Darwin Fanatics and their Malicious Workplace Harassment Campaign: The Case of Dr Mike Weale

 In the Springer Science book chapter on science ethics and academic integrity in the social sciences  The Patrick Matthew Effect in Science (Sutton and Griffiths 2023) Professor of Psychology (Dr Mark Griffiths) and General Editor of The Internet Journal of Criminolgy, (Dr Mike Sutton) write about the ethical requirement not to bury painful empirical data. They also describe what happens to those who upset beloved myths, which are held dear as though they are true facts by the scientific community, by publishing and defending that data. In that chapter, they write:

                                                                                                             

"We know dangerous minds can engage in and create dangerous behaviour. More specifically, that can mean engaging in academic misconduct such as misrepresentation of data, brute censorship, and even criminal malicious harassment for those who dare to put their head above the parapet (see Sutton 2022) for fully evidenced examples of such behaviour by others following his naming of the scientists who cited Matthew pre-1858, vindictive, prolific and systematic workplace harassment behaviour that both authors of this chapter have been subject to because of their published work on this topic). We have been subjected to this disgraceful behaviour for daring to put our heads above the parapet by going into print to more widely disseminate empirical data that seriously questions the honesty and originality of Charles Darwin, arguably the world’s most beloved scientist.

The cultural resistance of the science community to researching this area, or indeed towards others doing so, is manifested by what Merton (1973) called“studied neglect of systematic study of multiples and priority.” Merton (1973 pp.391–392) explains why this is so: 

"...charged with blemishing the record of undeniably great men of science; as though one were a raker of muck that a gentleman would pass by in silence. Even more, to investigate the subject systematically is to be regarded not merely as a muckraker, but as a muckmaker."

It follows, we must not be forced by unethical bias and fear of embarrassing exposure of earlier ignorance of wrongdoing by proclaimed experts to ignore important empirical data, because empirical data are necessarily what defines science (Strevens, 2020)."

The Dr Mike Weale workplace harassment letter

After Charles Darwin super fan Dr John van Wyhe literally told, a Scottish journalist by email, that the new found empirical data on Darwin's lies and plagiarism were a "conspiracy theory" Dr Mike Sutton outed van Wyhe's email for its author's desperate deluded attempt to bury the facts on his Victorian hero with utter and dishonest nonsense. Doubling down on the same stupidity as van Wyhe, Dr Mike Weale, then of Kings College London, tried to have Dr Sutton disciplined and perhaps worse, suspended or sacked from his senior academic position as Reader in Criminology at Nottingham Trent University. 

For the history of science and those interested in the  criminology of  workplace harassment, here is Dr Weal's ludicrous malicious letter. 

Of course, Weal's attempt failed. But it might not have failed what then?

Managerial Vice Chancellor, Professor Edward Peck, perhaps being intellectually or managerially ethically unable or perhaps simply to lazy or being just too unprofessional and impolite to bother to go professionally and respectfully and judge for himself, instead had Dr Sutton very expensively investigated by a professor of criminal justice and the university HR department over a number of weeks. 

"Going forward" "mindfully" Dr Sutton some years later wrote a scathingly humorous poem about the idiotic curse of infantile anti-professional managerialism in universities and elsewhere (here).

Weal's malicious and childish accusations were consequently thrown out and dismissed for being weirdly disingenuous nonsense. No action whatsoever was taken against Dr Sutton. The Nottingham Trent (NTU) Human Resources (HR) letter to Dr Sutton, confirming this, is on file and will be published, initially exclusively, at a later date. Similarly, van Wyhe's childishly unprofessional empirical fact denial email is on file for later exclusive criminology book publication, as are dozens sent by the criminally obscene anal rape threat communication social media troll , workplace criminal harasser (Youth Association Hostel worker! and tacky little Darwin statue dealer) Dr Julian Derry.

Dr Mike Weale has been a prolific editor of the nuance avoidance, fact denial and deliberate misinformation and outright empirical data proven lies about Patrick Matthew that are on the deliberately misleading Patrick Matthew Wikipedia page - as has Julian Derry. 

The Charles Darwin Violin: A Symphony of Lacewood

I have newly acquired a violin that is some 100 years old. The instrument, has scribed purfling, and is made of London plane tree wood AKA lacewood). The internal construction and other characteristics are such that it may well have been made in England. However, it has no makers mark or label. Not yet it doesn't. But I'm going to label it "The Charles Darwin Violin".

On the interlaced complexity of Fraud The Charles Darwin Lacewood Violin

The Charles Darwin Violin before restoration

I am going to name this violin "The Charles Darwin Violin", because it is made of London plane timber (AKA lacewood) and Darwin was a plagiarist and serial liar, plain and simple. And as my friend the poet Andy Sutton pointed out to me on this decision today: "So the Darwin violin is born, and like his theory, has not been newly created."

The Charles Darwin Violin

When Doctor Sutton took apart A violin mistreated He didn’t take Darwin’s approach No, Mike has never cheated By sound research and evidence Investigating theses Mike has delved into, carefully The origin of the pieces And Darwin’s fiddle might appear To be more loudly spoken But please note that this instrument Was found to be quite broken The Lacewood body’s not the norm Revealed by fine detection Mike applied the process of Natural dissection Unlike the Patrick Matthew one This instrument’s quite dated And like the Darwin postulate Is not newly created

                   Andy Sutton (Andy Sutton Poetry) March 2024

I already own The Patrick Matthew Violin - made from driftwood, Dolomite's pine and mostly from an ancient apple tree most probably planted by Matthew in the Carse of Gowrie in the grounds of Megginch Castle, owned by his best friend and neighbour). Here: (more to follow on that story later in the year).

The link to the story of Charles Darwin's and Alfred Wallace's plagiarism of Patrick Matthew's (1831) prior published theory of evolution by natural selection is that Matthew's 1831 book "On Naval Timber and Arboriculture" was cited by Robert Chambers (full details here https://archive.is/ShTAV ).

Some bullet points on how Chambers's pruning and training trees for plank wood article links the fact he had read and so quotes from Matthew's 1831 book to his own later work on evolution and how that is proven to have strongly influenced both Darwin and Wallace. Matthew (1831) uniquely named his unique discovery of the full hypothesis of natural selection: 'the natural process of selection' and Darwin The Plagiarist uniquely four=word shuffled that to "Process of natural Selection". Anyone curious to know who clearly influenced Matthew to come up with that term should read Dr Mike Sutton and Professor Mark Griffith's Springer Science book chapter on Sutton's new BigData discovery on that question.

• Chambers (1832) cited Matthew's (1831) heretical and seditious book – although he only mentioned Matthew's expertise on the subject of pruning trees for plank wood.
• Chambers (1840) cited Matthew’s later work, Emigration Fields (Matthew 1839) regarding Matthew's writing on the ill-effects of tobacco smoking. Emigration Fields took Matthew's ideas on evolution forward for (British) human progress at the expense of those in other lands to be occupied by the British.
• In 1841, Gavin Cree cites Matthew's book "On Naval Timber" and cites Matthew's text from On Naval Timber quoted by Robert Chambers in Chambers's 1832 Journal (here).
• Chambers (1844) authored and had published (anonymously) The Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation - the book that 'put evolution in the air' in the mid-19th century (see Millhauser 1959).
• In 1845, Alfred Wallace wrote to Bates to explain that seeking proof of the ideas in the Vestiges was what motivated his interest in the field of research into the problem of solving the origin of species (See Sutton 2104 ).
• Chambers met Darwin in 1847 and thereafter engaged in correspondence. In 1847 Chambers gave Darwin a copy of the Vestiges, leading Darwin to write to his friend Joseph Hooker that he knew Chambers was its secret author.
• Darwin's personal copy of the Vestiges was heavily annotated by Darwin.
• Wallace, in 1855, had his Sarawak Paper published. Incidentally, it was published in a journal the chief editor of which was another naturalist named Selby, a man very well and closely connected to Darwin (see Sutton 2014 for all the precise details), who had 15 years earlier purchased a copy of Matthew's book in 1840 and cited it many times in his own book of 1842). So Selby both read and then cited Matthew (1831) in the literature BEFORE Darwin wrote his famous unpublished essay on natural selection of 1842! Darwin read Wallace's Sarawak Paper in 1855. Wallace's Sarawak paper appears to have far too many replications of Matthew's (1831) unique ideas, terms, words and highly unique and idiosyncratic explanatory examples to have been written independently of Matthew's prior published work (see Sutton 2014 for precise details of this complex plagiarism check).
• In 1858, Wallace sent Darwin his Ternate Paper - which had in it evidences to support the hypothesis of natural selection. It was this paper that led Darwin and his cronies, Lyell and Hooker, to arrange - without first seeking any consent from Wallace - for a paper hastily written by Darwin to be presented together with Wallace's Ternate Paper - but read first so it would thereafter be called "Darwin's and Wallace's theory." This all happened in 1858.
• In the Origin of Species (Darwin 1859), Darwin uniquely four-word-shuffled Matthew's unique name for Matthew's 1831 published discovery from 'natural process of selection' to 'process of natural selection.' Darwin used that shuffled phrase nine times in the Origin of Species (1859).
• In 1859, in a book review of Darwin's Origin of Species, Chambers is the 'first to be second' in writing a published replication of Matthew's unique term 'natural process of selection.' This is unlikely to be an amazing coincidence. Because we know Chambers did read Matthew (1831) in 1832 - because he cited him!. More so, because Robert Chambers's brother, William, wrote of Robert in 1872 'And such were his extraordinary powers of memory that whatever he saw or learned he never forgot; everything which could interest the mind being treasured up, as a fund of delightful recollections ready to be of service when wanted.' In fact, Chambers's memory is described by Professor Alan Macfarlane as 'almost photographic'.
• In 1860 Chambers convinced Huxley (Darwin's Bulldog) to stay at the British Association for the Advancement of Science conference at Oxford. Chambers remonstrated with Huxley not to desert the cause but to stay and defend Darwin's Origin of species by engaging in a debate that included Bishop Wilberforce - who attacked Darwin's work for being conjectural regarding the creation of new species.
• In 1861, from the third edition of the Origin of Species onward, Darwin admitted the huge influence of the Vestiges in paving the way for acceptance of his own work on organic evolution..
• In 1871, the year of Robert Chambers's death, but before the revelation that Chambers had authored the Vestiges was formally announced, Darwin wrote to Robert Chambers's daughter, Eliza, to apologise for his earlier treatment in disparaging the Vestiges: 'Several years ago I perceived that I had not done full justice to a scientific work which I believed and still believe he was intimately connected with, and few things have struck me with more admiration than the perfect temper and liberality with which he treated my conduct.'

