’s 1838-1851 notebook of books read proves that Darwin read Evelyn’s book on silviculture. Hard facts such as that trump rhetoric and prove that, far from being on an inappropriate and obscure topic, the title and subject matter of Matthew’s book was outwardly ideal for the inclusion of his discovery and a scientific call for others to conduct empirical research and experimentation to test it. Naval Timber and Arboriculture was a title and topic indubitably as likely as Evelyn’s to attract naturalists such as Darwin to gather evidence to test Matthew’s hypothesis, which is clearly what Matthew intended (Matthew 1831 p.386):

page 5
page 6
‘In the first place, we ought to investigate its dependency upon the preceding links of the particular chain of life, variety being often merely types or approximations of former parentage; thence the variation of the family, as well as of the individual, must be embraced by our experiments.’

Having refuted Darwin’s excuses that Matthew hid his discovery solely in the appendix of NTA, and that both NTA’s title and subject matter were inappropriate to contain unique ideas on organic evolution in the first half of the 19th century, it is perhaps useful to examine why Matthew did put so much of his discovery, and his discussion of its implications, into the appendix. He may have done so for two reasons. It seems likely that he believed it was the right place for a deductively derived hypothesis, as apposed to an inductive theory inspired and supported by sufficient confirmatory empirical evidence. If so, that would explain why he wrote the following in the main body of NTA (Matthew 1831, p. 303):

‘As our author's premises thus appear neither self evident, nor supported by facts, it might seem unfair, at least it would be superfluous, to proceed to the consideration of his conclusions and corollaries.’

Those further conclusions and corollaries were saved for the appendix, which may also have been used so extensively because it seemed the appropriate place for heresy. Matthew could not trumpet his discovery of natural selection from the rooftops without the prior publication of Chambers’ (1844) Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation, which so effectively prepared the general public and scientific community for a godless explanation of species (see: Millhauser 1859, Secord 2000). Nor could he have safely done so without a network of sympathetic and influential supporters. Furthermore, Matthew lacked any such sort of scientific support network of the kind afforded to Darwin and Wallace by way of membership of key scientific associations and powerful patrons such as Lyell, Gray, the Hooker’s, Baden Powel, and vociferous supporters such as Huxley. Consequently, Matthew had to be subtle in his dealings and where he placed his words. NTA’s appendix contained so much godless heresy (Matthew 1831, p.381):

‘Geologists discover a like particular conformity – fossil species – through the deep deposition of each great epoch, but they also discover an almost complete difference to exist between the species or stamp of life, of one epoch from that of every other. We are therefore led to admit either of a repeated miraculous creation; or of a power of change, under a change of circumstances, to belong to living organized matter, or rather to the congeries of inferior life, which appears to form superior. The derangements and changes in organized existence, induced by a change of circumstance from the interference of man, affording us proof of the plastic quality of superior life, and the likelihood that circumstances have been very different in the different epochs, though steady in each tend strongly to heighten the probability of the latter theory.

Contrary to Dawkins’ (2010) claim that Matthew did not see that his discovery provided the explanation for all life and that it destroyed the argument for design, the above paragraph proves that Matthew did fully understand, appreciate and articulate the great significance of what he had discovered. Dempster (1996) makes the same argument and provides a wealth of further evidence that Matthew fully understood the significance of his discovery. On another point of related detail, Chambers’ (1844) Vestiges was less heretical than NTA, because Chambers expressly assigned the grand design and creation of the process of organic variety and species development to the Abrahamic God. And yet, even such clear inclusion of a creator in the process remained problematic for the Church, which at the time so dominated society, including the universities. Millhauser explains why (1959, p 91):

‘ “Development” reduces the Creator almost (or completely) to a passive spectator of His own automatic universe; it abolishes miracle and special intervention, approximates the Deity to an impersonal principle like gravitation, and hovers perilously on the brink of atoms and void. Or (to rephrase the philosophical objection in practical terms) it presents an entirely unfamiliar conception of the Godhead, to which mere intellectual inertia, supported by profound emotions, is bound to offer vehement resistance.’

In his reply to Darwin’s letter in the Gardener’s Chronicle, Matthew explained precisely why notions of heresy prevented him and other naturalists from promoting his discovery in the first half of the 19th century (Matthew 1860b, p. 433):

I notice in your Number April 21st Mr. Darwin's letter honourably acknowledging my prior claim relative to the origin of species. I have not the least doubt that in publishing his late work he believed he was the first discoverer of this law of Nature. He is however wrong in thinking that no naturalist was aware of the previous discovery. I had occasion some 15 years ago to be conversing with a naturalist, a professor of a celebrated university, and he told me he had been reading my work “Naval Timber,” but that he could not bring such views before his class or uphold them publicly from fear of the cutty-stool[2], a sort of pillory punishment…’

page 6
page 7
Matthew focused his most heretical ideas on natural selection in the appendix of NTA, which is not at all indicative that he failed to appreciate their enormous implications. Contrary to self-serving Darwinian mythmongery, what better place to put heresy than in an appendix? Because, what better way for any reader to know exactly where to look first to find dangerous ideas? Were NTA to face a ban, the appendix could be severed without spoiling the entire book. Indeed, there is evidence from other cases that this might have been Matthew’s likely motive for concentrating is heresy in an appendix. For example, John Whitehurst (1778) writing at the time of Darwin’s grandfather  did the exact same thing with his heresy on evolution. And more than two decades before Lord Monboddo’s (1774) and Buffon’s (1775) heretical assertions on the topic of apes resembling humans, the same appendix ploy was used to contain an argument that humans are the same species as apes (Edwards 1751).

The, failure to take it forward argument against Matthew’s claim to greatness

Having disproven Darwin’s excuses for why no one would have read NTA, it is pertinent to examine another argument for denying Matthew full priority and scientific recognition as an immortal great thinker. This next argument has it that Matthew failed to develop his ideas beyond what he wrote in NTA, which, incidentally, ignores the fact that he did take those ideas forward for humans in Emigration Fields (see Dempster 1996). This ‘failure to proceed’ argument, blended with a ‘no impact whatsoever’ belief, can be seen in Mayr’s (1982, p. 500) reasoning:

‘Patrick Matthew undoubtedly had the right idea, just like Darwin did on September 28, 1838, but he did not devote the next twenty years to converting it into a cogent theory of evolution. As a result it had no impact whatsoever.’

Contrary to Mayr’s thinking, the conventions of scientific priority (Merton 1957) do not demand that a discoverer must personally take their discovery forward, or to demonstrate that they fully appreciated what they discovered. If simply taking one’s own discovery forward is a necessary condition of scientific greatness then Higgs would not have won the 2013 Nobel Prize in physics, because other scientists, not Higgs, found proof of his hypothetical Higgs-Boson particle. And Fleming should not be hailed as the discoverer of penicillin. Instead, we should be celebrating Howard Florey and Ernst Chain. Because it was they who discovered Fleming’s obscure published comment on his discovery. And it was not Fleming but they who then did something further with that discovery (Fletcher 1984). Furthermore, Mendel was 16 years dead before anyone understood what he had discovered (Hasan 2005) . Today, therefore, it seems that, whatever we might think about them, there are essentially two generally accepted conditions that are deemed necessary for a scientific discoverer to be attributed with absolute incontestable priority. What we might term Condition I is being first to publish (see Merton 1957) and Condition II, as evidenced in the rationale for denying Matthew full priority over Darwin and Wallaceis proving the originator significantly influenced the work of subsequent and important pioneers in the field.

