Beware "The Lads" of the Patrick Matthew Burial Project

 

How I came to research Charles Darwin’s plagiarism and what happened next

                                                                        By Mike Sutton

The power of the IDD research method (Sutton and Griffiths 2018) was first proven by detecting that Professor Stanley Cohen never coined the phrase or concept of moral panic. I blogged about this and someone then put the new fact on the Moral Panic Wikipedia page with a discoverer link to my name. Then Wikipedia editors deleted that attribution in 2013. By deleting it, they plagiarised my research, implying either they discovered it or else that it was already common knowledge and they had never been wrong in the past.

Wikipedia steals other people’s research without attribution all the time. When not doing that, its corrupt editors deliberately delete or else misrepresent verifiable facts for cash. If you think I am exaggerating, just Google ‘Wikipedia editor fraud’. And check this out https://gen.medium.com/wikipedias-top-secret-hired-guns-will-make-you-matter-for-a-price-a4bdace476ae

Did you know that Charles Darwin never coined the term "natural selection," and he never discovered the process of natural selection; although many scholarly books claim he did both. In fact, that term was used by William Preston (1803) six years before Darwin was born. And the scientific breakthrough of natural selection theory as an explanation for macroevolution — the entire detailed description of its evolutionary biological process, the hypothesis for it and the key examples used to explain it—are all unquestionably Patrick Matthew's (1831) unique prior-published discovery and literary creation.

Even though the discovery had been fully published by Matthew, 28 years before Darwin replicated and boldly claimed to have independently discovered the theory himself, Alfred Russel Wallace made his own claim to have independently discovered the exact same thing.

During my research I detected the first glint of a possible fraud behind Darwin's and Wallace’s discovery story. Darwin lied. He lied because Matthew told him, in published print (Matthew 1860, 1860b) of other naturalists who had read his book, who had understood the original hypothesis in it, before Darwin (Darwin and Wallace 1858; Darwin 1859) replicated that hypothesis and so much more of the book’s content. Darwin lied because even after receiving that information, he continued to claim in print and in his private letters to other influential naturalists that no naturalist whatsoever had read the unique ideas in Matthew's book before 1860.

With the IDD research method, I found other naturalists, known to have influenced Darwin and Wallace who read and then cited Matthew's book before Darwin and Wallace replicated the theory in it. The unearthing of these naturalist authors is essentially the most important finding of my research in this area. 

Fact denial and avoidance are human traits, especially when motivated by fear or money.

There is a status quo in science and its history, academics who dare to question it are at real risk of losing their job. Therefore, it is not only easier but also safer to reject all new facts that challenge the scientific establishment’s approved ‘knowledge.’ The problem is when objective and inquisitive investigators go through the process of documenting independently verifiable facts to question ‘establishment’ approved knowledge beliefs, they begin by putting what they find on the confirmatory side of the ledger, or else the disconfirming side. And they soon start to add up to a greater or lesser weight of facts on one side versus the other. If they come down on the disconfirming side that means trouble.

Immediately after the first edition of this book (Sutton 2014) was published, George Beccaloni, then Curator of the Wallace Collection at the Natural History Museum of London, wrote to deny that the newly unearthed facts in it that show the ledger is no longer in Wallace’s or Darwin’s favour. And he did so whilst failing to disclose that he had not even read it. Beccaloni was caught in the act and confronted by my then publisher on Richard Dawkins’ website (See: Beccaloni 2014).

Seven years later Beccaloni (2021) writes that he is employed by the Wallace Fund, which is supported by the Darwin Foundation.

At the time of writing these words, Wikipedia editors are, on their pages, brute censoring disturbing verifiable facts from my research, whilst publishing falsehoods and misrepresenting the facts by citing desperate fact denial nonsense from silly private blog sites on the topic. In so doing they falsify ‘the ledger’ of facts in favour and facts against the life of the book NTA regarding its newly proven influence on Darwin and Wallace via their influencers and their influencer’s influencers.