Now here's a thing.

The cantankerous Gavin Cree (1841), who in response to Patrick Matthew's (1831) criticism of his harmful harsh pruning of trees challenged Matthew to a pruning competition. However, any such competition as proposed by Cree would not have proven nor dis-confirmed the fact that harsh pruning makes them "...vulnerable to canker stain and other fungal diseases, especially in the wet Spring months. When left in ideal conditions, Plane trees can live to be 4000 years old." https://www.maisonmirabeau.com/.../under-the-platanes.../....

Next, a question.

When I restore a violin I always look up the instrument's end-pin hole ("ooeer missus") to ensure I align the sound post completely vertically with the instruments top-end block. As the sound post is supposed to be perfectly vertical. However, many sound posts are not vertical because they are often simply fitted and aligned by others who only look at it through the f-hole. They will look perfectly vertical looked at that way but may not be. The Darwin Violin's sound post looks perfectly vertical through its f-hole but as the photograph shows it is actually not when looked at through the end-pin hole. (see photographs below).

All that said, a small number of people who have been experimenting (somewhat scientifically) on single instruments have found that a non-vertical sound post (though less stable) can improve the sound of an instrument : https://maestronet.com/forum/index.php?/topic/330239-skewed-soundpost/&tab=comments#comment-622122

The Lacewood London Plane Tree is well suited as a tree able to adapt to polluted environments and London was really heavily polluted in the 19th century due to amount of coal being burnt for heating etc. One needs only to read Charles Dickens book Bleak House for dreadful accounts of lethal "pea souper smog". Patrick Matthew (1831, e.g. p. 68) wrote of how pine trees thrive in good timber soil but were adapted by nature to grow in spare soil. neither Matthew nor Darwin wrote about why plane trees were so well adapted to very heavily polluted environments such as London. One proposed reason for their being so circumstance suited (a theme Matthew wrote about for many other species) is their thick leathery leaves that allow pollution to be washed away by rain and their regenerative bark.

We have seen how Darwin's and Wallace's great influencer Robert Chambers by 1832 had read and then cited Matthew's (1831) book on the subject of growing and pruning and training trees for plank timber. In On naval Timber and Arboriculture on page 7 Matthew (1831) wrote that plane trees were particularly useful for plank timber:

Empirical data found through original research (Sutton) shows Darwin held in his hands at least five publications that cited Patrick Matthew's 1831 book. One of these was an article by Cree (1832) that responded very defensively to Mathew's criticism of his ideas about tree pruning (here). See Science Fraud for the full empirical data detailed proof. In his 1832 article Cree is particularly upset by Matthew's ideas about how to grow tree for plank timber, the very subject of the 1832 Matthew (1831) text cited by Darwin's great influencer Robert Chambers in 1832!

On Lacewood (Plane tree wood) and interlaced complex evidence

Lacewood: London Plane

In the criminal justice system it is universally accepted that juries are very often unable to comprehend the evidence due to its extreme complexity. The evidence of Darwin's lies about who he actually knew did read and fully understand Matthew's book and the theory in it, before he stole the theory and called it "my theory" thereafter is very involved and interlaced with those in his inner circle who aided and abetted him.

Here we are just examining a small interconnected segment of the evidence (see Science Fraud for the full empirical evidence led story)

The Darwin and Gavin Cree connection to Patrick Matthew's 1831 Theory

Darwin’s own private notebook of the books he actually read records he read Volumes 7 and 8 of Gardener’s Magazine.. Now, although Darwin’s notebook gives no year for the publication of these two volumes, which is confusing because in every new decade this magazine started a new series with volumes restarting at 1 again.

One volume 7 covers 1831 and anther volume 8 covers 1832. The latter contains Loudon’s all-important review of NTA, in which Loudon (correspondent of Darwin and friend of his best friend's (Joseph Hooker's) father, William Hooker, write that Matthew appeared to have something original to say on the origin of species! Volume 8 also makes reference to observations made by Darwin’s grandfather on pp. 308 and 502 about forest trees—no less!

To be even-handed, however, it seems most likely since Darwin was compiling a list of things to read and things read on March12, 1842 that it was volumes of that decade—Volume 7 of 1841 and Volume 8 of 1842—that he recorded reading in his notebook, although we cannot know that for sure. But even in Volume 7 of 1841 on pp. 440 to 444 Matthew and his 1831 book is the subject of an article by the celebrity arborist Gavin Cree (Cree 1841) on tree pruning. In that volume on p. 216 Charles Darwin is mocked as being delusional regarding his observations on earthworms.

So, whatever decade Darwin was referring to in his notes there is a published reference to Matthew and his 1831 book in both! According to the facts, Matthew was hardly an obscure author of an unread book/theory in the first half of the 19th century.

To underscore the point yet further, Darwin’s private notebooks and his archived library reveal he read at least five publications that either cite or contain articles about Matthew and NTA:

(1)     The Athenæum (1839) (block advertisement for Naval Timber and review of Emigration Fields).

(2)     Loudon (1831) (citing Matthew in Bibliography).

(3)     Loudon (1838) (article citing Matthew).

(4)     The Gardener’s Magazine (1841) (article throwing down a challenge to Matthew on tree pruning). Assuming this is the one Darwin refers to and not the 1832 one containing Loudon’s important review of NTA.

(5)     Memoirs of the Caledonian Horticultural Society of Edinburgh (1814–1832) (block advertisement for NTA).

This is just one more fact that tells us exactly why Matthew belongs at the very centre of Darwin’s story and not on the fringes, as the Darwin Industry wants you to believe.

The interlaced (like lacewood) facts prove Matthew wasn’t obscure in the 1830s and 1840s, and neither was NTA. Therefore, Darwin’s excuse-claim that Matthew's (1831) was unread is demolished by verifiable facts proving books about Matthew were held in Darwin’s own hands before he replicated the theory in NTA.

A prolific author, fellow of the Linnean Society and the Royal Society, and a corresponding member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Loudon was a friend and correspondent of William Hooker and co-published with Hooker’s close friend and fellow economic botanist John Lindley.

Lindley crops as a devious and malicious anti-Matthew character throughout the Patrick Matthew v Charles Darwin story in Science Fraud, the book. But here we have seen just one small segment related to Cree and his palpably intense dislike for his pruning critic Patrick Matthew.

The Gavin Cree to David Low connections to Charles Darwin via the 1831 book of Patrick Matthew

In 1834 David Low was apparently First to be second  into published print (F2B2) with the apparently original Naval Timber and Arboriculture (NTA) phrase “long continued selection” in his book Elements of Practical Agriculture: Comprehending the Cultivation of Plants, the Husbandry of Domestic Animals and the Economy of the Farm.

Although he never personally cited Matthew (1831), he was founding editor of the Quarterly Journal of Agriculture at the time it published Gavin Cree’s (1832) letter on pruning that criticised NTA. Thus it was Low who ruled as editor in favour of Cree against Matthew in that edition of the journal (Canadian Agriculturalist 1859, p. 32). Low (1844) wrote about naval timber on pp. 583–585 of his book on “landed property” and did so again on p. 88 of his book on forest trees (Low 1853).

