The Saturday Analyst and Leader and Other Letters of Complaint about Charles Darwin's Glory Thieving

Don't unthinkingly go along with the zombie hoard of myth parroting Darwinite mynah birds, who simply repeat whatever their heroes tell them is so. Because the independently verifiable disconfirming facts for the fallacy that Matthew was content with Darwin's reference to his prior publication in the third edition of the Origin of Species (Darwin 1861), and  in every edition thereafter, are 100 per cent proven to exist by simple virtue of being in print in the independently verifiable 19th century publication record:

• Matthew sent a second letter to the Gardener's Chronicle to politely rebuke and correct Darwin for writing that no naturalist had read Matthew's (1831) orignal ideas before Darwin and Wallace (1858) and Darwin (1859) replicated them without citing Matthew.
• Matthew complained in the The Dublin University Magazine
• Matthew complained in the Saturday Analyst and Leader.
• In 1864 Matthew published a political pamphlet entitled "SCHLESWIG-HOLSTEIN" that proclaimed him as "Solver of the Problem of Species". That was an act of defiance, one that we know, from his personal correspondence on the Matthew problem, really got under Darwin's skin. 
• Matthew's futile fight for recognition against the Darwinists, can be seen in a footnote to his letter to the Farmers Magazine, he wrote (Matthew 1862.page 413):
  
  `The writer has not been has not been much used to speak of what he has done. For more than thirty years after the publication of "Naval Timber and Arboriculture" he never, either by the press or in private conversation, alluded to the original ideas therein brought forward, knowing that the age was not suited for such. And even now, notwithstanding the great teaching influence of our cheap daily press, such is the power of sham, bigotry and prejudice over the editors of these, directly by perverting their own minds, or indirectly by perverting their candour, honesty and truth in accommodation to the reader's prejudices, together with the subserviency of the Editors to power and place that he is not sure the age is yet ripe. He was so far of this opinion, that he did not speak of these original ideas till driven to do so in protecting them as his.'

• Matthew complained to the Dundee Advertiser in 1862 that he had been platformed blocked from speaking on his origination of natural selection by organisers of the annual meeting of the British Association for Advancement of Science: 

'Sir,— The conduct towards me of the soi-disant British Association for the Advancement of Science has been such that I consider it right to lay the subject before the public. I gave in to their Assistant-General Secretary nine papers to be read. Of these they rejected seven and admitted two, one of the latter, on Botany, I withdrew, as I thought it required the rejected to appear along with it. 

The other I did not withdraw, as it had an immediate importance, but which the Society managed, by delaying the reading till the last, not to read.I will match the importance of these nine papers, in a national point of view, against all that was read at the Dundee meeting, of which the public will have an opportunity to judge. With regard one of these papers, on what is termed Darwin’s Theory of Natural Selection, but which theory was published by me about thirty years before Darwin (honourably acknowledged in his last edition by Darwin), at a time when man was scarcely ready for such thoughts, I surely had the best right to be heard upon this subject. Yet others were allowed to speak upon it, and its parent denied to do so. Such is the conduct of a Society terming itself the British Association for the Advancement of Science.— l am, &c.,' 

Francis Darwin wrote, perhaps implying his father's anger, over the Saturday Analyst and Leader article: 

"In spite of my father's recognition of his claims, Mr. Matthew remained unsatisfied, and complained that an article in the 'Saturday Analyst and Leader' was "scarcely fair in alluding to Mr. Darwin as the parent of the origin of species, seeing that I published the whole that Mr. Darwin attempts to prove, more than twenty-nine years ago."—Saturday Analyst and Leader, Nov. 24, 1860.

Mike Sutton still fighting the corner of Patrick Matthew against great odds. https://t.co/JPcUPqpnzV

— Teesside SitP (@TeessideSitP) August 27, 2016

Darwin was always considered to be scientific royalty - that is why Robert Grant, being enhanced to meet the grandson of Erasmus Darwin, made the mistake of entrusting, Charles Darwin with his discovery about sea sponges. Charles was, after all, the grandson of Erasmus Darwin, that great proven repeat plagiarist fellow of the Royal Society.

 Darwin got away with plagiarism and was able to "crankify" the originator, Matthew, because he was supported in that self-interest glory thieving endeavour by many influential peers - such as Charles Lyell, the Hookers of Kew and David Anstead who were prepared to sink to great depths to deceive the scientific community and wider society on his behalf (see Sutton 2014).

Why was Darwin so Revered?