Whilst it is important to note that the history of scientific discovery has many typical examples of precursory influence not being a zero-sum game (Shermer 2002), what is different and most unusual in the story of Matthew, Darwin and Wallace is that Darwin and Wallace each claimed that it was a zero sum game, because, despite Matthew fulfilling Condition I they claimed absolutely zero prior-knowledge of NTA. Therefore, contrary to the scientific principle of nullius in verba, enshrined within the motto of the Royal Society since 1663, on the word alone of Darwin and Wallace, yet in the historical absence of any disconfirming evidence, Matthew is effectively said to have failed to satisfy Condition II. However, we now know that Matthew did fulfil Condition II, by way of influencing the naturalist who influenced the naturalist. Because, by way of just on example among others of Matthew's' knock-on influence', Loudon (1832), reviewed NTA, then edited and published Blyth’s (1835; 1836) hugely influential journal articles on evolution.

Part II of this article examines the influence of six further naturalists who read NTA, revealing that two played roles far greater than Blyth’s in Darwin’s and Wallace’s published ‘discoveries.’ Before then however, having established that other naturalists did read NTA, and having disproven Darwin’s excuses for not reading the book, it is necessary to examine further evidence in order to determine the likelihood that Wallace and Darwin could have avoided reading the one book, above all others, that both really needed to read.

Advertised, reviewed and cited: If seven other naturalists could read and then cite NTA pre-Origin then why not Darwin and Wallace?

Wainwright (2008) provides disconfirming evidence for Darwin’s excuse that NTA was an obscure book by an obscure author by identifying two anonymously authored reviews: one in the Edinburgh Literary Journal (1831) and one in the Gardener’s Magazine (1832). The latter, as Matthew informed Darwin, was in fact authored by Loudon (see Matthew 1860a). In addition to those valuable findings, NTA was advertised in the London Literary Gazette (1831), and The Magazine of Natural History and Journal[3] (1831, p.571), both of which mention the topic of varieties, species and their geographic location. NTA was cited in Arcana of Science and Art (1832), and in an eight volume collection on the trees and shrubs of Britain (Loudon 1838). It was cited in an encyclopaedia on gardening (Loudon 1835). NTA was even listed within the Library of Congress (1840 p.127), having been cited two years earlier (Woodbury 1838) in a United States Congress debate.

page 7
page 8
In addition to many more reviews and citations, NTA was advertised for years by its Edinburgh publisher Adam and Charles Black. Whenever Matthew’s Emigration Fields (1839) was advertised in a publication, NTA was promoted via the strap-line: ‘By Patrick Matthew, author of Naval Timber and Arboriculture’. Both books were typically advertised together as follows (Roger, 1849 p.250):


North America, the Cape, Australia, and New Zealand, describing these Countries, and giving a comparative view of the advantages they present to British Settlers. By Patrick Matthew, Author of "Naval Timber and Arboriculture." With two Folio Maps, engraved by Sydney Hall. Post 8vo, 3s. 6d. cloth." The information contained in this work is of such a nature, that every one who has an intention of emigrating, should, before fixing upon any country as his future residence, consult the EMIGRATION FIELDS."

Being a Treatise on that subject, with Critical Notes on Authors who have recently treated the subject of planting. By Patrick Matthew. 8vo, 12s. cloth’.

The Athenaeum, which was the journal of Darwin’s and Joseph Hooker’s favourite gentleman’s club of the same name[4] advertised NTA and Emigration fields, then published a two page review that included mention of the latter (The Athenaeum 1839, p.v; pp. 476-477). Darwin’s co-authored book (King et al 1839) was advertised and reviewed on pages 446 to 449 in this very edition of the Athenaeum. We know Darwin read that publication, because his private notebook of ‘Books to Read and Books Read’( Darwin 1838 -51) reveals that he had extensive knowledge of what was in this particular 1839 edition of the Athenaeum. Darwin wrote in his ‘books to read’ section of his notebook:

‘Athenaeum 1839. p. 546[5] — Mr Conrad has published work on fossil shells of N. America. And ‘Dr Moreton's Crania Americana. with remarks on geograph distrib of Man. Mentioned by Athenaeum 1839 p. 765. in Geograph. Soc??’

Contrary to the impression given by Vorzimmer (1977), Darwin was not at all meticulous in recording which books he read, because the Athenaeum (1839) is not included in Darwin’s ‘books read’ section of his private notebook. We know he read it, however, because in the ‘books to read’ section of that same notebook he used it several times as a source of references for other sources.

Darwin Online ProjectAttribution
From Darwin's Zoonomia notebook 1837-38
We should further note that there is no mention of NTA in any of Darwin’s ‘Books to Read and Books Read’ notebooks until Matthew’s (1860a) claim to priority letter was published in the Gardener’s Chronicle (see: Darwin 1852-60). However, those notebooks were not started until 1837. Returning from the voyages of the Beagle still believing that species were immutable, it is by way of what Darwin wrote in his 1837-38 private Zoonomia notebook, that it is generally agreed that 1837 was the year he appears to have first come to terms with the probability of natural selection being the solution to the origin of species (see Sulloway 1982, 1984). Most notably, Matthew’s expert subject of fruit trees is the very first topic covered in first sentence of that notebook (Darwin 1837-1838.p. 1):

‘Two kinds of generation the coeval kind, all individuals absolutely similar, for instance fruit trees, probably polypi, gemmiparous propagation, bisection of Planaria, &c., &c.’

Later in the same notebook he wrote about pippin apples:

‘Never They die, without they change; like Golden Pippens [sic] it is a generation of species like generation of individuals.’

Most notably, on page one of his introduction to Origin of Species (Darwin 1859) Darwin wrote that after his return from the voyages of the Beagle it was not until 1837 that he began patiently collecting, accumulating and reflecting upon facts about organic evolution.

Two years before the publication of NTA, Matthew (1829 p.467-477) sent the Caledonian Horticultural Society of Edinburgh an account of the varieties of apples and pears in his famous orchard in the highly fertile Carse of Gowrie in Scotland. Besides extensive information on grafting and hybridizing, here Matthew wrote of the rarity of his own Scarlet Golden Pippin, of which he possessed only one tree, believed to have come from the seed of the common Golden Pippin variety. Most importantly, Darwin actually read Matthew’s (1829) account, because his notebook (Darwin 1838 to 1851) – records that he read the Memoirs of the Caledonian Horticultural Society of Edinburgh for the years 1814-32.