63

Just four years older than Matthew, Low was a highly esteemed professor of agriculture at the University of Edinburgh. Most importantly, like many who cited NTA—or else apparently first duplicated apparently original Matthewisms from NTA—Low was a fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh. He was also a member of the Royal Academy of Agriculture of Sweden.

Darwin adopted the exact same original NTA Matthewism in his essay of 1842 (Darwin 1842, pp. 32 and 33) where he writes in secret:

“Now according to analogy of domesticated animals let us see what would result. Let us take case of farmer on Pampas, where everything approaches nearer to state of nature. He works on organisms having strong tendency to vary: and he knows only way to make a distinct breed is to select and separate. It would be useless to separate the best bulls and pair with best cows if their offspring run loose and bred with the other herds, and tendency to reversion not counteracted; he would endeavour therefore to get his cows on islands and then commence his work of selection. If several farmers in different regions were to set to work, especially if with different objects, several breeds would soon be produced. So would it be with horticulturist and so history of every plant shows; the number of varieties increase in proportion to care bestowed on their selection and, with crossing plants, separation. Now, according to this analogy, change of external conditions, and isolation either by chance landing a form on an island, or subsidence dividing a continent, or great chain of mountains, and the number of individuals not being numerous will best favour variation and selection. No doubt change could be effected in same country without any barrier by long continued selection on one species: even in case of a plant not capable of crossing would easier get possession and solely occupy an island.”

Then in Origin (Darwin 1859, p. 192) he used it again:

“As every one would be surprised if two exactly similar but peculiar varieties of any species were raised by man by long continued selection, in two different countries, or at two very different periods, so we ought not to expect that an exactly similar form would be produced from the modification of an old one in two distinct countries or at two distinct periods.”

Low published a number if notable books such as Elements of Practical Agriculture (1834), The Breeds of Domesticated Animals (1840), and An Enquiry into the Nature of the Simple Bodies of Chemistry (1848).

On p. 546 in another of his books On Landed Property, and the Economy of Estates (1844) Low was once again apparently F2B2 with an apparently original NTA expression—once again without citing Matthew. In this later book he uses Matthew’s apparently original phrase “overpowering the less.” This discovery of Low twice replicating Matthew’s unique phrases in different books appears to confirm the veracity of the F2B2 hypothesis, the value of the method in identifying plagiarism of ideas, and the influence that such plagiarism has on others. This conclusion is further confirmed by the fact that in his F2B2 use of this NTA phrase Low replicated Matthew’s exclusive theme that trees grown by means of artificial selection in nurseries were inferior to those naturally selected by nature. The exact same highly important theme that Eiseley (1979) discovered Darwin replicated in his 1844 private essay! Low (1844, p. 546) writes:

“The Wild Pine attains its greatest perfection of growth and form in the colder countries, and on the older rock formations. It is in its native regions of granite, gneiss and the allied deposits, that it grows in extended forests over hundreds of leagues, overpowering the less robust species. When transplanted to the lower plains and subjected to culture, it loses so much of the aspect and characters of the noble original, as scarcely to appear the same. No change can be greater to the habits of a plant than the transportation of this child of the mountain to the shelter and cultivated soil of the nursery; and when the seeds of these cultivated trees are collected and sown again, the progeny diverges more and more from the parent type. Hence one of the reasons why so many worthless plantations of pine appear in the plains of England and Scotland, and why so much discredit has become attached to the culture of the species.”

It is of paramount importance at this juncture to note that this newly discovered evidence in fact provides Darwin with a defence against Eiseley’s (1979) claim that Darwin’s use of artificially selected trees to explain natural selection in his unpublished 1844 essay is clear evidence of plagiarism directly from NTA. Although Low almost certainly got it from Matthew (1831), Darwin could just possibly have got it from reading Low (1844).

Whatever the case, again we see Matthew’s progeny in the relevant literature as influencing the man who influenced the man. Moreover, and most importantly, we should note that Low published his book containing the analogy in 1844, which is the very same year Darwin’s private essay replicated the exact same highly idiosyncratic tree analogy.

This is strong evidence of NTA influencing Low and passing it on to Darwin, or of NTA directly influencing Darwin, or both.

Interestingly, in his notebook of “Books Read and Books to Read” Darwin writes in December 1839, “Advertised. David Low Treatise on Domestic Animals; also Illustrations of the Domestic animals of Gt. Britain—must be read carefully.” However, in that same notebook Darwin makes no mention of having read Low’s Elements of Practical Agriculture or of On Landed Property. In Origin, however, we know Darwin went on to use the same apparently NTA-coined phrase “long continued selection” as several other writers did following Low’s 1834 first replication of it. Whereas Low  hyphenated the phrase, Darwin used it without the hyphen just as Matthew had it in NTA. This is suggestive Darwin got the phrase from NTA, not from Low, who probably got it from NTA. But we cannot be sure one way or the other.

Twice replicating phrases apparently first coined in NTA is unlikely to be purely coincidental given that Low was apparently twice to be first with these apparently original Matthewisms in different publications and, most significantly, was a former Perth Academy schoolmate of Patrick Matthew.

Professor David Low of Edinburgh University might even be the unnamed professor that Matthew (1860a) referred to in the Gardeners’ Chronicle as the professor at an esteemed university who could not teach NTA’s heretical hypothesis of natural selection for fear of pillory punishment on the cutty stool.

Conclusion

The evidence of Darwin's science fraud by plagiarism is extremely interlaced, like lacewood. In just this very small snippet of the empirical evidence in "Science Fraud" the book we can see how this complexity has protected Darwin and his fact denial superfans and authoritarian supermyth supporting and facilitation toadies.  

The Darwin Lacewood Violin is a perfect tool to help explain the facts.

Visit the Darwin Violin page on the Patrick Matthew website for more updates on Darwin's great science fiddle. Do you see what I did there? 

Amoral Wikipedia and Linnean Journal Deliberately Publishing Disinformation to Misinform Society

Get the empirical independently verifiable facts.

Remember you should not simply accept what you read or watch on TV.

The Patrick Matthew Effect in Science. Read the Springier Science published facts and the naming and shaming : 

Wishful Thinking Beliefs versus Verifiable Empirical Facts

 Scientists, and indeed all educators of science and history should not teach as facts their own (or groupthink) mere beliefs or wishful thinking. They should (indeed must) teach verifiable facts only as facts. And it is a verifiable fact that, as opposed to the old mere belief that no one whatsoever/none known to Darwin or Wallace pre-1860 read Patrick Matthew's (1831) prior publication of the full and complete theory of macroevolution by natural selection, over 30 people actually read Matthew's book before Darwin's and Wallace's claimed independent replications of Matthew's theory pre-1858/1859. How do we know this? Because they cited it in the literature years before Darwin's and Wallace's work. Moreover several were Darwin's and Wallace's admitted greatest influencers on the topic!

We are currently here at the intersection between the dishonest/delusional art of the Darwin Industry and the genuine science behind history and the fact led history behind science. 

Get the facts. read "Science Fraud". Available directly from Curtis Press HERE

Proper science and history is determined by setting a very high bar for the quality of evidence it will accept. Some pseudo-scholars, particularly those who are part of the Darwin deification industry and its enablers in the world of publishing, think sources such as Wikipedia or published words in books or articles that support the cherished old belief, which is now a proven falsehood, that none known to Darwin or Wallace read Matthew's 1831 theory pre-1858, are evidence that none did so. But scientists know that all pictures and photos, including claims written in words, are merely anecdotal evidence. By way of explanatory contrast, the published (anecdotal) evidence in "Science Fraud: Darwin's Plagiarism of Patrick Matthew's Theory" is verifiable as tangible evidence you can hold in your hands and observe. This is because it directs you, by way of publication information of the references to the actual physical historic printed books and articles of the actual proof that Matthew's book and the ideas in it were read because they are cited in that same historic original printed matter that you can hold in your very own hands and read in a library. This means the evidence in Science Fraud can be directly studied and tested by scientists and historians. The spurious and opinionated and debunked or else unevidenced claims made on the likes of Wikipedia and Darwin deification articles and books will never attain such a high bar of evidence.

People have been accepting bad evidence in the story of Darwin and Wallace v Matthew with the result that they are wrong! Even though people such as Richard Dawkins may appear trustworthy we have to remind ourselves not to merely believe what we see on television or read in books, on the Internet or in articles. We need to check for ourselves. We have to force ourselves to be open to information that is not what we want to hear. This is how we improve our knowledge, And our knowledge has been improved by the fact we have now falsified the prior mere wishful thinking belief claim (spuriofact) that no one known to Darwin of Wallace read Matthew's theory before 1858/59. 

The extraordinary claim made by Darwin, after being confronted by Matthew in the press in 1860, and the further exaggerated claims made by Darwin writers since, that no single person read Matthew's 1831 prior published theory before 1860 can be dealt with and debunked as falsehoods by going back to original published evidence sources. And the book "Science Fraud" reveals, by way of the original published letters of Darwin and Matthew in the Gardeners Chronicle in 1860 that Matthew informed Darwin in published print of just who actually did read his theory and why it was deemed heretical and his ideas therefore suffered much brute censorship in in the first half of the 19th century. Furthermore, the new found evidence presented in Science Fraud of who else read and cited Matthew's 1831 book before 1858 is also a series of original accounts representing empirical evidence.