Equally ironically, Mike Weale (2015), then employed as a senior academic at Kings College London, earlier used findings from my (Sutton 2014a) research, without citing its source. Weale then escalated his behaviour to write malicious correspondence to Professor Edward Peck, a former research manager at Kings College London specialising in mental health. Peck was then and is at the time of writing, Vice Chancellor of my former employer Nottingham Trent University.  Weale pulled out all the stops to press Pecks mental health sensitivities when he wrote in his three-page email that in the comments discussion we had on his blogsite on Patrick Matthew, I insinuated he is stupid, deranged, or deceitful and that such insinuations attacked his integrity and academic abilities. His email insists Professor Peck investigate me promptly and take appropriate action.

I do not think I Insinuated he is stupid, deranged and deceitful. I try to write directly, especially on social media.

Weal’s correspondence to Peck (now securely forensically archived) was sent in an l effort to have me disciplined or else dismissed as a senior academic, because I criticised, Darwin scholar Dr John van Wyhe for emailing a Scottish journalist in 2015, that my research on the topic of this book is a silly “conspiracy theory”. Most tellingly, Van Wyhe at that juncture had just resigned from the editorial board of the journal that published a peer reviewed article on my research (Sutton 2015).

Scottish journalist Michael Alexander interviewed van Wyhe and reported back in the press, whilst quite rightly leaving out van Wyhe’s conspiracy theory nonsense from his earlier email (Alexander 2016):

 ‘Dr John van Wyhe, a senior lecturer at the Department of Biological Sciences, at the National University of Singapore, said the recent claims by Dr Mike Sutton … were “so silly” and ‘based on such forced and contorted imitations of historical method that no qualified historian could take it seriously.'

Nottingham Tent University (NTU) appointed a professor of criminal justice to formally investigate the allegations, made in the email sent by Weale to Peck.

After several weeks, I was totally exonerated. And the professor NTU placed in charge of the ludicrously money wasting fiasco shook my hand and said how interesting my research was. But that was only after NTU had weeks earlier sent a Human Resources letter to my home saying I could lose my job!

As soon as the investigation was over, a senior member of the Human Resources department at NTU suggested I write to the VC of Weale’s university to let him know exactly what their employee had been up to. I declined. As someone who at least tries to be a proper academic criminologist, I am interested in crime, deviance, and other harmful behaviour – studying it, not being a part of it. As said, Weale’s behaviour is interesting data.

Independently verifiable facts trump myths, lies and wishful thinking every time. I tried (Sutton 2016d) to get Mike Weale to debate with me at any time and place of his choosing, before an audience of our peers and on camera. He declined the invitation, made just days before he sent his malicious communication to my employer! What is he so afraid of? Is it the truth of the New Data facts he apparently so hates? Weal’s malicious email to Edward Peck clearly sought to ruin my life and that of my dependents because I had the temerity to robustly defended my research against ludicrous comments made by van Wyhe and Weale.

More is the academic tragedy of van Wyhe’s misty-eyed love that it prevents him seeing the facts for the smog but leads him ever to defend the myth of Darwin.

‘…the man who pursues science for its own sake and not for the pride of possession will feel more gratitude towards the surgeon who dislodges a cataract from the mind's eye than towards the one who repairs the defect of the bodily organ.’ (Matthew, 1831. p. vii).

Turning back to John van Wyhe’s “so silly” reasoning, we should ask ourselves, therefore, whether the following original discoveries I made really are “so silly” as he wants you to believe:

1.       Is it so silly that I totally, 100 per cent, disproved the claims of the most highly esteemed biologists Darwin, de Beer and Mayr, who all wrote that no one read Matthew’s conception pre-1860? Is it silly that a self-proclaimed professional historian of science, van Wyhe, or any other so-called professional historian of science for that matter failed to find that data earlier?

2.       Is it so silly that I, a non-professional historian of science, did so disprove the ‘No One Read Matthew’s Ideas Before 1860 Myth’ with many newly unearthed historic publication examples including originally unearthing the fact that Selby cited Matthew’s 1831 book and then was chief editor of the journal that published Wallace’s (1855) Sarawak paper on evolution?

3.       Is it equally so silly that I discovered Chambers (1832) cited Matthew? The same Chambers (1844) who then wrote the hugely influential Vestiges of Creation, which all Darwin experts agree so influenced both Darwin and Wallace before 1858, because Darwin and Wallace each said so? To press this point home, precise mention of the Vestiges occurs in 36 items of post in the surviving letters to or from Darwin between its date of publication and the first publication of Darwin’s Origin in 1859 (see: https://archive.is/v1BKv).