page 8
page 9
Further contrary evidence to dis-confirm the myth of Matthew being an obscure writer on an obscure subject of no interest to Darwin, or other naturalists, the literature reveals that pre-Origin, Matthew’s name and his books were advertised and cited on the very same page with the World’s most famous writers – incidentally, some of whom were Darwin’s friends and correspondents. For example:
  1. With Charles Lyell in The Literary Gazette and Journal of Belles Lettres, Arts, Sciences, &c. 1839. On page 56.
  2. With William Hooker (1850). Loudon's Hortus Britannicus: a catalogue of all the plants indigenous in or introduced to Britain. (Part 1). On page 477.
  3. With John Lindley in Loudon’s (1835) An Encyclopædia of Gardening: Comprising the Theory and Practice of Horticulture, Floriculture, Arboriculture and landscape Gardening. On Page xxxii.
  4. With Captain FitzRoy of the Beagle in The New Zealand Journal April 29th (1843). On page 98.
  5. With Darwin’s publisher John Murray, in The Literary Gazette and Journal of Belles Lettres, Arts, Sciences, Etc (1831). On Page 47.
  6. With the ‘Vestiges of Creation’ (anonymous author Robert Chambers) The Edinburgh Literary Journal: Or, Weekly Register of Criticism .Volume 4. July – December (1830). On page 48.
  7. With Sir Humphrey Davy in Scientific Books Published in 1831. In Arcana of Science and Art (1832). On page 303.
  8. With Samuel Pepys (Loudon 1844). in ‘List of books referred to’ of Arboretum et fruticetum britannicum: or, The trees and shrubs of Britain. Vol. 1 On page ccxi.
  9. With Sir John Frederick William Herschel. The Quarterly Review[6]. Volume 60. (1839). On page 345
  10. With Aulus Cornelius Celsus, the 1st Century Roman medical encyclopaedist, in the Encyclopaedia Britannica (1842). Volume 4. On page 407.
Far from being obscure in the first half of the 19th century, NTA was extensively and prominently advertised. One such advert takes up three quarters of one of the opening pages of the then extremely influential Encyclopaedia Britannica (1842). This advertisement is particularly pertinent because it informs the reader that NTA is a scientific book about species:

PatrickMatthew.Com "Trumpet from the rooftops"Attribution
Patrick Matthew: Solver of the Problem of Species
Scientific Arboriculture for the use of The British Proprietors. A Treatise on Naval Timber and Arboriculture

By Patrick Matthew
In embracing the Philosophy of Plants, the interesting subject of Species and Variety is considered, – the principle of the natural location of vegetables is distinctly shewn, – the principle also which in the untouched wild “keeps unsteady nature to her law” inducing conformity in species and preventing deterioration of breed is explained, – and the causes of the variation and deterioration of cultivated forest-trees pointed out.
Sample of Venom – “A vulgar, petulant and outrageous abuse” (of recent writers on Arboriculture) To give any idea of the coarseness, the virulence, the malignity, and utter absurdity, of the style of attack that is here opened upon them, is impossible.” – “Waspish spirit”!!!! Edinburgh Literary Journal.
A heart of oak sort of frankness which we richly value and we relish, moreover the characteristic manliness of his style, albeit from turning from analysis to synthesis, he dissects several well known authorities with such keenness, that were their names suspended over our timber nurseries they would act as beacons rather than decoys. The terseness of his language, from its fullness and patriotic bearing, need's no apology.” –“ In thus testifying our hearty approbation of this author, it is strictly in his capacity of a forest-ranger, where he is original, bold, and evidently experienced in all the arcana of the parentage, birth, and education of trees.” – Mr Matthew successively treats of the wood suitable for plank and for timber, and of the best modes of treating British forest trees so as to procure straight boards, bends and crooks, with a decision evidently conferred by a practical knowledge of the subject. The whole of his advice on these needs will be thankfully received by those who properly estimate the value of durability in vessels destined to buffet the ocean. United Service Journal.
“In recommending this work to landed proprietors we shall therefore only remark that it displays an intelligent and cultivated mind, and an evident practical study of the subject –.” Farmer's Journal.

“This is a sensible and clever practical work. We find in Part IV. judicious notices of the authors who treat of Arboriculture, who have already appeared before the public on these there are very just comments – Every timber grower will read Mr Matthew's work to advantage. It is earnestly and rationally written.” – Metropolitan Magazine.’

page 9
page 10
The ‘books read’ section of Darwin’s (1838 1851) notebook reveals that he read at least five publications that cited, or else had in them, articles about both Patrick Matthew and NTA. They are:
  1. The Athenæum (1839) (Block advertisement for NTA and Review of Emigration Fields).[7]
  2. Loudon (1831) (Citing Matthew in Bibliography).
  3. Loudon (1838) (Article citing Matthew).
  4. The Gardener’s Magazine (1841) (In response to NTA, article throwing down a challenge to Matthew on tree pruning).
  5. Memoirs of the Caledonian Horticultural Society of Edinburgh (1814-1832) Published letter by Matthew (1829) on fruit and hybridizing trees. Also block advertisement for NTA (1831).
The same notebook reveals that Darwin read at least 10 books on forest trees, fruit trees, olive trees and arboriculture. Namely: Loudon (1838); Eveyln (1664); Boutcher (1775); Forsyth (1791); Barck (1762); Loudon (1822); Knight (1797); Agricola (1721); Head (1829) and Hillhouse (1818). An online search through all the annotations that Darwin pencilled on the books in his personal library at Down[8] reveals that he wrote, either in the margins or elsewhere on the page, at least 62 annotations on the subject of trees. Many of these are notes about fruit trees and hybridization, core themes in NTA.

This data further disconfirms the myth that Darwin missed reading NTA because it was on a different topic to books that he was likely to read. Furthermore, Darwin’s unpublished essay of 1844 reveals his great interest in trees as key to understanding natural selection as an analogue of artificial selection, was remarkably similar to Matthew’s discovery. Matthew, who elsewhere in NTA (p. 280-285, 366) wrote about the relative hardiness of naturally selected crab apple trees compared with artificially selected hybridized apple trees, wrote (Matthew 1831, p. 308):

‘Man’s interference, by preventing this natural process of selection among plants, independent of the wider range of circumstances to which he introduces them, has increased the differences in varieties particularly in the more domesticated kinds…

In his unpublished essay of 1844, Darwin wrote:
‘In the case of forest trees raised in nurseries, which vary more than the same trees do in their aboriginal forests, the cause would seem to lie in their not having to struggle against other trees and weeds, which in their natural state doubtless would limit the conditions of their existence…’
Eiseley (1979) thought that this replication of ideas alone was sufficient proof that Darwin had read NTA and plagiarised Matthew.[9]

Trumpet from the rooftopsAttribution
The "obscure writer" fallacy also debunked by the map!
Darwin and his great friend, Joseph Hooker, had almost three decades before the publication of the Origin to respond to the many reviews, advertisements and citations, all of which encouraged those interested in species and economic botany to read NTA. That fact should not be allowed to pass without seeking to weigh the likelihood that either scientist, so obviously interested in trees and species, could avoid reading NTA when their friends and associates, had read it. The evidence is overwhelming: Darwin and Wallace had no reasonable excuse for not reading the book containing the ideas they replicated. On which note, we turn now to Part II of this article in order to reveal the names and examine the relevant details of the seven naturalists who did read NTA. The premise behind the rationale for conducting the research that informs Part II is that the existence of any number of naturalists who read NTA further refutes Darwin’s and Wallace’s excuses for being unaware of Matthew’s ideas. Moreover, the size of that number, connected socially or professionally to either Darwin or Wallace must correspondingly to each, exponentially implicate them as science fraudsters and liars for claiming that neither they nor any other naturalist known to them was aware of Matthew’s ideas pre-Origin.

Part II
The Seven Naturalists who cited NTA pre-Origin: An analysis of their social and professional associations with Darwin and Wallace

page 10
page 11
The seven naturalists who read NTA before Darwin’s and Wallace’s papers (Darwin and Wallace 1858) were read before the Linnean Society are, in date order of their citing Matthew’s book: Robert Chambers (1832), John Loudon (1832), Edmund Murphy (1834), Cuthbert Johnson (1842), Prideaux John Selby (1842), John Norton (1851) (see Stephens and Norton), and William Jameson (1853).

