Power of occupancy

I have blogged earlier on how an essay by Benjamin Franklin may have motivated and influenced Matthew to put his original conception of macro evolution by natural slection into a book on naval timber. My book "Nullius in Verba"  explains how the intensely religious naturalist Selby (Wallace's Sarawak paper editor and friend of Darin's father and Darwin's great friend Jenyns) mentioned that he did not understand this when he cited Matthew's book in 1842.  Later, the naturalist Jameson correspondent of (William Hooker, father of Darwin's best friend Joseph Hooker and mentor of Wallace) mentioned its implications as important when he cited Matthew's book in 1853 (some details here) with regard to the fact that timber could in fact thrive better in areas other than those where it was naturally found  where Christians believed .  The reason being that some trees, with a greater power of occupancy, occupy the best soil areas  - in nature - thereby successfully competing against other species.

What follows are text images form Matthew's (1831) book On Naval Timber on the topic of power of occupancy.

Page 302

Page 303

Page 357

Page 384

Page 387

Matthew's understanding of the power of occupancy of certain species in nature informed the philosophy of his second book 'Emigration Fields' Matthew (1839) in which he proposed the lower classes of the British take over the lands of others, since the aristocracy enjoyed an unnatural power of occupancy in British society.

Greater power of occupancy in the literature of lies, myths and other falsehoods strangles veracity

A lot of the environment is in fact organic life itself.

The originator of macroevolution by natural slection, Patrick Matthew (1831) wrote about what he coined the "natural process of selection", In part he explained as evolution by natural selection with regard to what he called a "power of occupancy". Matthew used this example to explain that a tree might in fact grow better outside its "natural" environment (the soil and climate in which it is found in nature) but is prevented from doing so by other tree species that would overwhelm it through having a "greater power of occupancy".  And he backed up his claim with real examples, This point was picked up by Jameson, So much for the myth that Matthew never backed up his ideas with examples of observations from nature. 

William Jameson was a botanist, deputy surgeon-general and superintendent of the East India Company. He cited NTA in 1853 noting Matthew's original findings that trees could grow better outside their "natural environments". 

 In 1854, the year after Jameson cited Matthew's original discovery, William Hooker (friend of Darwin, Mentor of Wallace, and father of Darwin's best friend Joseph Hooker) who was empowered to make such decisions for the East India Company from Kew, blocked his application for promotion. See my book Nullius in Verba for the fully referenced details.

Darwin and Wallace would later replicate Matthew's original prior-published ideas - including replicating his original explanatory analogies - and claim them as their own. To date, their deceptions have a greater power of occupancy in the literature than veracity, because Darwin's and Wallace's newly discovered lies about the non-existence of any prior-readership of Mathew's book are being strangled by a hostile environment known as The Darwin Industry.

The evidence to support this is in my latest peer reviewed article: http://www.nauka-a-religia.uz.zgora.pl/index.php/pl/czasopismo/46-fag-2015/921-fag-2015-art-05 where you can lean just how many people in fact did read Matthew's ideas (because they are newly discovered to have cited Matthew's book pre-1858)  - and their relationshops to Dariwn and Walace - before that pair replicatred them in 1858.

Uncomfortable and unwelcome facts are perhaps the most important: https://t.co/ZIHmoVPver pic.twitter.com/t814W0itVy

— Supermythbuster (@supermyths) August 12, 2016