 Why has the Darwin and Wedgwood family (into which Darwin married via his first Cousin Emma) been so honored by the mighty Royal Society - having at least 10 family members receiving prestigious fellowships? Why does the Royal Society refuse to accept the originator Patrick Matthew as having full and complete immortal great thinker, influencer and originator status over Darwin and Wallace for his own prior published, and pre-1858 cited, conception of macroevolution by natural selection?

The Royal - in-Bred - Royal Society Family #juxtasupposin https://t.co/OA2lGSuMaK pic.twitter.com/2GJHyrCa1U

— BlessedVirginDarwin (@OnNavalTimber) August 27, 2016

Dr Arlin Stoltzfus (2016) explains:

'I would be happy to explain to you what is the point of exploring the evidence regarding who deserves credit for an idea such as natural selection. The point is the same as for any other idea: as a scholar, one wants to get this right, because correct attribution is an important part of the social fabric of scholarship, including science. The correct source for natural selection, under the normal rules of attribution, is Patrick Matthew. If, instead, everyone decides to give credit to some revered figure who came in second-place, then this diminishes scholarship and science, and makes it into more of an elite popularity contest. Here's a rhetorical question for you: would you like credit to go to scientific royalty, or would you like science to be more of a meritocracy? 

Everyone agrees that Darwin had more influence. There is no difficulty in adjusting our language to respond to this fact, e.g., consider the case of the Modern Synthesis. Mayr, Simpson and Dobzhansky clearly were the most influential in promoting modern neo-Darwinism, but we attribute the actual combination of Darwinism and genetics to Fisher, Haldane and Wright. We could simply refer to Darwin in the same way-- we could say that natural selection was proposed by Matthew, and perhaps Wells, then popularized by Darwin and his influential social circle. 

However, what has happened in this case is that, when the evidence that contradicts misinformation peddled by Darwin and his followers is brought forth, Darwinian zombies lurch forward with the same ignorant dismissals, non sequiturs, and so on, which are then cut down, which just makes room for the next wave of zombies. 

So, the point is really about the zombie horde. If there were no zombie horde, then the point would be about attribution, but given that the horde is activated whenever Darwin is criticized, the zombie horde becomes the central issue.'

And here (Stoltzfus 2016)

'OMG, this is not an "extraordinary claim"! First of all, it is not a claim about evolution, but a claim about scholarship regarding evolution. This is just one of a gazillion cases in which a particular claim with scarcely any foundation is repeated until it becomes part of orthodoxy, e.g., read Ghiselin about how evolutionary biologists endlessly repeat the false trope of a conflict between Lamarck and Darwin. 

Literally, if we stack up the evidence in the two pans of a balance, on one side *all we have* is Darwin's assertion that naturalists can all be excused for not noticing Matthew's ideas because they appeared only in the appendix of a book on naval arboriculture. 

In the other pan of the balance, we have the evidence that naturalists read Matthew's work, that the ideas about evolution were not just in the appendix, that the work was reviewed publicly, and that the ideas on evolution were noticed. This evidence shows that Darwin's statement was literally incorrect. 

Then, there is evidence on a further point: we know that Matthew informed Darwin that, in fact, naturalists had read the book, and we know that Matthew provided verifiable evidence, i.e., he pointed to a citation. If Darwin had cared to ascertain the truth that Loudin reviewed the book, he could have verified Matthew's claims. Matthew made a second, more obscure, claim about an anonymous colleague who was afraid to repeat his radical views, but there was no way for Darwin to verify this. 

In science, a statement backed by citing a source trumps a mere assertion. 
[I'm not sure if this is still true, but there was a time when ACS journals instructed reviewers that they could not contradict an author's referenced statement without providing a citation. ] When Matthew wrote his open letter to Darwin citing a source that contradicted Darwin's claim, Darwin was officially trumped. The proper response would have been to rebut Matthew's evidence, or else to retract or withdraw the claim. 

The incredible amount of heat being generated here is not an indication that this is some kind of extraordinary unicorn-in-the-garden claim. It is simply a sign that Sutton has committed lese majeste, and the defenders of scientific royalty are coming out to defend His Majesty King Darwin. 

This behavior has become a major curse on evolutionary biology. We're all going to pay a price for the generations of short-sighted hero-worshipping evolutionary biologists who built a brand identity on the reputation and status of a dead person whose views would by no means survive today.' 