Robert Chambers

In March 1832 Robert Chambers was the first of at least seven naturalists to read NTA and comment upon Matthew’s unique ideas (Chambers 1832). He cited NTA, on the subject of arboriculture. We can discern that Robert Chambers, rather than his brother William, wrote the column that cited Matthew, because Robert did all the writing for Chambers’ Journal at its inception, before entering into partnership in the journal with William (see Secord 2000).

Chambers is the anonymous author of the Vestiges of Creation (1844). Darwin (1861a p. xv-xvi) and Wallace (1845) acknowledged that the Vestiges was a major influence on their work on organic evolution.
Millhauser, who wrote the authoritative text on the Vestiges, failed to discover that Chambers read and cited NTA, He did, however, think it likely that Chambers knew Matthew (Millhauser 1959, p.82):

As for Patrick Matthew, his Naval Timber had involved him in a feud (over methods of transplanting) with Chambers’ friend Steuart of Alanton, whose own work on arboriculture the Journal had reviewed; it is thus altogether probable that he knew Matthew too.

Chambers (1840) followed Matthew’s later work, citing Emigration Fields (Matthew 1839) regarding the ill-effects of tobacco smoking.

In 1844, the year in which Darwin penned his second unpublished essay on natural selection, Chambers anonymously published the Vestiges – a book described by one great authority on the subject as ‘the most widely discussed work on science ever published’ (Secord 2000, p. 460).

Chambers and Darwin met, conducted personal correspondence, and Darwin was fully aware, as early as early as 1847, that Chambers was the secret author of the heretical Vestiges, because Chambers gave Darwin a copy of the book, leading him to ‘know’ that he was its secret author.[10] Darwin (1847) shared that intelligence with Joseph Hooker. Most significantly, Chambers, being a gentleman geologist, was a friend and correspondent of Darwin’s great friend and Geological mentor, Charles Lyell.

Another fact of particular note is that in 1848 Chambers was mentored in his political career by NTA’s Scottish publisher Adam Black (see Secord 2000). Most remarkably, Black, like Chambers, was part of Darwin’s social network. This is established by way of what happened when, in 1845, Darwin’s best friend Joseph Hooker applied for the Chair of Botany at the University of Edinburgh. The professorial appointment that Hooker sought included responsibility for the Royal Botanic Gardens of Scotland, which meant that local politicians had considerable influence regarding who should be appointed. Hooker collected some 153 testimonials to support his application, which the Town Council sought to block since it had not been consulted on the fact that the Crown invited Hooker to apply (see Huxley 1918, pp. 204-205). Professor Forbes, of Edinburgh University, sent-on Darwin’s letter of support for Hooker to Adam Black, who was then Lord Provost of the city (Darwin 1845). When Hooker’s application was unsuccessful, Darwin was both shocked and angry (e.g. see: Darwin 1845b).

Of particular note is the fact that Darwin asked Chambers to review the Origin, and in his review Chambers (1859) was apparently the first to second publish Matthew’s unique term ‘natural process of selection’, rather than Darwin’s unique anagrammatical replication: ‘process of natural selection.’[11]
John Loudon

In November 1832 the famous gardener, botanical naturalist, editor, publisher and engineer, John Loudon, wrote a very positive book review of NTA in The Gardener’s Magazine (Loudon 1832). Wainwright (2008; 2011) emphasised the fact that, contrary to Darwin’s claim that Matthew’s ideas went unread, NTA was reviewed at least twice, though anonymously. In actual fact, Matthew’s first letter in the Gardener’s Chronicle informed Darwin that one of those anonymous reviewers was Loudon (Matthew 1860a p.312):

…reviewed in numerous periodicals, so as to have full publicity in the "Metropolitan Magazine," the "Quarterly Review," the "Gardeners' Magazine," by Loudon, who spoke of it as the book…

page 11
page 12

Trumpet from the rooftopsAttribution
Rome Farm. Birthplace of Matthew. Next to Scone Palace, from where the English stole the famous Stone of Scone.
In 1803, when Matthew was just fifteen years of age, Loudon drew the plans for landscaping what are now the parklands of Scone Palace (Canfield 2002), which bordered Matthew's aristocratic birthplace of Rome Farm. It seems likely they would have met.

A prolific author and fellow of the Linnean Society, the Royal Society and a corresponding member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Loudon was a friend and correspondent of Sir Joseph Banks (Canfield 2002) and William Hooker (Loudon 1839). William Hooker’s close friend and fellow economic botanist, John Lindley, greatly assisted Loudon (1829) to compile his Encyclopaedia of Plants (See Holway 2013).

Lindley was a correspondent of Darwin’s (see: Darwin Correspondence Project 2014) and another who was a great friend of William Hooker. Both Hooker and Lindley had their own works reviewed in the same volume in which Matthew’s NTA was reviewed (Loudon 1832). As noted earlier in this article, the review of Lindley’s book was directly above that of NTA, and Lindley (1859, 1853) then went on to write two books that dealt with the topic of naval timber.
William Hooker was a friend of Darwin and was the father of Darwin’s best friend and botanical mentor Joseph Hooker. Moreover, Wallace was a friend, correspondent and supplier of specimens to William Hooker, who kindly wrote a letter of introduction (Knapp, Sanders and Baker 2002. p. 110) for Wallace and his associate Bates:

‘Hooker wrote a letter of introduction for both men to use in Brazil (Bates & Wallace 1848), which would be useful for opening doors that would otherwise be closed to two impecunious young Englishmen.’

It seems quite likely that Loudon would have discussed NTA’s unique ideas on the ‘origin of species’ with Lindley since both were, according to Millhauser, interested in the problem of species. Millhauser (1959, p.72):

‘Four academic botanists – E.M. Fries, James E. Smith, J.C Loudon, and John Lindley – subscribed about 1828, to the opinion that certain plant species might, under environmental stimulus, metamorphose into one another.’

Edmund Murphy

Murphy (1834), landscape gardener, agricultural scientist and journal editor, was the third naturalist to cite NTA. He cited it on the topic of tree pruning. Murphy held appointments as Professor of Agriculture at Galloway College and Queens College Cork. He was Editor of 'The Agricultural and Industrial Journal' and authored many works, including his "Treatise on the Agricultural Grasses,' and of 'The Farmer's Guide.' Murphy is perhaps most famous for authoring The Agricultural Instructor in 1849, which sought to connect scientific knowledge with practice in agriculture.

Cuthbert Johnson

Johnson (1842) cited Matthew on the subject of pruning. He was joint founder of the Mark Lane Express and Agricultural Journal. Like Darwin, he was a fellow of the Royal Society. Johnson published many books, including a farming encyclopaedia. Like Darwin, he lived in Bromley in Kent. Darwin was also a personal correspondent of Johnson’s younger brother - the famous gardener George William Johnson.

Prideaux John Selby

The ornithologist and wildlife artist Prideaux John Selby cited NTA 23 times in his own book on trees (Selby 1842). Selby went on to edit and publish Wallace’s (1855) Sarawak paper.

