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
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
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.
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.
Visit Patrickmatthew.com for more information on this topic
Conclusion
Matthew was multiply victimized
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. 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.