Dr A. Wilson on "Matthew Denial"

Dr A. Wilson on the hot historical, social and natural science topic of "Matthew Denial": https://t.co/KXlWT18rDo pic.twitter.com/tIcsNcDdgi

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) July 14, 2016

Among many, here is just one possible reason for Matthew Denial Behaviour in the 19th century

Another possible reason for the "Matthew Denial" behaviour in the 19th century : https://t.co/q7tjnoGCLV pic.twitter.com/JtTsVHR500

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) July 14, 2016

1831 was as much a politically and socially unsettled year in the USA, as it was in Britain. In 1831 Nat Turner led a violent and bloody slave rebellion in the USA. In Britain, Nottingham castle was burned to the ground during the violent Reform Riots. 

Unlike in Britain, slavery in the USA appeared to be nowhere near abolition. The British Slavery Abolition Act outlawed slavery throughout most of the British Empire, except for territories controlled by the Hooker's paymaster, the rapacious East India Company, which continued with the abhorrent practice until as late as 1843.

Darwin's pals Joseph and William Hooker - and their pal John Lindley (who, it is newly discovered, cheated Matthew by fallaciously claiming another was first to import Giant redwoods into Britain), another employee of the East India Company -  had many reasons to suppress the facts about Matthew's discovery. Their vested interests in slavery could well be one of them. The same goes for Darwin's pal David Anstead, who rubbished Matthew in 1860, because Anstead too was employed by the loathsome and murderous East India Company as lecturer at its Military Seminary at Addiscombe, as well as Kings College London.

Lightning Strikes Not Just Twice, but more than Thrice, As it So Often Does With Crime and Delinquency: Patrick Matthew was a Repeat Victim of ' Glory Theft by Fallacy Coining'

I think it quite reasonable to suggest that it rather looks like Patrick Matthew was fraudulently cheated by yet another Victorian naturalist. The victimization happened two years before Wallace (1855, 1858) and five years before Charles Darwin (1858, 1859, 1860, 1861) first  and subsequently repeat victimized Matthew by replicating his (Matthew 1831) prior-published work without citing it. And all three of these delinquent scientists were closely connected to William Hooker, the father of Darwin's best friend Joseph Hooker.

Let me explain

Given the obvious and significant facts that for 13 years Patrick Matthew and his son John Matthew were cheated by Professor John Lindley out of their right to be celebrated as the first to introduce and propagate giant redwoods in Britain, we cannot rule out the possibility that Matthew was deliberately and cunningly defrauded of his glory by this so-called Victorian 'gentleman of science' seven years before Darwin wrote cunning lies about Matthew's book not being read in order to excuse himself for replicating the original ideas and explanatory examples in it. Darwin lied to cheat Matthew out of his right to be acknowledged as not just first in print, but also the first to influence other naturalists (pre-1858) with his original discovery of natural selection.

If there is one thing criminologists know that comes close to a natural law, it is that, where a variety of particular crime types are concerned, whether it be against a person, place or thing, lightning is quite likely to strike a victim at least twice (see: Farrell 1992). In other words: victimization predicts victimisation. Matthew was a repeat victim of  glory theft by fallacy coining. First by Lindley and then by Darwin. Both offenders stole Matthew's glory in order to enhance their own reputations by publishing falsehoods at the expense of Matthew. Both were members of the Royal Society, Linnean Society and the Royal Horticultural Society. Moreover, although several letters between them are missing, Darwin and Lindley were prolific correspondents from 1843! We know also that Alfred Wallace (1855, 1858)- another who was closely connected to Lindley through his mentor - and Lindley's best friend William Hooker  - replicated Matthew's (1831) original conception, ideas and explanatory examples - claiming to have alighted on them independently of anyone else whilst in a unique in the history  of discovery state of malarial fever! In reality, it is newly discovered (Sutton 2014) that Selby, the editor of Wallace's famous 1855 Sarawak paper  on organic evolution had read and cited Matthew's ideas in 1842, which is the same year Darwin claims he privately penned his first essay on the topic.

Darwin and Lindley communicated on the Theory of Morphological Structure in 1843, which Lindley supported and which Darwin knew supported the theory of natural selection because it dis-confirmed the majority view of the time that each species was created perfect and immutable. 

It may be significant that Darwin and Lindley both knew Veitch well. Veitch supplied Darwin with many orchid seeds. And it was he (James Veitch Senior) who supplied Lindley with giant redwood seeds and shared - at massive expense to Patrick Matthew - the bogus credit with William Lobb and Lindley for supposedly first introducing,  and propagating, the seeds in Britain. 