Conclusion

When we look for the extraordinary hard evidence to support the extraordinary claim made by Darwin after 1860, and parroted and exaggerated since by Darwin so-called "experts", that no one read the original ideas in Matthew's prominently published book before 1860, what we actually find is no extraordinary evidence at all. Instead original sources prove the claims to be false. Moreover, the newly discovered evidence that Matthew's 1831 book was cited over 30 times in the published literature pre-1858 literature.

This is is why I claim that on a balance of reasonable probability, and almost certainly beyond reasonable doubt, it can today be shown that Matthew's 1831 theory did influence its replicators Darwin and Wallace to replicate it before they replicated it. 

Furthermore, because original sources show he was prior told in print by Matthew in 1860 that others such as John Loudon, and a prominent professor, had read it Darwin lied when he claimed the exact opposite was true. Original sources prove therefore that Darwin was a serial liar about the man whose theory he replicated and thereafter referred to as "my theory" until the day he died.

The Dead Darwin Copycat Thought Experiment

 I was thinking about how so many people have misinterpreted/misunderstood/parroted the myth that the Shrodinger's cat thought experiment proves that any cat in a box with a 50/50 chance of being killed by a toxin inside is both either alive or dead until the outcome is observed by a conscious being.  As LiveScience.com explains:

 "Schrödinger's cat cut to the heart of what was bizarre about Bohr's interpretation of reality: the lack of a clear dividing line between the quantum and everyday realms. While most people think it provides an example in support of particles lacking clearly-defined properties until they are measured, Schrödinger's original intention was the exact opposite—to show that such an idea was nonsensical. Yet, for many decades, physicists largely ignored this problem, moving on to other quandaries. "

Maybe the use of a human in a Shroedinger influenced thought experiment would help explain the absurdity of applying quantum (subatomic) physics theory to the everyday observable world of larger objects will help things along? 

Here goes.: If you wish to misunderstand the Dead Cat thought experiment then consider the idea that Both Darwin and Wallace both did not and did plagiarise Patrick Matthew's prior published full theory of macroevolution by natural selection until the creation of Google's BigData library revealed to the world that on both the legal notion of balance of "reasonable probability" and "beyond all reasonable doubt" the new found empirical data (added to existing already found data) reveals, by way of conscious observation of the empirical data, now beyond all reasonable doubt, that they most certainly did. 

Let us call the explanatory analogy  "Sutton's Dead Darwin Copycat Thought Experiment".

Tyranny of the Fraudulent Empirical Fact Denial Darwin Industry and Darwin Worshipping Superfans

Empirical facts are facts. They are intrinsic truth. And it is a truism that "truth is truth". Moreover, lies are lies and falsehood are not truth, they are the enemy of truth and the enemy of history and science.

If you want a veracious history of science then you need to stop being boring.

If you think the Darwin Industry, and its crumb from their table begging harassment toadies, are ethical, honest and reasonable people then you are mistaken.

You have to think and then act like an inventive and innovative originator if you wish to overcome the brute censorship of the empirical data in the story of Matthew v Darwin and Wallace.

The Wikipedia Page on Patick Matthew

 

The Wikipedia page on Patrick Matthew has been substantially written by irrational fact denial Darwin superfans. These toxic spuriofact creation individuals have desperately sought to deny and delete facts and misrepresent unique research data by lies, other mischievous falsehoods, plagiarism and stalker malicious harassment behaviour. Wikipedia brute censorship of the classic and newly unearthed empirical data of what Matthew wrote, what Darwin replicated from Matthew's work and the proven lies Darwin wrote about who read Matthew's 1831 breakthrough before Darwin and Wallace (1858/59) replicated his 1831 breakthrough is a total fake-news long-running disgrace.

The Patrick Matthew Supermyth

 I am glad to see that the discovery of the Spinach and Iron supermyth has been positively cited in the British Medical Journal in 2023 as an important discovery.

As Springer Science has a book chapter that came out in 20203 on the "Patrick Matthew Effect in Science", it is surely only a matter of time before the Darwin and Matthew supermyth is similarly cited in prestigious journals and the Darwin Industry is compelled to officially distance itself from its current corrupt policy of  enabling and facilitating dementedly malicious fact denial harassment zombies on the likes of Wikipedia to attack, with blatant lies and malicious misinformation, anyone daring to write or teach the new found empirical facts on Darwin's science fraud by plagiary and supporting lies.

The Patrick Matthew Effect in Science: Naming and shaming just some facilitators and Darwin industry harassment fanatics: Part 2

 2. Dr Mike Weale

Currently employed by Genomics plc (here: archived) Weale was employed at University College London where he worked in "The Darwin Building" no less, and Kings College London during the period of his active workplace harassment, Darwin worshipping misinformation and involvement in anti-scientific fogging, or else blind-sight empirical data denial ignoring of the empirical facts about Patrick Matthew. Weale has been very actively involved in facilitating the obsessed criminal harasser Julian Derry (who is covered in depth on PatrickMatthew.com), a creature who is covered later in this blog post series, where you can read even more about some of Weale's anti-scientific Darwin worshipping blindsight and associated harassment behaviour.

To begin, let us look at this archived page from Weale's blog on Patrick Matthew, in particular it is important to look at what he has written there about Mike Sutton and then on the Darwin fanatic and Youth Hostel Association worker Julian Derry (See the relevant section of Weale's blogsite archived here)

In their respective papers, in the Biological Journal of the Linnean Society Dr Weal and Dr Dagg do the following:

1. They plagiarise one of my important research findings, under every widely accepted definition of what constitutes research plagiarism.
2. They cherry-pick plagiarised it and so conceal from their readership the other data in my list, which undermines the arguments they make. Cherry picking your own data to do such a thing is serious science fraud. Cherry pick plagiarising the findings of another is surely equally, or more, serious.
3. Dr Dagg committed this plagiarism maliciously, which is proven by his own blog posts on both me and my finding that he has plagiarised; comments he published before and after he plagiarised it.
4. Because the research finding Dr Weale and Dr Dagg plagiarised could only ever have been found with my IDD research method (Sutton 2014b, Sutton and Griffith 2018), they also, in effect, plagiarise that original research method.

Read on to learn the full story, with all the independently verifiable facts and sources, of the most ironic plagiarism in the history of science.

References

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

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 Archived: https://archive.is/gnUtJ

Perhaps the un-scientific embarrassing multiple irony of what has been done is not lost on those who have seriously plagiarised my research, and on those who have, to date, arguably, undermined scientific integrity and the publication record by refusing to acknowledge and deal with that serious repeat victimization plagiarism. That irony being my research into the history of plagiarism of the theory of evolution by natural selection, the theory first published by the Scot Patrick Matthew, has been most seriously plagiarised by two authors, in two separate papers in the Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, which effectively seek to argue that Darwin and Wallace did not plagiarise Matthew’s theory in the Journal of the Proceedings of the Linnean Society in 1858, of which the Biological Journal of the Linnean Society is a direct descendant. On which note, as (Iphofen 2017) poignantly writes about my peer reviewed research on plagiarism:

'...we must guard against the temptation to corrupt practices that many see as undermining scientific integrity. These include plagiarism, failure to acknowledge prior-work, biased peer-reviewing, and, in effect, poorly constructed desk or secondary research. Of course, there is nothing new in such discreditable activities. Sutton (2014) offers evidence that Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace clearly plagiarised the earlier ideas of Patrick Matthew without sufficient acknowledgment and Darwin then used his elite connections to ensure he would not be scooped by Wallace.' [My emphasis].

Another article on plagiarism plagiarises my original research data

Yes Darwin did Plagiarise Matthew, but in a creationist article on that topic Dominic Stratham (2015) most ironically uses without attribution just some of my primary research data on who was first to be second with apparently unique Matthewisms and who cited Matthew's NTA pre 1858 (e.g. Low, Selby and Johnson) by failing to cite me as discoverer of those newly unearthed facts on Selby. In this plagiarism of my original research findings, Stratham accidentally passes my (Sutton 2014) original research data off as his own discovery or else something commonly known. It is neither! It is not enough that Stratham cites my original 600 page e-book Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret, and he cites me as the discoverer of other data he uses, if he then fails to cite me as the discoverer of other newly unearthed data he replicates without attribution to its prior-published original source!