4.       Is it so silly that Darwin met Chambers in the 1840’s (Darwin 1847b) and they corresponded thereafter?

5.       Is it so silly that the highly networked Loudon cited Matthew (Loudon 1831) and actually wrote that Matthew appeared to have something original to say on ‘the origin of species’, a phrase that years later Darwin used as the title of his famous book? Is it silly that Loudon was a part of Darwin’s close social and scientific network?

6.       Is it so silly that William Hooker’s regular correspondent, Jameson (1853), cited Matthew on the topic of trees when famous economic botanist and tree expert Hooker was a friend of Darwin and father of Darwin’s best friend, the famous botanist and tree expert Joseph Hooker?

7.       Is it so silly that three other naturalists and several agriculturists cited Matthew pre-1858 and that they were part of Darwin’s scientific network with clear routes for NTA knowledge contamination links to him?

Is it so silly then that in addition to the 7 points above, as Hugh Dower most kindly pointed out to me on social media in 2020, that before I found it, Eisley and later Dempster has already pointed out that Loudon went on to edit and publish Blyth’s (1835, 1836) influential articles, read by both Darwin and Wallace pre-1858, on adaptation within species? Is it further silly that Darwin (see Darwin 1848a) met Blyth in person, read his work, and corresponded with him at least a decade before 1858? Is the associated explanatory concept of written and oral “knowledge contamination” (Sutton 2015) silly then, when I have proven Darwin lied about the pre-1858 readership of Matthew’s breakthrough after his and Wallace’s influencers and influencer’s influencers cited Matthew’s 1831 book years before Darwin’s and Wallace’s claimed amazing independent replications of both the original theory in it and its essential explanatory analogy of differences? Is the alternative explanation of Darwin’s and Wallace’s independent, miraculous, virgin conceptions of Matthew’s prior published and cited theory, its unique explanatory highly idiosyncratic analogy of differences, and Darwin’s use of the same four words to name it, not silly?  The artist Gabriel Woods thinks so. I commissioned him to paint the ‘Virgins Darwin and Wallace with baby Matthew’ scene below as an allegorical explanatory analogy. It is a satirizing tribute to in The Holy Family by Francesco Francia (circa 1510) - shown here left of Wood's painting.

Darwin’s self-appointed reputation security guard, John van Wyhe, has a habit of calling other writers he disagrees with ‘conspiracy theorists’ (e.g., van Wyhe 2014). Maybe it is a conspiracy theory then that he flees new verifiable facts he hates in the history of science by deserting the editorial board of a journal for daring to publish them? Perhaps it is a conspiracy theory to write the following allegorical explanatory analogy:

Just as the mythical Virgin Mary conceived the child of a supernatural deity whilst surrounded by fertile men, so did Darwin and Wallace have dually independent virgin conceptions of a prior published theory whilst surrounded and influenced by men who read it and cited it in the literature.

Perhaps it would have been far less  silly if Dr John van Wyhe had used Google before I did, and so found for himself what I found, before I found it for him, rather than launder in the Scottish press what might appear to some to be madly indecorous jealousy of the New Big Data findings.

Will all such professional Darwinites remember to cite me as the originator of these newly discovered facts? Will they be madly considered “silly” scientific and historic facts then?  Apparently not, because we already know that my Selby research finding has been plagiarised twice in the Biological Journal of the Linnean Society. This was done first by Weale (2015) and then by Dagg (2018). What original research findings published in my books and articles will Darwinites plagiarise next in an obvious attempt to conceal from others the importance of my research data? Will professional historians of science, such as van Wyhe, flee from those facts too? Or just van Wyhe? Because surely they are all in competition and do not speak as one.

On a closely allied note, in 2020, I wrote to John Allen, Chief Editor of the Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, and then following his outright refusal to deal properly with Weale and Dagg’s plagiarism of my research in that journal, by refusing to have those he intended to examine it be allowed to look at the archived evidence that the plagiarism was malicious because Dagg and Weale had earlier published online highly critical comments of me and of the research they plagiarized. For the record, I wrote also to the head of the journal’s publisher, Oxford University Press, in addition to the journal’s editorial board, the VC of Oxford University, and others, to let them know about that plagiarism and Allen’s refusal to allow the evidence to be fully examined.

