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 21st 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
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 13th 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 28th. 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 2nd.
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 3rd. 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
~~~