Stratham, who at least knows what sound evidence and is, and he is certainly far less of a plagiarist than arch Darwin Industry nominals Joachim Dagg and the malicious workplace harasser Dr Mike Weal, who both plagiarised my original data findings first published in "Nullius in Verba: Darwin's Greatest Secret" (Sutton 2014). This is because Stratham has very politely and reasonably responded to my letter to the Journal of Creation on this issue and made my original priority very clear. Moreover, he writes that I never responded negatively to his article back in 2015 when he emailed me an advance copy. The problem there is that I never read the pdf file he sent me by email, although I did reply to an earlier email he sent that included a zip-file I could not open to let him know I could not read it. But even if I had seen it, scholars of plagisim write it is not enough that an author approves work that has not correctly cited their original prior published findings. The reason for that has nothing to do with fairness, it is about having an accurate historic record of the scholarly literature and who made what breakthrough when.

The Journal of Creation has responded properly to the facts. The Biological Journal of the Linnean Society - to its on-going digrace - has not! Historians of science should take note of this empirical fact. If it happened it is history and it did happen that my original research data has been maliciously plagiarised in the very journal by descent that first facilitated and so normalised the plagiarism of Mattherw's prior puvblished theory by Darwin and Wallace in 1858.

Stratham's orignal article is a pdf File - click here.

My letter to the My letter of complaint to the Journal of Creation and Dominic Stratham's reply is published in the 2021 35 (3) edtion under Letters to the Editor. The editor, Pierre Jerlstrom, is thanked for his integrity. See the image below.

Like Dagg's and Weale's plagiarism, by plagiarising my research, Stratham as a result plagiarised the unique method (Sutton and Griffiths 2018) that enabled the discovery and had effectively concealed from his readers all the other evidence from my List 1 of who cited Matthew pre-1858 and List 2 of who was apparently first with apparently unique Matthewisms from Matthew's (1831) book pre1858.

Dagg and Weale have each plagiarised my Selby cited Matthew data (factshere). They each did so in desperate separate articles in the Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, which is with triple irony the same journal by descent in which Darwin and Wallace plagiarised Matthew in 1858.

Maybe the shameless pseudo scholar plagiarists Weale, Dagg will next publish a joint article together in either the disgraceful pseudo-scholarly, plagiarist facilitating, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society and plagiarise even more of my research and do so in an article about Darwin's plagiarism?

Detailed Repeat Victim Impact and Context Statement Regarding the Biological Journal of the Linnean Society Refusing to Admit to or Address Repeat Victimization Plagiarism of my Prior-Published Original Research

(Dr Mike Sutton, August 2020)

Please Note: Full refences to all publications cited are included at the end of this repeat victim statement.

The plagiarism and cherry picking plagiarism fraud comprises Dr Weale and Dr Dagg in their separate papers doing the following in each paper:

1. Using one important high-quality finding from my prior published research (Sutton 2014, 2014a, 2015. 2017b) without citation to that research.
2. By default, plagiarising the unique Big Data mining method (Sutton 2014b, Sutton and Griffiths 2018) used to make the finding, because the finding could not have been made without that method.
3. Cherry-picking plagiarism of that one important finding from my research to effectively mislead readers by not mentioning other findings in that same prior-published research. Those other findings independently, and as a collective weight of evidence, can be understood to disconfirm the arguments the plagiarisers make using the one finding they plagiarised.
4. The fact that only one of my high quality research findings has been plagiarised cannot ethically, rationally, or reasonably – in accordance with all guidance, rules and regulations on research plagiarism – be used as a guilt neutralisation excuse by the plagiarisers, Editor or OUP. This is a most important point, that I cannot emphasize enough, because the fact that only one of my findings has been plagiarised means three things (a) as in point 3 above, readers have been misled by deliberate cherry picking from my research findings, (b) high quality (not quantity) research findings plagiarism is the serious issue here (c) not dealing appropriately with this example of serious repeat plagiarism of my research will effectively give the authors and others a perceived licence to do the same with that and many more future illicit “use of one single research finding plagiarism” from my research and from the research of others in future OUP publications and elsewhere.
5. The fact the same finding first plagiarised by Dr Weale has been repeat plagiarised by Dr Dagg, in the very same journal, is proof of the high value of that finding and also strongly suggests that unless this plagiarism is dealt with appropriately, repeat victimisation by plagiarism will multiply even further by the same or by other authors in the same journal and or in other publications.
6. The plagiarism is deliberate, because both authors are proven to have prior read and prior-published their knowledge of my research and that finding in it. What they each publish on their own blog sites about my research before they plagiarised it is independently verifiable evidence of their prior knowledge of that finding. Both Dr Weale and Dr Dagg clearly took that finding directly from my original prior-published research with no reference to the research they took it from. That is serious research plagiarism under any definition.
7. It is my considered belief that in plagiarising my research in the way they have, given the weight of the independently verifiable evidence presented in this victim statement, both Dr Weale and Dr Dagg have committed serious academic science fraud by deliberate cherry-picking plagiarism of my research.
8. In the case of Dr Dagg, what the has written in his reviews of my books and his own blog posts about me and my research, published before he plagiarised my research, and after, confirm his plagiarism is malicious.

The research that has been plagiarised was conducted in 2013-2014, when I was employed as Reader in Criminology at Nottingham Trent University (NTU). NTU published a press brief on the research (see Nottingham Trent University 2014).

The plagiarised research is by no means of minor significance. My research findings have been reported in many newspapers and other publications, including national newspapers: The Daily Telegraph (2014) and the Daily Mail [Scotland Edition] (Caven 2014) and The Scotsman (newsroom 2016).

The ‘Selby cited Matthew in 1842’ original finding from my research is not yet common knowledge. Yet that exact research finding has been cherry-picked plagiarised from my larger list of those newly discovered, in my research, to have cited Matthew (1831). To be clear, my research finding has been plagiarised. It has been repeatedly plagiarised, because it has been published in two different articles in the Biological Journal of the Linnean Society. My Selby finding was taken from a larger list of my research findings, of writers I newly discovered cited Patrick Matthew’s (1831) book pre-1858, without credit to the source of my research that originally uncovered and first published it. In fact, it was used with no credit to me whatsoever. That is serious intellectual property theft of my research finding and the method used to make the finding.

Further detailed background information

In July 2020, I provided the full details of the plagiarism of my research, by Dr Weale and Dr Dagg, to the Chief Editor of the Biological Journal of the Linnean Society John Allen. The evidence I sent shows my research was knowingly plagiarised. I also sent the original publication details of my research, thus proving its provenance and that is has, therefore been plagiarised.

John Allen replied to me by claiming that use of this key and important original research finding without referencing the prior-published research that the plagiarist took it from is not research plagiarism. His is response in this regard is not only highly inappropriate but also totally unacceptable.

Moreover, I think John Allen’s stated belief is surely, patently and profoundly wrong and out of line with all accepted, definitions of what amounts to research plagiarism, as opposed to merely copying text.

The length and occasional repetition in this victim statement will hopefully ensure that those now also in receipt of the same independently verifiable evidence provided herein may be left in no reasonable doubt that serious repeat research plagiarism has occurred and will understand its serious nature, consequences, impact on me as the victim and the need to act accordingly with integrity before the same or other authors further plagiarise my research and further subvert the historic publication record.

I have never felt the need to complain officially about plagiarism of my research before and I am shocked by the response I have received. To date, I am extremely disappointed with the behaviour of The Editor of the Biological Journal of the Linnean Society.

What, exactly, has been plagiarised?

Firstly, the research plagiarised is the relatively newly uncovered fact, uncovered by my research, (e.g. Sutton 2014, 2014a, 2015, 2017b) that the naturalist Selby (1842) cited the recognised member of the Scottish Enlightenment, botanist, agriculturalist, famous fruit hybridiser and forester, Patrick Matthew (1831) in 1842. Secondly, this plagiarism includes plagiarising the newly unearthed title and full reference for the book in which, my research discovered, Selby (1842) cited Matthew (1831). Thirdly, by default, the plagiarism includes plagiarising my unique research method (see Sutton 2014b and particularly Sutton and Griffiths 2018 for full details of the method) used to find this important new data in the historic publication record in the field of the history of scientific discovery. Fourthly, by cherry-pick plagiarising just one finding from my research, Dr Weale and Dr Dagg have engaged in misleading science fraud by concealing the other evidence in my research that can be used to disconfirm the argument they make in their papers.

To emphasise by repeating the above point, plagiarism of my ‘Selby cited Matthew in 1842’ original research finding also seriously plagiarises the unique research method I developed and employed to find it. Namely, the Internet Date Detection, Big Data, research method (see Sutton 2014b and Sutton and Griffiths 2018 to see our detailed peer reviewed article on the method). Unless you were to know in advance that Selby’s book cited Matthew’s book, which is something no known writer has ever mentioned before, and so search on Selby or the title of his book, no other method tried before or since was able to detect the fact it did. Therefore, to understand and appreciate the seriousness of the repeat plagiarism of my research, it is imperative to understand that without use of the IDD research method the ‘Selby cited Matthew (1832) in 1842’ finding, could not, and arguably never would have been found by future researchers in this field.