 (see Appendix Two Here on PatrickMatthew.com)

At the time of writing in May 2021, Oxford University Press, and the Editor of the Biological Journal of the Linnean society have not remedied this serious matter. The history of science can judge them accordingly. In the meantime, however, their failure to act sends a toxic message to the miscreants and their associates that they are free to plagiarise more of my unique research findings, effectively passing them all off, perhaps just one more at a time in their own publications, down the years, as their own discoveries, or else pretending by default that what I first unearthed and revealed in the first edition of his book is just long established common knowledge not worthy of citation to its prior published origination.

Such concealment of disturbing facts is not ‘The New Normal’. For example, J.D Benal (1954) taken here from the 1969 (third edition) Pelican publication (pages 33-34), wrote:

‘In fact at all times the individual scientist has needed to work in close connection with three other groups of persons: his patrons, his colleagues and his public. The function of the patron, whether a wealthy individual, university, corporation, or a department of State, is to provide the money on which the scientist must live and which will enable him to carry on his work. The patron will in turn want to have something to say on what is actually done, especially if his ultimate object is commercial advantage or military success. It will apparently be less so only if he is operating from pure benevolence. Or in the pursuit of prestige or advertisement; then he will only want results to be sufficiently spectacular and not too disturbing.’

Disturbing results can lead some to try to re-bury them by ignorant dismissal. Take, for example the knee-jerk incurious rejection behaviour of Darwin biographer James Moore, who when questioned on my newly unearthed research findings by Knapton (2014) of the Telegraph is reported by her as responding to the new Big Data unearthed findings in this book, which he could not possibly have read at that point in time: “ I Would be extremely surprised if there was any new evidence that had not been already seen and interpreted in the opposite way.” With no apology forthcoming at the time of writing for his wilful ignorance in 2014, we must doubt if Moore has yet bothered himself by 2021 to be surprised by things he never knew before on a topic in which he is supposed to be expert. The problem is of course that such unscholarly state of denial behaviour by respected experts serves to enable others such as Weale, Dagg and van Wyhe to follow suit and expect to get away with it by association impunity. Maybe that is exactly what they want? After all, Wikipedia cited Moore’s comment as though it contains something more than evidence of his totally incurious blindsight ‘state of denial’ (Cohen 2001, p. 1) behaviour:

‘‘One common thread runs through the many different stories of denial: people, organizations, governments or whole societies are presented with information that is too disturbing, threatening or anomalous to be fully absorbed or openly acknowledged. The information is therefore somehow repressed, disavowed, pushed aside or reinterpreted. Or else the information ‘registers’ well enough, but its implications - cognitive, emotional or moral - are evaded, neutralized or rationalized away.”

Scientists have named the social and psychological phenomenon of knee jerk rejection of bombshell paradigm changing data the Semmelweis Reflex, after Ignaz Semmelweis. Before the discovery of antibiotics and before even the germ theory of contagion, the work of Ignaz (first named Ignác) Semmelweis in the mid-nineteenth century in Vienna seems almost universally understood to be unique in terms of his discoveries about how puerperal sepsis - puerperal fever - (childbed fever) was spread by doctors to patients. He is likewise hailed for uniquely implementing hand washing practices in hospitals and so cutting the death rate from childbed fever of mothers giving birth to around one per cent (Varga 2009). According to the story, Semmelweis was ostracized at the time for his radical thinking, which eventually drove him insane to the point where his last years were spent in an asylum. The story is used to demonstrate the dangers of 'experts' ignoring, without properly thinking about, new findings that do not fit orthodox 'knowledge', or else responding with automatic denials. Hence the term Semmelweis Reflex is routinely relied upon to make the point.

However, with great irony, the Semmelweis story was first comprehensively busted as a myth 91 years ago (Adaiwi 1921); and in the greatest of detail by Nuland (1979). And yet the term is still used today as though its background story is veracious. See for example, Wikipedia (2001). The knee jerk rejection phenomenon is as real as the behaviour of fanatics towards New Data. But it needs renaming. Perhaps we might call it ‘Kuhn’s Crisis Fever’, after his famous work detailing resistance to knowledge change (Kuhn 1962).