Whilst compiling his 1842 book on British Forest Trees, Selby wrote to his friend William Jardine on 19th December 1840 (see Jackson 1992 p.86): ‘Would it be giving you too much trouble to look out for me a copy of Matthew’s treatise of Naval Timber…’ In his own book, Selby, (1842; p. 391) would criticise Matthew’s (1831) notion of ‘greater power of occupancy’, but elsewhere in the tome his many comments about NTA were positive.

A fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, Selby sat on numerous committees with Darwin. He, as likely as not, knew Darwin by way of their long-standing mutual senior capacities at the British Association for the Advancement of Science, and the Linnean Society. He was a friend and correspondent of many in Darwin’s inner circle, including William Hooker, (see: Brock and Meadows 1998). Selby was also a friend of Darwin’s great friend and prolific correspondent Leonard Jenyns. What's more, Darwin’s father was a guest at Selby’s house (Jackson 1992). Selby and Darwin’s good friend Thomas Huxley (AKA Darwin’s Bulldog) were also members of the Ray Society. Selby was an associate of Darwin’s geological mentor Charles Lyell, in the capacity of being an 1831 founding member and Vice President of the British Association, at the time Lyell was a member of its council.

page 12
page 13
Eight months after Selby edited and published Wallace’s Sarawak paper, Lyell visited Darwin in order to persuade him into publishing his research on natural selection sooner rather than later.

John Norton

In 1851 John P Norton, the agricultural scientist, cited NTA regarding the benefit of growing naval timber in hedgerows in “the Book of the Farm” which he co-authored with the agriculturalist Stevens (Stephens and Norton 1851). In 1846 Norton was Professor of Scientific Agriculture and Vegetable and Animal Physiology at Yale. He produced a series of books including ‘Elements of Scientific Agriculture’ and published many papers. Norton undertook two study tours of Europe whilst working on soil science. For his important contribution to science, a small statue commentating Norton is on the Edmond Amateis bronze doors at Washington DC.

William Jameson

In (1853) Jameson cited NTA with regard to economic botany. Jameson was a botanist, Deputy Surgeon-General, and Garden Superintendant for the East India Company at Saharanpur, India, from 1844 to 1875 (see Rose 2009). He enjoyed an international reputation as a first-class natural scientist and administrator, famously pioneering tea planting in India. Jameson published widely, including in the Transactions of the Botanical Society of Edinburgh (Jameson 1866). He also supplied seeds to William Hooker at Kew. One such particularly important delivery of seeds was notably received by Robert Lindley (see: Curtis’s 1863)[12].

If William Hooker, whose job at Kew was to keep abreast of knowledge on economic botany for the benefit of the British Empire, had not read NTA pre-Origin, and was unaware of Matthew’s international reputation as a ground-breaking economic botanist, the lapse is somewhat astonishing, because Jameson (1853 p.307) wrote on Matthew’s unique discovery that natural selection, through power of occupancy by other species, actually prevents certain trees from growing in the wild in soil far more suitable to their vigorous growth:

This opinion regarding the value of sites where Pine trees are grown is not, we are aware, in accordance with those of many: but we here give facts as exhibited in the Himalayas. Matthew in his treatise on naval timber, states that the Pinus sylvestris, if grown on good or rich soil, attains rapidly large dimensions and its best timber properties.’

In 1854, the year after Jameson cited that unique and valuable commercial forestry information from page 301 of the main body of NTA,[13] William Hooker, who was empowered to make such decisions for the East India Company, refused Jameson’s request for promotion in favour of his own protégée (see Arnold 2006, pp. 161-162).

Overall, the degree of Darwin’s and Wallace’s scientific and social involvement with those who had read that book is damming, so too is the extent of their involvement with other naturalists closely associated with those who read it.

Dempster (2005 p. 125-183) uniquely synthesised the literature in the field of pre-Origin organic and inorganic evolution to explain the influence of Cuvier and Lamarck upon Matthew’s thinking, and which of their ideas he rejected. The reason that Matthew, who was fluent in French, failed to cite those French influencers is undoubtedly in no small part due to a British moral panic in the first half of the 19th century that such heretical authors helped fuel the French Revolution. What the new evidence presented in this paper reveals is that Matthew’s (1831) improvement on the ideas of those great French naturalists is the missing link that was both Darwin’s and Wallace’s genuine Eureka! moment, because, as Dempster (2005, p.154) explains:

‘The second evolutionary paradigm is that of Patrick Matthew (1831), being a modified Cuvier-Lamarckian evolutionary paradigm. Matthew:
  • accepted the catastrophes and mass extinctions of Cuvier;
  • continued Cuvier’s concept of divergence of species;
  • agreed with Cuvier’s stability of species;
  • rejected Cuvier’s miraculous creation of species;
  • rejected Lamarck’s transmutation of species and presents a completely naturalistic view of earth history.
  • Introduced the new concept of natural selection – a universal law of nature.’
In the year following NTA’s publication, Darwin’s great friend, the famous geologist, Charles Lyell, was active in denying all evidence of geological catastrophes. Lyell’s active catastrophe denial coincided with his denial of the phenomenon in volume II of his Principles of Geology (Lyell 1832). Darwin, adopted Lyell’s uniformitarian belief that catastrophes, of the kind we now believe wiped out many species in different epochs, were a myth. Matthew, however, fully- incorporated catastrophic species extinction into his 1831 conception of natural selection. Rampino (2011) argues on these grounds that Matthew’s writing on this matter is, obviously, now proven superior to Darwin’s. Dempster (2005) notes that since Darwin and Lyell were completely wrong about catastrophes, what is now known as ‘punctuated equilibrium’ (Gould and Eldredge 1977) is essentially another example in a long line of instances of unethical suppression of the facts of Matthew’s influence on Darwinists and neo Darwinists, because Gould and Eldredge do no more than consign Matthew to a footnote while, as usual for Matthew, incorporating his ideas into their own outwardly original thinking.

page 13
page 14

Part III

A Bombshell for the History of Science


Darwin’s and Wallace’s excuses for having no prior-knowledge of Matthew’s work are refuted by an overwhelming number of disconfirming facts. It is difficult to believe, in light of these newly discovered facts, that Darwin or Wallace could have avoided reading the one book in the world that each really needed to read. The number, prominence and content of advertisements for NTA suggest that Darwin and Wallace would have seen them and would have been sufficiently intrigued; particularly since Darwin spent 28 years hunting down and reading related literature in search of any kind of evidence that might confirm, or disconfirm, the theory of natural selection. Unsurprisingly, therefore, he did read at least five publications that mention NTA.

Contrary to currently accepted knowledge, other naturalists, including at least three known personally to Darwin and Wallace, did have pre-Origin knowledge of Matthew’s discovery. Moreover, those three naturalists were at thee epicentre of Darwin’s and Wallace’s involvement in the field of organic evolution. The most influential papers of Blyth, a naturalist who Darwin (1861a) admitted had served him as a most valuable informant and influencer, were edited and published by John Loudon, who read and cited NTA (Loudon 1832) pre-Origin. Robert Chambers (1832), who both Darwin and Wallace freely admitted was a great influence on their work, read and cited NTA pre-Origin. Matthew’s prior discovery of natural selection undoubtedly directly influenced Chambers to write the Vestiges, and from that cause can we be certain that Matthew did, at the very least, indirectly influence Darwin and Wallace to find further evidence to support Matthew’s hypothesis and turn it into a theory. Wallace’s (1855) Sarawak paper’s editor and publisher, Prideaux John Selby (1842), read and cited NTA thirteen years earlier. Moreover, the naturalist William Jardine, had the book in his possession for some time because he purchased Selby’s copy.