Pertinent contextual historical facts of the area of research: Understanding the value of the finding that has been repeat plagiarised:

• Matthew’s (1831) book is accepted by the world’s leading experts on the topic (e.g. by de Beer 1962, Mayr 1982, Dawkins 2010, Darwin 1861, and Wallace 1879) as containing the first fully published theory of evolution by natural selection.
• Professor Loren Eiseley (1859) wrote a festschrift book on Darwin. Later he discovered that Darwin had, in his private essay of 1844, replicated Matthew’s (1831) highly idiosyncratic forester’s explanatory analogy of differences between trees selected by nature, growing in the wild, and those selected and raised artificially in nurseries. That one key research finding absolutely convinced Eiseley that his hero had committed plagiarising science fraud of Matthew’s prior published theory (Eiseley 1979). For my own part, having first used my IDD research method to surprisingly debunk a number of facts about who coined what term, phrase or concept, I used it to research the process of natural selection and the term and concept Selfish Gene in the expectancy that at least my science hero’s Darwin and Dawkins should be rightfully attributed with their claims to science fame. As my paper with Professor Mark Griffiths (Sutton and Griffiths 2018) proves, I was wrong about Dawkins. As my books and peer reviewed articles on Darwin Wallace and Matthew reveal, it surprisingly turned out I was also surely wrong about Darwin too (Sutton 2014b).
• Prior to my research (e.g. Sutton, 2014, 2015, 2018) expert knowledge had it (e.g. de Beer 1962, Mayr 1982) that no one whatsoever/no naturalist and certainly no one in Darwin or Wallace’s circles had read Patrick Matthew’s (1831) published theory of what he called the “natural process of selection” before Darwin and Wallace supposedly independently replicated it in The Journal of the Proceedings of the Linnean Society (1858) and Darwin’s Origin of Species (1858), where Darwin named it the “process of natural selection” and replicated many of Matthew’s unique explanatory analogies of difference and other highly idiosyncratic yet key explanatory examples of the theory. In reply to Matthew’s (1860) published letter claiming his priority, Darwin (1860) claimed to have independently discovered the theory. He went further to claim, ‘no single person’ (Darwin 1861a) and elsewhere ‘no naturalist’ (Darwin 1861) had read Matthew’s prior published breakthrough before publication of the origin of Species in 1859. That was a total knowing falsehood, a blatant lie if you will. Because Matthew (1860) had already informed him otherwise and told him of Loudon’s book review and of an unnamed Scottish naturalist who had read it and feared to teach it for fear of pillory punishment for heresy. Wallace kept silent on the matter and so effectively claimed innocence on the question of his prior knowledge of Matthew’s prior-published breakthrough. Later, however, Wallace (1879) wrote that Matthew was one of the greatest thinkers in the first half of the 19^th century and did originate the theory he and Darwin replicated (Wallace 1879), and more besides.
• As said, the naturalist Loudon, who was editor of the Magazine of Natural History, had read Matthew’s book. He reviewed it in 1832 and wrote that Matthew appeared to have something important to say on what he termed “the origin of species”, no less. Dempster (1983, 1996, 2005) pointed it out in his important research in the field, but the fact Loudon was editor of a famous naturalist magazine, was a naturalist known to Darwin and his inner circle, and published two papers by Darwin’s prolific correspondent on species, Blyth (1835, 1836) was seemingly unknown by other experts on the topic. It has, therefore, been generally ignored in most of the academic literature on Darwin apart from mention in the important published research by Dempster. Eiseley (1979), did however produce convincing evidence that Darwin (1858, 1859) had plagiarised important ideas on evolution of varieties from Blyth.
• I have a list of over 25 people newly proven by my 2014, 2018 research to have cited Matthew’s (1831) book. Seven were naturalists, four of those seven were known to Darwin pre 1858. Three of those four (including the valuable, dual plagiarised, Selby discovery) played major roles at the epicentre of influence on Darwin and Wallace pre-1858, on their influencers and their influencer’s influencers. The Selby (1842) cited Matthew discovery from that list, uniquely discovered by my research, is among the most important in the new data on this topic. As my book (Sutton 2014, 2016) and peer reviewed article on this topic (Sutton 2015) emphasise, Darwin’s father was a houseguest of Selby, as were other naturalists known to Darwin and Darwin’s inner circle. Selby’s great friend was Jenyns, who was Darwin’s friend and most prolific correspondent (on Selby’s friendship with Darwin’s father and Jenyns see Jackson 1992). Importantly, as my prior published research (e.g. Sutton 2014, 2014a, 2015, 2017b) reveals, Selby was, at the time it was published, editor of the Journal that published Wallace’s (1855) famous Sarawak paper on evolution, which Darwin read pre-1858.
• The above facts prove why the newly unearthed Selby data from my research is of high quality and is very important when it comes to the question of whether Darwin read Matthew pre 1858 and whether Wallace read Matthew pre 1858.

What is plagiarism, particularly research findings plagiarism?

The University of Oxford (2020) provides us with arguably the world’s most famous definition of what constitutes plagiarism (my emphasis):

"Plagiarism is presenting someone else's work or ideas as your own, with or without their consent, by incorporating it into your work without full acknowledgement. All published and unpublished material, whether in manuscript, printed or electronic form, is covered under this definition."

The article by Dr Weale and the article by Dr Dagg each use my prior published Selby data without any acknowledgement whatsoever to where they found it. So how is that not plagiarism?

Where research findings are used without reference to where they originated then that is defined as citation plagiarism, which is a sub-type of research plagiarism. That is what Dr Weale and Dr Dagg did in their respective articles in the Biological Journal of the Linnean Society.

Citation plagiarism may occur through careless attitudes towards citation (Saunders 2010) or it may occur through an act of what Allen (2007) calls ‘blatant plagiarism’, which is done with an aim to steal the research finding in order to deceive others by taking credit for it. However, it seems reasonable to assume that in other cases citation plagiarism may be motivated or by a sole or perhaps additional wish not to reference the original source of the research finding due to professional embarrassment, malice, jealousy or some other pseudo-scholarly ulterior motive. In that case the motivation may be to have the finding wrongly perceived as something widely known and not attributable to anyone. In some cases, perhaps citation plagiarism is motivated by the plagiariser’s perceptions of academic discipline rivalry that may involve trying to double-guess readership, peer review and editorial arrogance, personal dislike of the victim, their research findings, their interpretation of those findings and conclusions, or individual and disciplinary jealously regarding the discovery of the data they decided to plagiarise.

Plagiarising a research finding can also constitute ‘research method plagiarism’ if the method used to make that finding is original, because if only that original method could make the finding the plagiarist will also, by default, most certainly plagiarise the method used to find it. As explained above, that is the case in the plagiarism of my Selby cited Matthew pre-1858 finding. By plagiarising that research finding, both Dr Weale and Dr Dagg have by default plagiarised the unique Big Data Internet Date Detection research method (Sutton and Griffiths 2018) used to find it. Independent expert peer reviewers of that peer reviewed article I wrote with Professor Griffith’s agreed the unique IDD method is a new Big Data research method that has been used in my research to make significant research findings of this kind.

'The term plagiarism derives from the Latin word “plagiarius,” meaning “kidnapper” or “abductor.” Although plagiarism is difficult to define in few words, it can be viewed as the stealing of another person's ideas, methods, results, or words without giving proper attribution…. The ORI defines plagiarism as being “theft or misappropriation of intellectual property and the substantial unattributed textual copying of another's work.”… The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), UK, has defined plagiarism as “the unreferenced use of others published and unpublished ideas.” (Juyal, D., Thawani, V., & Thaledi, S. 2015). (My emphasis).

The fact Dr Weale’s and Dr Dagg’s plagiarism of my research is subtle does not make it any less serious. Arguably it makes it more serious because it is so deceptive. This is something that the Editor of the Biological Journal of the Linnean Society seems to know or care nothing about. As Dougherty (2020. p.1) explains:

“I have requested retractions of 125 published articles in humanities fields in recent years. A large portion of these articles exhibited very subtle forms of plagiarism. … When undetected plagiarising articles produce widespread inefficiencies in the wider system of knowledge production, not only are researchers denied credit for their discoveries, but plagiarizing articles take up space in journals that should have been reserved for articles for authentic researchers.”

Quality not quantity

It is most important to repeat another point already made, in order to emphasise the fact, that the plagiarism of my research by Dr Weale and Dr Dagg is not an issue of a quantity being plagiarised, it is about the quality of what has been plagiarised. It is also about the insidious subtlety in which that was deliberately done and the malice behind it.

The Selby data, uncovered by my research, that has been plagiarised is not only relatively new, it is also highly significant and of extremely high quality in the specific field of research into the history of scientific discovery and scientific plagiarism of breakthroughs in knowledge and prior-published research findings of others. On the issue of whether Darwin and Wallace plagiarised Matthew, it is highly significant, important and new.