I am not alone as an academic harassed by malicious communications sent to my place of work. For one example, the scientist Edzard Ernst was similarly harassed by the Office of Prince Charles for outing him as a fake-remedy salesman. Ernst suffered terribly, physically and mentally, from being professionally investigated by managerialists at his university, even though he too was later  exonerated (see Ernst 2015).

Today we live in an environment, where people are dying because anti-vaccination and anti-clinical medicine propaganda (see Sutton, Gibson and Henn 2017) is believed by people who know no better. And the reason they know no better is because the environment in which we all live does not sufficiently value veracity over unevidenced claptrap, lies, irrationality and mere wishful thinking.

Yet, even in this environment, unethical angry people may choose to ignore an employer’s protocols, rules and regulations regarding public conduct on social media. Take for example Jason Rosenhouse, who is professor of mathematics at James Madison University. Following a very positive article on the highly influential FiveThirtyEight website (Engber 2016) about various areas of my myth-busting research. Rosenhouse (2016) laid weirdly heavily into its author Daniel Engber then called me a crackpot! When, on his blogsite, I messaged Rosenhouse to address the newly discovered facts from my research, he weirdly deleted my invitation and immediately closed the blog to further comments.

Rosenhouse is not alone as a facts fleer. By way of another similar example, Professor of History of Biology Nathaniel Comfort called one of my peer reviewed articles on Matthew and Darwin (Sutton 2104b) an “ignorant piece of crap”. When politely asked where he could possibly earlier learned that Matthew’s book was read and then cited by those known to Darwin before Darwin replicated Matthew’s theory, he blocked me (Comfort 2014).

To provide an example of just how much the New Data has upset ‘The Lads’, to extend the Patrick Matthew Buriel Project to me for daring to draw back the curtain on Darwin’s science fraud, Desperate Dagg has written online (Dagg 2016) about my famous decimal point spinach myth bust (Sutton 2016e), as has his equally fanatical partner (Derry 2020b). Once again, you really could not make this stuff up. But their otherwise unbelievable conduct needs to be recorded as confirmatory evidence to show how in the 21^st Century Khun’s account of “how very dare he” reactions to paradigm change is confirmed.  

As I have mentioned, in the Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, Joachim Dagg (2018) plagiarised my original IDD facilitated research finding see. E.g. (Sutton 2014, 2015, 2017) that Selby, in 1842, cited Matthew’s 1831 book and mentioned the unique ideas in it. When asked to address the issue, the editor of that article blatantly and rudely refused to admit that Dagg had, by plagiarising my original, prior published, important research finding, seriously plagiarised my research by either passing it off as his own discovery or else making out it was a long-time commonly known fact.  Consequently, the Editor of that journal, to his eternal shame, blatantly refused to correctly investigate and remedy the proven plagiarism issue. With great irony, it is important to understand that his behaviour may well be explained by the fact that very journal is the direct descendant of the Linnean Journal that first facilitated Darwin’s and Wallace’s (1858) plagiarism of Matthew’s bombshell breakthrough. The same editor has published another article that desperately refutes the newly unearthed facts of Darwin’s plagiarism, simply by failing to include them, co-authored by Dagg and a person who has, along with Dagg written childish and malicious fact denial reviews of ‘Nullius un Verba: Darwin’s greatest secret’ (Sutton 2017) on Amazon sites in the UK, USA and many others all over the world. Dagg’s co-author, Julian Derry, in the Biological Journal of the Linnean Society called me a cunt and made obscene insinuating male rape remarks on social media (http://archive.is/8tH1C ).

Furthermore, the obscene harasser, Derry has published an obsessive fanatical hate site on me and has been manically editing the Wikipedia pages on Matthew and the one on me. Go figure, as my American cousins like to say.

No wonder Wikipedia is considered by many to be the worst encyclopaedia in the World and no wonder proper academics will not let their students cite it.

Considering these facts, what should we think of the Biological Journal of the Linnean Society and its current editor and publisher – Oxford University Press? More importantly, what explains such disgraceful behaviour? Particularly given that they have now escalated the Patrick Matthew Burial Project to publishing an article penned by Derry and Dagg (2020) that urgently argues, by way of the New Data fact avoidance, that Darwin never plagiarised Matthew.