On 9th January 2016, (Sutton 2016a) it was discovered that, for 13 years, at great reputational expense to Matthew, that Professor John Lindley - a correspondent of both Darwin and Wallace with a deep interest in evolution of species -  hoodwinked the world that he and Lobb and Veitch were the first to introduce the hugely admired giant Californian redwood into Britain and the first to propagate them. The Lindley-Lobb Myth was only debunked in the press in 1866 -  three years after Veitch died, two years after Lobb's demise and exactly a year after Lindley's death. In fact, Patrick Matthew and his son John are proven to be first to introduce the giant redwoods into Britain and that Patrick Matthew was first to propagate them.  Most significantly, the magazine, of which Lindley was Editor, had long held  a letter from Matthew that proved it!

The obvious and significant facts reveal that Patrick Matthew was a repeat victim of glory theft by fallacy coining - first by Lindley, then by his correspondent Wallace,  then by their mutual correspondent Darwin (Sutton 2016b). This multiple victimisation of Matthew - at different times, but for the same academic crime of significant 'glory theft' by fallacy coining', by Lindley, Wallace and Darwin - three keenly co-operative co-correspondents, with a shared understanding that species evolved - is unique and most remarkable in the history of scientific discovery if it is only a mere multiple coincidence.

 It is quite possible that Lindley (the best friend of the father of Darwin's best friend Joseph Hooker) received Matthew's letter at the Gardener's Chronicle in August, September - or even October - and got a message to Lobb via Veitch to go after the seeds and bring a large number back to Britain.  That would explain (1) why Lobb, via Veitch, delivered the seeds to Lindley, (2) Lindley's replication of John Matthew's earlier (indeed the earliest known to date) use of the name Wellingtonia to describe giant redwood trees and (3) why the truth that Matthew was first into Britain with giant redwood seeds was hidden from the public for 13 years following Lindley's fallacious claim, yet revealed three years after James Veitch (Sr.) died, two years after William Lobb died, and exactly a year after Lindley's death in the very same journal Lindley published it whilst its editor. 

Lindley was also a correspondent of Alfred Wallace.  There is one undated letter held by the Linnean Society (containing a seed) that he is supposed to have sent to Wallace. If there was more to this mysterious letter than the origin of the seed being from the Moluccas, it appears to have "gone missing". It is rather odd that Lindley would be the one to send Wallace a seed originating 'from the Moluccas'. Ternate is from where Wallace sent his famous Ternate paper to Darwin in 1858. Ternate is an Island among the Moluccas Islands. 

Wallace's (1855) Sarawak paper set down his marker on the topic of macroevolution by natural slection, and his (1858) Ternate paper replicated. without citing Matthew, Matthew's (1831) original hypothesis of natural selection, along with many of his explanatory examples - including his original Natural versus Artificial Selection Analogy of Differences (see Sutton 2014). Like Darwin, Wallace claimed to have conceived Matthew's prior-published ideas and examples independently of Matthew or anyone else. 

Glory theft, victimized a fourth time, Matthew's right to stand before the scientific community and speak of his original discovery of natural selection was thwarted when he was disgracefully platform blocked by the British Association for Advancement of Science in 1868 (Sutton 2014a and 2014b).  Chambers was there - who cited Matthew's (1831) book in 1832. Wallace was there - who replicated Matthew's work in his 1855 Sarawa paper edited by Selby - who cited Matthew's book in 1842 - and further in his Ternate Paper of 1858 and therein replicated Mathew's natural slection hypothesis as well as his original natural versus artificial slection analogy of differences (here). And Lyell - Darwin's great friend and geological mentor - was there as guest of honour no less. 

Trash Talkling Darwinists and the Patrick Matthew Burial Project

Public Domain

Professor David Anstead

In science, being first has always been everything (see my RationalWki essay)     and under the Royal Society's rules - as enshrined in the Arago Effect - no amount of confirmatory evidence gathering can ever transmute a prior published hypothesis into your own.

Yet when it was shown tin 1860 hat Patrick Matthew beat Darwin and Wallace by 27 years to publish the full hypothesis of natural selection , Darwin capitulated immediately in the press and admitted as much. But that was far from the end of it, because what should have been named Matthewism is today called Darwinism because Darwin's powerful friends, closed ranks on his behalf - and for the most part simply ignored Matthew. Unable to ignore his pending paper at their conference, however, powerful members of the British Society for Advancement of Science slyly platform blocked him from speaking about his discovery (see Sutton 2014    for the full disgraceful details).

Two of Darwin;s supporters went so far as to "trash-talk" the situation in 1860 - signifying Matthew as an unoriginal crank. And this same shamefully ignorant Darwinist defense dysology is still wheeled out by desperate Darwin supporters to this day.