As explained above, the Selby cited Matthew in 1842 discovery provides clear evidence of the existence of a previously totally unknown route for potential ‘Matthew to Darwin and Wallace’ knowledge contamination (Sutton 2015) of both Darwin and Wallace and their subsequent publications. Such potential knowledge transmission, in whole or part, could have occurred directly or in some way via others known to Selby, Darwin and Wallace. Others including but not limited to Darwin’s father (who was Selby’s friend) or Darwin’s and Selby’s mutual friend Jenyns.

“…whether or not one article plagiarises another may turn on a judgement of the originality of the interpretation of scientific experiment or a data set.” (Saunders, 2010). (My emphasis)

"...plagiarism (in principle)can consist in as little as one word, while there are many standard sentences describing research methods that will not be plagiarism even if, in fact, copied from someone else. This is to say that the unmarked reuse of some very short passages might be plagiarism, even though the reuse of other equally short passages would not. The conclusion to draw from this is that plagiarism has to do with quality rather than quantity – or, more precisely, with what is unique rather than so common that it cannot be attributed to anyone." (Helgesson and Eriksson (2015). (My emphasis).

The verifiable fact the unique Selby data from my research has been twice plagiarised in the Biological Journal of the Linnean society is clear proof of the high quality and importance of the research that has been plagiarised. Surely it was plagiarised twice precisely because it is such a valuable newly discovered fact that Selby read and cited Matthew’s book before Darwin or Wallace penned a word on the topic of evolution by natural selection. What other reason could there be?

The fact the unique Selby Data has been plagiarised a second time in the Biological Journal of the Linnean Society is proof that the scientific record in the history of science has been corrupted with one incident of plagiarism leading to another and needs, therefore, to be rectified before further incidents occur to corrupt the publication record in the history of scientific discovery and research into priority and plagiarism.

Engaging in the subterfuge of cherry picking one author from my prior published original research findings (Sutton 2014, 2017b), of who I newly discovered did cite Matthew (1831) pre 1858, to effectively make deceptive fact concealment arguments when examining the evidence for routes of potential knowledge contamination (transmission) from Matthew’s (1831) book to the later published works of Darwin, Wallace and others is misleading the scientific community.

Using my Selby research finding without citation to the research and method that uncovered it, in order to make the argument, as Dr Weale and Dr Dagg do, that no naturalist understood Matthew’s theory, is, in my opinion, engaging in science fraud not only by plagiary but highly deliberate deceptive cherry picking. Because, by way of just one relevant example among many others I found in my research, that I could use here, I also originally unearthed the fact that Jameson (1853) cited Matthew’s 1831 book and observations in it. Jameson was the nephew of Darwin’s Edinburgh Professor, employee of the East India Company and regular pre-1858 correspondent of William Hooker (father of Darwin’s best friend and botanical mentor Joseph Hooker). William Hooker, also a friend of Darwin, was sponsor, mentor, customer for his ‘collected’ wildlife and correspondent of Wallace. All pre-1858.

Jameson (1853) cited Matthew and wrote about one area of Matthew’s book on how some species of tree may sometimes fare better when transplanted outside their native areas. Jameson reveals that he fully understood the importance of Matthew’s observation for economic botany. The devout Christian gentleman scientist Selby, on the other hand, was writing in 1842, at a time when such an idea was deemed far more unacceptably heretical to Christians who believed their God designed nature and put everything where it was most ideally and best suited to serve the interests of humans above all else. Most importantly, that idea, and other heretical for Christians ideas, in Matthew’s book, was also mentioned in a major book review of 1831 in the United Services Journal, which instructed readers to not even to dare think about such ideas. And Jameson is just one example of the newly discovered to have cited Matthew (1831) authors in my research findings that Dr Weal’s and Dr Dagg’s cherry picking research findings plagiarism effectively, and misleadingly, conceal by failing to cite the source of the Selby cited Matthew pre-1858 discovery.

To emphasise the point just made, plagiarising from my list of those newly discovered by the IDD method to have cited Matthew (1831) pre-1858, (As Dr Weale and Dr Dagg have done) not only plagiarises the IDD method as well as my data, it also most seriously, effectively fraudulently in my opinion, hides not only the other findings in my research but also hides the power of that method by failing to acknowledge just how many authors (including naturalists) in fact did read Matthew’s bombshell theory, how many were linked to Darwin and Wallace, and in what way.

The image above is from Sutton (2014) and shows Selby in the list of 25 people newly discovered in my research to have cited Matthew’s (1831) book before 1858

Evidence of prior knowledge and malicious intent regarding plagiarism of my research.

In light alone of the facts presented above, my research has been plagiarised in two articles in the Biological Journal Linnean Society, as has the unique research method used. But this plagiarism is worse. Firstly, it has taken place at a relatively very early stage following the publication of my research findings. That greatly increases the chances that my research findings will be misattributed to either Dr Weale, Dr Dagg or both. Worse still is the independently verifiable evidence that Dr Dagg plagiarised my research maliciously. That evidence now follows:

• Dr Weale (2015b) read my prior published research and mentions in his article in the Biological Journal of the Linnean Society some online debates he has had with me on it before failing to cite the source of the Selby discovery in that article. Dr Weale explains (using my research without attribution) that Selby cited Matthew in 1842 and Weale cites Selby’s book, in which Selby did so, in his references section (again without attribution to my research that found it). Clearly then, Dr Weale fails to attribute that new ‘Selby cited Matthew pre-1858’ discovery to my research. But that newly unearthed fact from my research, unlike the fact that Loudon reviewed Matthew’s book knowledge, cannot be attributed to “just anyone”. Arguably, Dr Weale is, if not deliberately falsely passing it off as his own discovery, though giving that impression by default to some readers, is also effectively portraying it falsely in his article to be perceived by other readers as something widely known. The Selby finding from my research is certainly at great risk now of being wrongly attributed to Weale, or else falsely as something that was widely known to anyone, as it might well be in the near future, if Dr Weale’s research plagiarism of this high quality research finding and associated research method plagiarism is not correctly remedied by the Biological Journal of the Linnean Society.
• Dr Dagg (2018a) writes that Dr Weale helped him extensively with his article. Given the fact Dr Weale earlier plagiarised my research in his own article and then helped another to publish an article that does the very same thing is powerful confirmatory circumstantial evidence that Dr Weale deliberately plagiarised my research in his article in the Biological Journal of the Linnean Society. This supports the point made in the last sentence of the preceding bullet point, directly above.
• Dr Dagg, (2017) writing as “Joda” but signing his malicious review of my book (Sutton 2017b), which contains the Selby discovery, with his real name also proves by so doing that he read my prior published research, including the Selby discovery, before failing to cite the source of that research finding in his article. Dagg, therefore also commits knowing research findings and research method plagiarism in his article, of the same kind as Dr Weale.
• Dr Dagg (e.g. 2014) has published various malicious blog posts about me, before he plagiarised my research and has written and published more malicious blog posts about that research he plagiarised after he plagiarised it. That is verifiable evidence he has acted not only knowingly but maliciously in plagiarising my research.
• Dr Dagg (2016) proves on his dreadfully malicious blog that he was fully aware of my prior-published original research finding of other naturalists, including Jameson who cited Matthew pre-1858, before he cherry pick plagiarised the Selby data from my research to use in his article.
• Dr Dagg, (2018a) in what seems to me at least to be a breach of COPE guidelines for authors publishing in peer reviewed journals has published a blog post to mock one peer reviewer of his paper, name another and to write about the extensive help he received from Dr Weale and from the Editor of the Biological Journal of the Linnean Society.
• Dr Dagg (2018a) writes that Dr Derry helped him write his article. Dr Derry has also published an insanely jealous and weirdly obsessive malicious blog site about me and my published research and other staff at Nottingham Trent University (NTU) and has been warned in writing by senior management at NTU to cease sending obscene and harassing communications (e.g. Derry 2014, 2017, 2018a 2018b), libeling and harassing members of academic and senior management there, including obsessive emailing, cyberstalking and harassing Professor Griffiths, associated with me and my research.
• Dr Dagg (2018b) publishes on Wikipedia to emphasize the fact that he has not referenced my research in his article in the Biological Journal of the Linnean Society. He does so in reply to his malicious associate Dr Derry.

Thank you for carefully reading and understanding the importance and important consequences of the above independently verifiable evidence.

I put the work in for many hours each day, often seven days a week, for over two years and know the uniqueness and value of my research results and how extremely time-consuming and difficult that research was to conduct, as do those who plagiarised it, which is why they did so, and why it has been done twice.

Research in the field of criminology reveals that the best-known prediction of victimization is victimization (e.g. Farrell and Pease 2001) and that is confirmed in this case. Therefore, if not dealt with properly, even more plagiarism of my research will almost certainly follow.

References

Allen, M. (2017).The sage encyclopedia of communication research methods (Vols. 1-4). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. https://methods.sagepub.com/reference/the-sage-encyclopedia-of-communication-research-methods/i10779.xml

Caven, B. (2014) ‘Did Darwin copy ideas for Origin of Species?’ Daily Mail [Scotland edition] April 11^th. p.11.