I suppose the disgraced Biological Journal of the Linnean Society and its publisher Oxford University Press will have no problem at all with the fact that the Darwinite harassment fanatic  Derry provides what certainly appears to me to be a fake personal address for his serial dishonest self on the ludicrous Dagg & Derry Show 2020 article as 30 Yeaman Place Edinburgh, EH11, which is actually the exact address of a pub (Golden Rule Pub 2020) about which Derry wrote a scathing customer review in 2020 (Derry 2020a). Incidentally, the proven serial liar Darwin reckoned he had a famous "Golden Rule".    

But more on that later.

.....to be contnued

References

Adaiwi, J. G. (1921) Charles White of Manchester (1728 1813) and the Arrest of Puerperal Fever. Lyod Roberts Lecture. Manchester Royal Infirmary. http://archive.org/stream/charleswhiteofma00adamuoft/charleswhiteofma00adamuoft_djvu.txt  

Alexander, M. (2016)  Perthshire Charles Darwin claims are ‘so silly’, claims leading international academic. The Courier. May 17. Archived: http://archive.is/APKHv

Beccaloni, G. (2014) Darwin and Wallace are wrongly accused of plagiarism by UK criminologist. Nullius in Verba: Darwin’s Greatest Secret" is published. http://archive.is/HrxUg#selection-1997.1-1997.72

Beccaloni (2021) Employed by the Wallace fund, funded by the Darwin Foundation. (https://archive.is/EMEhg)

Bernal, J. D. (1969) Science in History: Volume 1: The Emergence of Science. Penguin books. Harmondsworth, Middlesex. England.

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.

Chambers, W. and Chambers, R. (1832). Chambers's Edinburgh Journal. Vol. 1. Saturday November 3rd. pp. 313-314.

Chambers, R. (anonymous) (1844) Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation. New York. Wiley and Putnum.

Cohen, S. (2001) States of Denial: Knowing About Atrocities and Suffering. Cambridge. Polity Press.

Comfort, M. (2014) Tweet from his Twitter account @DarwinsBulldog Dec 13^th http://archive.is/X0VvO

Dagg, J. L. (2016) The real decimal error that transmogrified into the spinach-iron-decimal-error myth. https://archive.is/8LjyZ

Dagg, J. L. (2018) Comparing the respective transmutation mechanisms of Patrick Matthew, Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, Volume 123, Issue 4, April 2018, Pages 864–878, https://doi.org/10.1093/biolinnean/bly003

Darwin, C. R. (1847b) Letter to Hooker, J. D. 18 April. Darwin Correspondence Database, http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-1082.  Accessed on Tue Jun 11 2013.

Darwin, C. R. and Wallace, A. R. (1858). Two separate papers: 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 Linnean 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.

Derry, J. (2020a) Scathing Customer Review of the Golden Rule Pub that has the exact same postal address the Biological Journal of the Linnean Society Associates with Derry’s supposed home address  https://archive.is/mj4Ih

Derry (2020b) Popeye Spinach Iron. mrsuttonntu.wordpress.com https://archive.is/NOrEg

Engber, D. (2016) Who Will Debunk The Debunkers? Five Thirty Eight. Aril 28^th. https://archive.is/sxSLj

Ernst, E. (2015) A Scientist in Wonderland: A Memoir of Searching for Truth and Finding Trouble. Imprint Academic. Exeter.

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. In The Journal of the Horticultural Society of London. Volume 8.  p. 273-314.

Kuhn, T. S. (1962) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. (second edition, enlarged). Chicago. University of Chicago Press.

Knapton, S. (2014) Did Charles Darwin ‘borrow’ the theory of natural selection? Telegraph. Online Wednesday May 28. (Archived with reader’s comments https://archive.is/Emz8w). www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/10859281/Did-Charles-Darwin-borrow-the-theory-of-natural-selection.html

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.