Back in the 19th century, Darwin's friend, Professor David Anstead - or at the very least his anonymous editor weirdly adding footnotes on his article - mockingly rubbished Matthew in the Dublin University Magazine (January to June) in 1860)    effectively writing that he was an over opinionated crank who had written nothing original. The footnote can be read here    .

Matthew sent a letter to the Dublin University Magazine in February 1860- three months before the Gardener's Chronicle published his letter of April 1860. They ignored that letter until after April 1860. Although Darwin had admitted in print - in reply to Matthew's April letter in the Gardener's Chronicle that Matthew had got the whole unique theory right 28 years earlier, the Dublin University Magazine (1860) pretended the truth was otherwise and that Matthew had written nothing new:

'In the Gardener's Chronicle for 7th February 1860 is a long communication from Mr Patrick Matthew of Gourdie, NB the author of a treatise 'On Naval Timber and Architecture,' in 1831, in which a claim is made by the author to have been the originator of Mr Darwin's theory of natural selection. In a letter to the editor of this journal Mr Matthew has repeated the claim and considers himself wronged by the remarks in our journal of February (vide p 235). We cannot however perceive, either in the extracts from his work, or in his remarks, any thing more than a repetition of a fact long familiarly known, namely that many species pass into each other by insensible gradations—a fact acknowledged by all naturalists, and to account for which, Lamarque's theory of the modification of specific characters was not the first invented. A statement that individuals and varieties were often involved in a struggle for existence, in which the strongest and the best adapted to the circumstances of the moment would prevail—a knowledge of the existence of sporting varieties in many well known species, and the possibility of certain modifications introduced into species in consequence, do not interfere with Mr Darwin's claim to be regarded as the first who has put forward the principle of natural selection as the method adopted by nature to insure a succession of varieties resulting in species adapted to continue throughout all time and in absolute perfection, the chain of created beings.'

It is peculiarly unjust since Darwin (1860) had fully admitted in the Gardener's Chronicle - in reply to Matthew's claim - that Matthew was first to discover the entire original process of natural selection as an explanation for the origin and extinction of species.

On 24th November 1860 an anonymous naturalist, writing in the Saturday Analyst and Leader    added further insult to injury by proposing that a replicator, such as Darwin, should be praised for his originality by way of his replication of something he claimed not to have read:

"...of Mr. DARWIN’s labours, or the merits of his extraordinary book. It would not detract from them even if he had been acquainted with every word that had been previously written on the subject. But it is very possible that two minds may think out the same original conclusion for themselves without any communication between them. If all that DALTON has written on definite proportions had been previously published, still if he had thought it out for himself, without knowing of the previous discovery, he would unquestionably be entitled to the praise of originality."

If only they had the benefit of BigData technology back in 1860 - Matthew would have been able to show just how many of Darwin's and Wallace's friends, facilitators and admitted influencers had read and cited his 1831 book pre 1858, and how many more were 'first to be second' with unique Matthewisms. For all we know, the anonymous author of the Saturday Analyst and Leader was among them.

Thinker Media IncUsed only with express written permission

Nullius in Verba

We do have that BigData technology. Moreover, we who do not credulously deify Darwin as capable of such a miraculous immaculate conception of a prior published theory have no biased 19th century excuses for allowing Darwinists to continue to flout the rules of scientific priority, to come from far and wide to stamp on Matthew's unmarked and unknown grave and to deify their darling Darwin namesake at the expense of justice, reason and veracity in the history of scientific discovery.

Nullius in Verba!   

Visit Patrickmatthew.com    for more information on this topic

Conclusion

Matthew was multiply victimized

1. John Lindley's glory stealing redwood seeds fallacy.

2. Darwin's (1858 and 1859) plagiarism and his Gardener's Chronicle (1860) and Origin of Species (1861) glory theft lies.
3. Darwin's friend and correspondent David Anstead (1860) mocked and ridiculed Matthew as a deluded crank in the press for claiming to have first conceived the hypothesis of natural selection. An anonymous writer in the Saturday Analyst and Leader did much the same.

3. Wallace's replicating plagiarism in his 1855 and 1858 papers.

4. Matthew's Dundee platform blocking at the 1867 meeting of the British Association for Advancement of Science.

The multiple victimisation of Matthew - at different times but for the same academic crime of  significant 'glory theft by fallacy coining' by Lindley, Wallace and Darwin three keenly co-operative co-correspondents, with a  shared understanding that species evolved, is unique and most remarkable in the history of scientific discovery if it is only a mere multiple coincidence. 

Further reading 

The full background story of the Matthew giant redwood letter and Lindley's false claim is here.

100 per cent Proof Darwin Committed Lying, Plagiarizing, Science Fraud by Glory Theft