The fact that Loudon, Chambers and Selby, three out of only seven naturalists known to have definitely read NTA pre-Origin, played such dynamic roles at the very core of influence and facilitation of Darwin’s and Wallace’s published work on natural selection can have – beyond seeking to explain it away as a coincidence upon coincidence upon coincidence pile-up  only one rational explanation. Namely, that whatever Loudon, Selby and Chambers wrote about Matthew's book when they cited it, that it would surely be a mere tri-coincidence amazing beyond rational belief that of only seven naturalists known to have actually cited Matthew's book that three played such pivotal roles at the very epicentre of influence and facilitation of Darwin’s and Wallace's pre-1858 ideas on natural selection. Any scientist wishing to claim that it is a mere tri-coincidence must surely be thinking irrationally.

Surely it is now established, rationally and beyond any reasonable doubt that Matthew’s discovery influenced both Darwin and Wallace. Matthew’s discovery and his influence fulfill both Condition I and Condition II of the protocols and conventions of scientific priority, thereby satisfying all required criteria for Matthew to be awarded full priority over Darwin and Wallace.

On the haunting question of whether or not Darwin and Wallace plagiarised NTA and then lied to claim independent discovery, I have weighed the findings presented in this article – together with further evidence regarding other non-naturalist writers who read NTA – and a comparative computer-mediated plagiarism analysis of Darwin’s and Wallace’s published and unpublished work. Findings from an analysis of that wider investigation lead me (Sutton 2014) to conclude that Darwin and Wallace committed the World’s greatest science fraud. That is, of course, just my opinion, albeit based on the new data I discovered. An interesting article on plagiarism by the powerful reveals several methods - such as denigrating the victim - that we can see were employed by Darwin.

page 14
page 15

Nullius in Verba
To learn more about the book that proves Darwin and Wallace committed the world's greatest science fraud please click here

Visit the Patrick Matthew website for more information and news etc.


Agricola, G. A. 1721. A Philosophical Treatise of Husbandry and Gardening: Being a New Method of Cultivating and Increasing All Sorts of Trees, Shrubs, and Flowers. London. P. Vaillant, and W. Mears and F. Clay.
Arcana of Science and Art Or an Annual Register of Popular Inventions and Improvements, Abridged from the Transactions of Public Societies, and from the Scientific Journals, British and Foreign, of the Past Year. 1832. Volume 5.
Arnold, D. 2006. The Tropics and the Travelling Gaze: India, landscape, and science, 1800-1856. Seattle. University of Washington Press.
The Athenaeum 1839. Journal of Literature, Science and the Fine Arts. January to December. p. 17.
Blyth, E. 1835. An attempt to classify the “varieties” of animals. The Magazine of Natural History. (8) (1), Parts 1-2.
Blyth, E. 1836. Observations on the various seasonal and other external Changes which regularly take place in Birds more particularly in those which occur in Britain; with Remarks on their great Importance in indicating the true Affinities of Species; and upon the Natural System of Arrangement. The Magazine of Natural History: Volume 9. p. 393 – 409.
Barck, H. 1762. On the Foliation of Trees. Publisher unknown.
Bowler, P. 2003 Evolution: the history of an idea. (3rd edition). Berkeley. The University of California Press.
Bowler, P. J. (2014) Darwin Deleted: Imagining a World without Darwin. Chicago. University of Chicago Press.
Boutcher, W. 1775. A Treatise on Forest Trees. London. Murray. J.
Brineley, T. 1993. The Industrial Revolution and the Atlantic Economy: Selected Essays. London. Routledge.

page 15
page 16
Bryson, B. 2010. (ed.) Seeing Further: The Story of Science and the Royal Society. London Harper Collins.
Buffon, G. L. L. 1775. The Natural History of Animals, Vegetables, and Minerals. With the Theory of the Earth in General. Volume 3. London. T. Bell.
Canfield, T. 2002. Loudon, John Claudius. In: Skempton, A. (Ed.). Biographical Dictionary of Civil Engineers, Volume 1 – 1500 to 1830. London. Thomas Telford Publishing.
Carpenter, H. 2008. The Seven Lives of John Murray: The Story of a Publishing Dynasty 1768-2002. London. John Murray.
Chambers, R. 1832. Chambers's Edinburgh Journal. William Orr. Saturday March 24th p. 63.
Chambers, R. 1840. Chambers’s Edinburgh Journal. Vol. III. page 40.
Chambers, R. 1844. Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation. New York. Wiley and Putnum. (published anonymously).
Chambers, R. 1859. Charles Darwin on The Origin of Species. Chambers’s Journal of Popular Literature Science and Arts. Saturday December 17. No. 311. pp. 388-391.
Clarke, R. W. 1984. The Survival of Charles Darwin: A Biography of a man and an idea. New York. Random House.
Darwin Correspondence Project. Archive of thirteen letters of correspondence between Darwin and Lindley.¤tPage=1&filterOperand=AND
Darwin, C. R. 1837-1838. Notebook B: 'Zoonomia' Transmutation of species. Transcribed by Kees Rookmaaker. Darwin Online:
Darwin 1838-51 Notebook of Books to be read & 'Books Read. Darwin Online.
Darwin, C. R. to Hooker, J. D. 1845. Letter of 29 Aug. Darwin Correspondence Database, .
Darwin, C. R. 1845b. Letter to Hooker. 8th October. Darwin Correspondence Database. Darwin Correspondence Database, .
Darwin, C. R. 1847. Letter to Hooker, J. D. 18 April. Darwin Correspondence Database,
Darwin, C. R. 1852-60. 'Books Read' & 'Books to be Read' Darwin Online.
Darwin, C. R. and Wallace, A. R. 1858.On the tendency of species to form varieties; and on the perpetuation of varieties and species by natural means of selection. Journal of the Proceedings of the Linnaean Society of London.
Darwin. C. R. 1859. On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. Or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. London. John Murray.
Darwin, C. 1860a. Letter to Hooker. 13th April. Darwin Correspondence Project. Darwin Correspondence Database,
Darwin, C. R. 1860b. Natural selection. Gardeners' Chronicle and Agricultural Gazette no. 16 (21 April): 362-363. See Darwin online:
Darwin, C. R. 1861. Letter to Qatrefages de Bréau, J. L. A. De. Apr. Darwin Correspondence Project:
Darwin, C. R. 1861a. On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. Or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. (Third Edition) London. John Murray.
Davies, R. 2008. The Darwin Conspiracy: Origins of a Scientific Crime. London. Golden Square Books.
Dawkins, R. 2010. Darwin’s Five Bridges: The Way to Natural Selection. In Bryson, B. (ed.)Seeing Further: The Story of Science and the Royal Society. London Harper Collins.
Dempster, W. J. 1983. Patrick Matthew and Natural Selection. Edinburgh. Paul Harris Publishing.