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. http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=DmYDAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q=of%20selection&f=false

Matthew, P.  (1860) Letter to the Gardeners Chronicle. Nature's law of selection. Gardeners' Chronicle and Agricultural Gazette (7 April): 312-13. Darwin Online: http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=A143&viewtype=text&pageseq=1

Matthew, P. (1860b) Letter to the Gardeners Chronicle. Nature's law of selection. Gardeners' Chronicle and Agricultural Gazette (12 May) p. 433: Available free online here:  http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=yiQ1AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA433&dq=Letter+from+Patrick+Matthew+in+The+Gardeners'+Chronicle+12+May+1860&hl=en&sa=X&ei=u5bRUfrEKabF0QXGmIC4CA&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Patrick%20Matthew&f=false

Nuland, S. (1979) The Enigma of Semmelweis - an interpretation. Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences. http://jhmas.oxfordjournals.org/content/XXXIV/3/255.full.pdf

Preston, W. (1803) THE ARGONAUTICS OF APOLLONIUS RHODIUS, TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH VERSE. WITH NOTES CRITICAL, HISTORICAL, AND EXPLANATORY, AND DISSERTATIONS. Vol. III. Dublin Graisberry and Campbell.

Rosenhouse, J. (2016) Crackposts. Evolution Blog. May 2^nd. http://archive.is/uXa4e#selection-1065.94-1065.97

Sutton, M. (2014) Internet Dating with Darwin: New Discovery that Darwin and Wallace were Influenced by Matthew's Prior-Discovery. https://dysology.blogspot.com/2017/12/internet-dating-with-darwin.html Original link now broken. http://www.bestthinking.com/articles/science/biology_and_nature/genetics_and_molecular_biology/internet-dating-with-darwin-new-discovery-that-darwin-and-wallace-were-influenced-by-matthew-s-prior-discovery

Sutton, M. (2014a) Nullius in Verba: Darwin’s Greatest Secret. Thinker Press. Thinker Media Inc.

Sutton, M. (2014b) The hi-tech detection of Darwin’s and Wallace’s possible science fraud: Big data criminology re-writes the history of contested discovery. Papers from the British Criminology Conference. Vol. 14: pp. 49-64. 

Sutton, M. (2015) On Knowledge Contamination: New Data Challenges Claims of Darwin’s and Wallace’s Independent Conceptions of Matthew’s Prior-Published Hypothesis. Filozoficzne Aspekty Genezy. Issue No: 12. Pp.167-205.

Sutton, M. (2016d) Writing as Super Mythbuster. Comment on Mike Weale’s site The Patrick Matthew Project. May 3^rd.  https://archive.is/dMmuw

Sutton, M. (2016e) How the spinach, Popeye and iron decimal point error myth was finally bust. Healthwatch Newsletter. 101. 7. https://docs.google.com/viewerng/viewer?url=http://supermyths.com/onewebmedia/MikeSuttonHealthWatch.pdf

Sutton, M., Gibson, L. and Henn, M. (2017) What is the impact of the US president’s belief that ‘Vaccines Cause Autism’? Health Watch Newsletter for Science and Integrity in Medicine. Issue 105 Spring/Summer. pp. 1-2.  https://www.healthwatch-uk.org/images/Newsletters/Number_105.pdf, 

Sutton, M. and Griffiths, Mark. D. (2018). Using Date Specific Searches on Google Books to Disconfirm Prior Origination Knowledge Claims for Particular Terms, Words, and Names. Soc. Sci. 7, no. 4: 66. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci7040066

Van Wyhe, J. (2014) A Delicate Adjustment: Wallace and Bates on the Amazon and “The Problem of the Origin of Species.” Journal of the History of Biology. Vol. 47. Number 4. pp. 627-659.

Varga, B (2009) The Myth and Cult of Ignaz Semmelweis: Constructing History of Science during the 20th Century. Paper presented at Oxford Brookes University, History of Medicine Seminar Series. 20 Oct. http://www.pulse-project.org/node/177   

Weale, M. E. (2015) Patrick Matthew's Law of Natural Selection: Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, Volume 115, Issue 4, August 2015, Pages 785–791 https://academic.oup.com/biolinnean/article/115/4/785/2530994

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.

Weale, M. E. (2015) Patrick Matthew's Law of Natural Selection: Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, Volume 115, Issue 4, August 2015, Pages 785–791 https://academic.oup.com/biolinnean/article/115/4/785/2530994

Wikipedia (2001) Ignaz Semmelweis. Archived May 2021.  https://archive.is/iHvKC

~~~