On The Charles Darwin Fake Discovery Alternate Reality Show

 When confronted by Matthew in 1860 for plagiarising his work. Darwin smogged the scientific world by claiming he had not read Matthew's work, which he claimed was unsurprising given it was a book on the 's book also contained topic of naval timber. However, Darwin's dishonest wriggling failed to mention the full title of Matthew's (1831) book is On Naval Timber and Arboriculture. Arboriculture was a great passion among the landed gentry - many of whom were naturalists.  Darwin was a member of the landed gentry as were many of his friends. The naturalist Selby - who cited Matthew's (1831) book in 1842 -  was a member of the landed gentry and editor of the journal that published Alfred Wallace's Sarawak paper (a fact I discovered in 2014 that was slyly plagiarised in the Linnean journal by Dagg The Plagiarist).

 Darwin's deliberate obfuscating of the facts also hid from the incurious and credulous scientific community the fact that naval timber was a very important subject for economic botany. Darwin's best friend and botanical mentor Joseph Hooker was an economic botanist, as was his father William. To prove the point, we can see that very subject of naval timber raised in Hooker's Journal of Botany: HERE in 1854.  The same subject of naval timber was also written about by other friends correspondents and influencers of Darwin, including Lindly, a friend and co-author of Loudon - who cited Matthew's 1831 book in 1832 and wrote that Matthew appeared to have something orignal to say on the "origin of species" no less! A term that would become the very title of Darwin The Plagiarist's 1859 book. 

Contrary to Darwin's proven deliberate lies, written after he had already been told of naturalists who did cite Matthew's book pre-1858, that no naturalist had read Matthew's unique ideas long before he replicated them in 1858 and 1859, many naturalists did so. See my List 1 (updated) below:

List 1 (From Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret 2014 See blog here)

Those who/that cited Matthew (1831) before Darwin's (1858) and Wallace's (1858) plagiarism of Matthew's theory in the Linnean Journal, where they further stole his unique terminology and explanatory examples, and before Darwin's plagiarising 'Origin of Species' (1859)

1. Matthew's (1831) Edinburgh publisher Adam Black
2. Matthew's (1831) London publisher Longman, Rees, Orme, Brown and Green 
3. The Farmer’s Journal – Currently unknown reviewer (1831)
4. The Perthshire Courier - Currently unknown reviewer (1831)
5. The Elgin Courier - Currently unknown reviewer (18311)
6. The Country Times - Currently unknown reviewer (1831)
7. The United Service Journal and Naval and Military Magazine (1831) – unknown reviewer
8. The Edinburgh Literary Journal – unknown reviewer (1831)
9. The Metropolitan – unknown reviewer (1831)
10. John Claudius Loudon (1832) (And cited many times by Loudon thereafter. All refs in 'Nullius').
11. Robert Chambers (1832)

12. The Quarterly Review (here) Unknown reviewer on topic of dry rot. (Newly added here 14th March 2021)
13. John Murray II in (1833)
14. John Murray III (1833) personally or by association – via the same publishing house as John Murray II
15. Edmund Murphy (1834)

16. Thomas Horton James (1839) [Newly added: Discovered May 2020] (and here)
17. Gavin Cree (1841)
18. John William Carleton (1841)
19. Cuthbert William Johnson (1842)
20. Prideaux John Selby (Selby 1842)
21. The Penny Magazine of the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge (1838) (1842) – Anonymous 
22. Publishers - Cradock and Co. (1843)3 in ‘British Forest Trees’
23. Henry Stephens (1851)
24. John. P. Norton (1851)4 (Co-published with Stevens above)
25. Levi Woodbury (1832) (1833) (1852)

26. William Lauder Lindsay (1852) [Newly added: Discovered Jan 2019]  (and here)
27. William Jameson (1853)
28. Wyatt Papworth (1858)