page 16
page 17
Dempster, W. J. 1996. Evolutionary Concepts in the Nineteenth Century. Edinburgh. The Pentland Press.
Dempster, W. J. (2005) The Illustrious Hunter and the Darwins. Sussex. Book Guild Publishing.
The Edinburgh Literary Journal, or, Weekly register of criticism and belles-lettres. 1830. Volume 4. Saturday December 18th. p.49.
The Edinburgh Literary Journal or, Weekly register of criticism and belles-lettres. 1831. July 2nd N. 138. pp 1-4.
Edwards, G. 1751. A Natural History of Uncommon Birds. Part IV and Last. London. Self published.
Eiseley, L. 1959. Darwin’s Century: Evolution and the Men who Discovered it. London. The Scientific Book Guild.
Eiseley, L. 1979. Darwin and the Mysterious Mr X: New Light on the Evolutionists. New York. E. P. Dutton.
Evelyn, J. 1664. Sylva, or a discourse of forest-trees, and the propagation of timber. To which is annexed Pomona; or an appendix concerning fruit trees in relation to cider. London. Jo. Martyn, and Ja. Allestry, printers to the Royal Society.
The Encyclopaedia Britannica, or Dictionary of Arts, Sciences, and General Literature. 1842. Volume 4. Edition 7. Edinburgh. Black.
Fletcher, C. 1984. Why one man became the world hero. Review of Macfarlane, G. (1984) Alexander Fleming: the Man and Myth. New Scientist. March 22. p.30.
Forsyth, W. 1791. Observations on the Diseases, Defects, and Injuries in All Kinds of Fruit and Forest Trees. London.
The Gardener’s Magazine 1841. London. Longman, Rees, Orme, Brown, Green and Longman.
Gould, S. J. 2002. The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. Harvard. Harvard University Press. pp. 137-141.
Gould, S. J. and Eldredge, N. (1977). "Punctuated equilibria: the tempo and mode of evolution reconsidered." Paleobiology 3 (2): 115-151. (p.145).
Hamilton, W. D. 2001. Narrow Roads of Gene Land, Volume 2: Evolution of Sex. Oxford. Oxford University Press.
Hasan, H. 2005. Mendel and the Laws of Genetics. New York. The Rosen Publishing Group.
Head, G. 1829. Forest scenes and incidents, in the wilds of North America: being a diary of a winter's route from Halifax to the Canadas, and during four months' residence in the woods on the borders of Lakes Huron and Simcoe. London, J. Murray.
Hillhouse, A. L. 1818. Description of the European olive tree. Paris.
Holway, T. 2013. The Flower of Empire: An Amazonian Water Lily, The Quest to Make it Bloom, and the World it Created. Oxford. Oxford University Press.
Huxley, L. 1918. Life and Letters of Sir Joseph Dalton Hooker O.M. G.C.S.I. Vol. 1. Based on Materials Collected and Arranged by Lady Hooker. By Huxley, L. London. John Murray. And Vol. 2. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.
Jackson, C. E. 1992. Prideaux John Selby: A Gentleman Naturalist. Christine E. Jackson. Northumberland. Spredden Press.
Jameson, W. 1853.Contributions to a History of the Relation between Climate and Vegetation in various parts of the Globe. On the Physical Aspect of the Punjab its Agriculture and Botany. By Dr. Jameson Superintendent of the Botanic Garden Saharunpore. The Journal of the Horticultural Society of London. Volume 8. p. 273- 314
Johnson, C. W. 1842. Plantation. The Farmer’s Magazine. January to June. Vol. 5 pp. 364-368
Judd, J, W. 1909. Darwin and Geology. In Seward, A. C. (ed.) Darwin and Modern Science – Essays in Commemoration of the Centenary of the Birth of Charles Darwin and of the Fiftieth Anniversary of the Publication. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.
Knapp, S. Sanders, L and Baker, W. 2002. Alfred Russel Wallace and the Palms of Amazon.Palms. Vol. 46. 3. pp. 109-199

page 17
page 18
King, Fitzroy and Darwin, C. 1839. Narrative of the Surveying Voyages of Her Majesty’s Ships Adventure and Beagle. Proceedings of the second expedition, 1831-1836, under the command of Captain Robert FitzRoy. Appendix to Volume II. London. Henry Colburn.
Knight, T. A. 1797. A Treatise on the Culture of the Apple & Pear and on the Manufacture of Cider & Perry. Ludlow. H. Procter.
Library of Congress 1840. Catalogue of the Library of Congress, in the Capitol of the United States of America. December 1839. Washington. p.127.
Lindley, J. 1839. An Introduction to Botany. Third Edition. London. Longman, Orme, Green, Brown and Longmans.
Lindley, J. 1853. The Vegetable Kingdom: The Structure, Uses and Classification of Plants. Third Edition. London Bradbury and Evans.
The Literary Gazette A Weekly Journal of Literature, Science, and the Fine Arts. 1831. January 15. Page 47,
London Literary Gazette and Journal of Belles Lettres for Arts Sciences etc (1839). Annual Compendium. Page 56.
Loudon, J. C. 1822. An Encyclopaedia of Gardening, Comprising the Theory and Practice of Horticulture, Floriculture, Arboriculture and Landscape-gardening, Including. a General History of Gardening in All Countries. London. Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme and Brown.
Loudon, J.C. 1829. An Encyclopaedia of Plants. London. Longman, Rees Orme, Brown and Green.
Loudon, J. C. 1831. An Encyclopædia of Agriculture: Comprising the Theory and Practice of the Valuation, Transfer, Laying Out, Improvement, and Management of Landed Property; and the Cultivation and Economy of the Animal and Vegetable Productions of Agriculture, Including All the Latest Improvements; a General History of Agriculture in All Countries; and a Statistical View of Its Present State, with Suggestions for Its Future Progress in the British Isles. London: Longman, Rees, Orme, Brown, and Green.
Loudon, J.C. 1832. Matthew Patrick On Naval Timber and Arboriculture with Critical Notes on Authors who have recently treated the Subject of Planting. Gardener’s Magazine. Vol. VIII. p.703.
Loudon, J. C. 1835. An Encyclopaedia of Gardening: Comprising the Theory and Practice of Horticulture, Floriculture, Arboriculture and Landscape- Gardening. London. Longman, Orme, Brown, Green and Longman.
Loudon, J. C. 1838. Arboretum et Fruticetum Britannicum (1838). Or the Trees and Shrubs of Britain. Pictorially and Botanically Delineated. In Eight Volumes. Vol 1. London. Longman, Orme, Brown, Green and Longman.
Loudon, J. C. 1839. Letter to Sir William Jackson Hooker; from Pernambuco [Brazil]; 26 June.Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew: Archives: Directors' Correspondence.
Loudon, J. C. 1844. List of Books Referred to in: Arboretum et Fruticetum Britannicum. Or the Trees and Shrubs of Britain. Pictorially and Botanically Delineated. In Eight Volumes. Vol 1. London. Longman, Orme, Brown, Green and Longman.
Loudon, J. C. 1850. Loudon’s Hortus Britannicus A Catalogue of All the Plants, Indigenous, Cultivated in, or Introduced to Britain. Part 1. London.
Lyell, C. (1832) Principles of Geology: being an attempt to explain the former changes of the Earth’s surface. By reference to causes now in operation. In two volumes. Vo.l 2. London. John Murray.
Magazine of Natural History and Journal of Zoology, Botany, Mineralogy, Geology and Meteorology (1831). Vol. IV. p.571
Matthew, P. 1829. Some Account of the Fruits grown in Gourdie Hill Orchard Carse of Gowrie with Remarks. In a Letter from Patrick Matthew Esq. to the Secretary dated 3. December 1827.Memoirs of the Caledonian Horticultural Society. Fourth Volume. Edinburgh. Maclachlan and Stewart. London Simpkin and Marshall.
Matthew, P. 1831. On Naval Timber and Arboriculture: With a critical note on authors who have recently treated the subject of planting. Edinburgh. Adam Black. London. Longman and Co
Matthew, P. 1839. Emigration fields: North America, the Cape, Australia, and New Zealand; describing these countries, and giving a comparative view of the advantages they present to British settlers. Edinburgh. Adam and Charles Black.

page 18
page 19
Matthew, P. 1860a. Letter to the Gardeners Chronicle. Nature's law of selection. Gardeners' Chronicle and Agricultural Gazette (7 April): 312-13. Darwin Online:
Matthew, P. 1860b. Letter to the Gardeners Chronicle. Nature's law of selection. Gardeners' Chronicle and Agricultural Gazette (12 May) p. 433.
Mayr, E. 1982. The growth of biological thought: diversity, evolution, and inheritance. Cambridge, Mass. Harvard University Press.
Merton, R. K. 1957. Priorities in Scientific Discovery: A Chapter in the Sociology of Science.American Sociological Review. Volume 22. No.6. December. pp. 635-659.
Millhauser, M. 1959. Just Before Darwin: Robert Chambers and the Vestiges. Middletown Connecticut. Wesleyan University Press.
Mondobbo, J. B. (Lord). 1774. Orangutans and the Origins of Human Nature. Volume 6 of Animal rights and souls in the eighteenth century. Bristol. Thoemmes Press.
Murphy, E. 1834. Irish Farmer's and Gardener's Magazine and Register of Rural Affairs. Volume 1.
New Zealand Journal. 1843. Captain Fitzroy, The New Governor. Vol. IV. P. 98 and 221.
Quarterly Review. 1839. Vol. 60. London. John Murray.
Rampino, M. R. 2011. Darwin's error? Patrick Matthew and the catastrophic nature of the geologic record. Historical Biology: An International Journal of Paleobiology. Volume 23, Issue 2-3.
Rees. M. 2010. Conclusion: Looking Fifty Years Ahead. In Bryson, B (ed.) Seeing Further: The Story of Science and the Royal Society. London Harper Collins.
Roger, C. 1849. History of St Andrews. Edinburgh. Adam and Charles Black.
Rose, R. 2009. For all the Tea in China: Espionage, Empire and the secret formula of the world’s favourite drink. London. Hutchinson.
Secord. J. A. 2000. Victorian Sensation: The Extraordinary Reception, and Secret Authorship of Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation. Chicago and London. The University of Chicago Press.
Selby, P. J. 1842. A history of British forest-trees: indigenous and introduced. London. Van Voorst.
Shermer, M. 2002. In Darwin's Shadow: The Life and Science of Alfred Russel Wallace: A Biographical Study on the Psychology of History. Oxford. Oxford University Press.
Spencer, H. 1864 The Principles of Biology. Vol. I. London. Williams and Norgate.
Stephens. H. With assistance from Norton, J. P. 1851. The Book of the Farm. Vol. 2. Edinburgh. William Blackwood and Sons. p.569.
Sulloway, F. 1982. Darwin's Conversion The Beagle Voyage and its Aftermath. Journal of the History of Biology. 15 (Fall, 1982), pp. 325-397
Sulloway, J. 1984. Darwin and the Galapagos. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society. January. Volume 21, Issue 1-2. pp. 29–59.
Vorzimmer, P. J. 1977. The Darwin Reading Notebooks (1838-1860). Journal of the History of Biology. Vol. 10. No. 1. Spring. pp. 107-153.
Wainwright, M. 2008 Natural Selection: It’s Not Darwin’s (Or Wallace’s) Theory. Saudi Journal of Biological Sciences. 15 (1) 1-8 June, 2008.
Wainwright, M. 2011. Charles Darwin: Mycologist and Refuter of His Own Myth. Fungi. Volume 4:1 Winter. pp.13-20.
Wallace, A. R. 1845. Letter to Bates. December 28th. Wallace Letters Online. Natural History Museum. Unique WCP identifier 346.346
Wallace, A. R. 1855. On the law which has regulated the introduction of new species. The Annals and Magazine of Natural History. Series 2. 16. 184-196.
Wallace, A. R. (1871) Contributions to the Theory of Natural Selection. A Series of Essays. New York. Macmillan and Co.

page 19
page 20
Wallace, A. R. (1905) My Life: A Record of Events and Opinions, Volume 1. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press. Note: Taken here from digitally printed version (2011), Cambridge University Press.
Wells, K. D. 1973. The Historical Context of Natural selection: The Case of Patrick Matthew.Journal of the History of Biology. Vol. 6. N0. 2. pp. 225-258.
Wells, W.C. 1818. Two Essays: One Upon Single Vision with two eyes; The other On Dew. A Letter To The Right Hon. Lloyd, Lord Kenyon. And An Account of A Female of the White Race of Mankind, Part of Whose Skin Resembles that of a Negro; With Some Observations on the Causes of the Differences in Colour and Form Between the White and Negro Races of Man. By the Late William Charles Wells. With a Memoir of his Life Written by Himself. London. Archibald Constable and Co. Edinburgh.
Whitehurst, J. 1778. An Inquiry into the Original State and Formation of the Earth. London. Bent.
Woodbury, L. 1838. Live Oak. House of Representatives. December 15, 1832. Report of the Secretary of the Navy on Live Oak. Navy Department. December 14th. In: Register of Debates in Congress: Comprising the Leading Debates and Incidents of the Second Session of the Eighteenth Congress: Dec. 6, 1824, to the First Session of the Twenty-fifth Congress, Oct. 16, 1837. Together with an Appendix, Containing the Most Important State Papers and Public Documents to which the Session Has Given Birth: to which are Added, the Laws Enacted During the Session, with a Copious Index to the Whole. Volume IX. Washington. (see p.128).

[1] Although the actual review was anonymous, in his 1860 letter in the Gardener’s Chronicle Matthew explained that it was penned by Loudon, the magazine’s editor.
[2] In late 18th and early 19th century Scotland, heretics, fornicators and other ‘sinners’ were obliged by the church authorities to stand upon three legged wooden stools, known as cutty, or cuttie, stools, as a mark of shame.
[3] Wallace went on to publish in 1855 his Sarawak paper in this journal.
[4] The Athenaeum was founded by the father of Darwin’s publisher John Murray (Carpenter 2008).
[6] Published by John Murray, the publishers of Darwin’s Origin of Species.
[7] This is the journal of the Gentleman’s club. Of which Darwin had been a member since 1839. Joseph Hooker joined in 1850.
[8] Available at Click on the Darwin Collection, then on ‘annotations’.
[9] Note also that Matthew’s paragraph is from the main body of NTA, not from its appendix.
[10] This gift is evidence that Chambers knew Darwin was working in the field of the origin of species. Why else would he risk giving Darwin a gift of his anonymously authored book, which covered the same heretical subject?
[11] From an analysis based upon a precise term and date filtered search through the scanned documents in Google’s archive of 30 million publications.
[12] Coincidentally, the relevant edition of that copy of Curtis’s, which is available in Google’s Library, was donated to the University Harvard Herbarium by none other than the US Botanist and friend of Darwin and the Hookers - Asa Gray.
[13] The relevant text is reproduced in Part I of the article you are currently reading,