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

Dagg (2014) His blog site post about my research http://archive.is/HprqF

Dagg (2016) His blog post proving he was aware the Selby data he plagiarised is from my prior published research and that he cherry picked it from a much larger list from my research data of those I newly discovered to have cited Matthew (1831) pre 1858 https://archive.is/N03ek

Dagg (2017) His review of Nullius in Verba: Darwin’s Greatest Secret. http://archive.is/PoF79

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

Dagg (2018a) His blog post naming a peer reviewer and mocking another http://archive.is/RZSjh

Dagg (2018b) Wikipedia talk page on Patrick Matthew http://archive.is/TY26z

Dagg (2019) His blog post about my Selby discovery http://archive.is/TWIw2

Darwin, C. R. and Wallace, A. R. (1858) ‘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. (1860) Natural selection. Gardener’s Chronicle and Agricultural Gazette. 21^st April. pp. 362-363.

Darwin, C. R. (1861) On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. Or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. (third edition). London. John Murray.

Darwin, C. R. (1861a) Letter to Qatrefages de Brèau, J. L. A. de. April. Darwin Correspondence Project.

Dawkins, R. (2010) Darwin’s Five Bridges: The Way to Natural Selection. In Bryson, B, (ed) Seeing Further: The Story of the Royal Society. pp. 202-228. London. Harper Collins.

De Beer, G (1962) The Wilkins Lecture. The Origins of Darwin’s Ideas on Evolution and Natural Selection. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biological Sciences 155 (960) pp. 321-338.

Dempster, W, J. (1983) Patrick Matthew and Natural Selection. Edinburgh. Paul Harris Publishing.

Dempster, W. J. (1996) Evolutionary Concepts in the Nineteenth Century. Edinburgh. The pentland Press.

Dempster, W. J. (2005) The Illustrious Hunter and the Darwins. Sussex. Book Guild Publishing.

Derry (2014) WARNING this is an archived tweet from Dr Derry that includes the most obscene language: http://archive.is/8tH1C

Derry (2017) His weirdo stalker, insanely jealous, website

http://archive.is/mg2Cg

Derry (2018a) WARNING This archived text also includes obscene language published by Dr Derry. Cyberstalking in the comments section of the Times Higher Education website, where he writes about Dr Weale, Dr Dagg and the Biological Journal of the Linnean Society: http://archive.is/reG0s

Derry (2018b) Derry’s obsessive cyberstalking blogsite as evidence of his obsessive cyberstalking and malicious harassment behaviour: http://archive.is/fqNil

Dougherty, M. V. (2020).DISGUISED ACADEMIC PLAGIARISM a typology and case studies for researchers and editors. SPRINGER NATURE.

Eiseley, L. (1959) Darwin’s Century: Evolution and the Men who Discovered it. London. The Scientific Book Guild.

Eiseley, L. (1979) Darwin and the Mysterious Mr X. New Light on the Evolutionists. New York. E. P. Dutton.

Farrell, G. and Pease, K. (2001) ‘Repeat Victimization’. Crime Prevention Studies 12. Monsey. Criminal Justice Press.

Helgesson G, Eriksson S: “Plagiarism in research”, Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 18:1 (2015):91-101) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263743965_Plagiarism_in_research

Iphofen, R. (2017). Finding Common Ground:Consensus in Research Ethics Across the Social Sciences. Edited byRon Iphofen. Advances in research ethics and integrity. Volume 1. London Emerald Publishing. p. Xiii.

Jackson, C. E. (1992) Prideaux John Selby: A Gentleman Naturalist, Spredden Press, Northumberland 1992, p. 86.

Jameson, W. (1853) Contributions to the History of the Relationship between Climate and Vegetation in the various parts of the Globe. On the Physical aspect of the Punjab in Agriculture and Botany. Journal of the Horticultural Society of London. Vol 8. Pp. 273-314.

Juyal, D., Thawani, V., & Thaledi, S. (2015). Plagiarism: an egregious form of misconduct.North American journal of medical sciences,7(2), 77–80. https://doi.org/10.4103/1947-2714.152084

Loudon, J. C. (1832) Patrick Matthew on Naval Timber and Arboriculture with critical notes on authors who have recently treated the Subject of Planting. Gardener’s Magazine. Vol. III. P. 703.

Matthew, P. (1831) On Naval Timber and Arboriculture with critical notes on authors who have recently treated the Subject of Planting. Blacks of London and Longman and Co. London.

Matthew, P. (1860) Letter to the Gardener’s Chronicle. Nature’s law of selection. Gardeners Chronicle and Agricultural Gazette. 12 May. P. 433.

Mayr, E. (1982) The growth of biological thought: diversity, evolution and inheritance. Cambridge, Mass. Harvard University Press.

Nottingham Trent University (2014) ‘Did Darwin lie about discovery of natural selection?’: https://www.ntu.ac.uk/about-us/news/news-articles/2014/06/did-darwin-lie-about-discovery-of-natural-selection. Archived: http://archive.is/2Hz1A

Saunders, J. (2010). ‘Plagiarism and the Law’. Learned Publishing, 23:279–292. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1087/20100402

Selby, P. J. (1842) A History of British Forest Trees: Indigenous and introduced. London. Van Voorst.

Sutton, M. (2014) Nullius in Verba: Darwin’s greatest secret. E-Book. Thinker Media Press. http://archive.is/NIEDR

Sutton, M. (2014a) ‘A Dreadful Discovery: Big Data Proves Wallace and Darwin Counterfeit Discoverers’. Conway Hall. Conway Hall Ethical Society, London, Sunday Lecture (archived https://archive.is/FPav3) . https://conwayhall.org.uk/ethicalrecord/a-dreadful-discoery-big-data-proves-wallace-and-darwin-counterfeit-discoverers/

Sutton (2014b) The High-Tech Detection of Darwin’s and Wallace’s Possible Science Fraud: Big Data criminology re-writes he history of contested discovery. Papers from the British Society of Criminology Conference (peer reviewed) British Society of Criminology (archive of front page only https://archive.is/vSvy9)Full article:

https://patrickmatthew.com/onewebmedia/Darwin%20Science%20Fraud.pdf

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 — 2015, t. 12. Philosophical Aspects of Origins. 1-39 (archive of front page only: https://archive.is/laJOH)

Full article: https://core.ac.uk/reader/42392608

Sutton, M. (2017a) Fencing and Stolen Goods Markets. Oxford Bibliographies. Oxford University Press: https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780195396607/obo-9780195396607-0219.xml

Sutton (2017b) Nullius in Verba: Darwin’s greatest secret. Vol. 1. Paperback. Vae Victus. Amazon Books. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Nullius-Verba-Darwins-greatest-secret/dp/1541343964

Sutton, M.; Griffiths, M.D. (2018) Using Date Specific Searches onGoogle Booksto Disconfirm Prior Origination Knowledge Claims for Particular Terms, Words, and Names.Soc. Sci.7, 66. https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/7/4/66

The Scotsman (2016) Darwin may have stolen evolution theory from Perthshire farmer: CHARLES DARWIN may have 'stolen' his theory of evolution from a little-known Perthshire farmer, according to top academic. https://www.scotsman.com/whats-on/arts-and-entertainment/darwin-may-have-stolen-evolution-theory-perthshire-farmer-1480324

The Daily Telegraph (2014) ‘Darwin ‘Stole’ theory of natural selection’. p. 12. Wed. May 28^th.

Wallace, A. R. (1855) On the law which as regulated the introduction of new species. The Annals and Magazine of Natural History. Series 2. 16. pp 184-196.

Wallace. A. R. (1879) 9 May. Letter to Samuel Butler. Unique WCP identifier WCP1586. Wallace Letters Online. Natural History Museum.

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

Weale, M. (2015b) March. The Patrick Matthew Project: http://archive.is/XkwOO

University of Oxford (2020) Plagiarism: https://www.ox.ac.uk/students/academic/guidance/skills/plagiarism#:~:text=Plagiarism%20is%20presenting%20someone%20else's,is%20covered%20under%20this%20definition.

Archived: http://archive.is/BxUjn

Is the Biological Journal of the Linnean Society encouraging plagiarists to plagiarise my research out of malicious cowardly pseudo scholar enabling childish spite? Is it because of what I wrote in my book, Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret, that describes the painful implications of the research they plagiarized? (see image immediately below):

Just several days after adamantly refusing to debate the facts at a university setting of his choice, following newspaper reports of Jon Van Wyhe resigning from the editorial board of a science journal (archived here) so soon after it published my 2015 paper On Knowledge Contamination, Weale, in 2016 fell out with me and immediately wrote a ludicrously childish email to senior managers of my university demanding I be investigated. This falling out can be seen on his website (archived here), despite his pleading with me to stay and debate with him.

Weale's jealous harassment, malicious communication, email to my employer is safely archived, along with many more by Derry, for future academic research into such harassment behaviour by those seeking to silence, or else jealously plagiarise, those who make ground-breaking uncomfortable new discoveries in science. Dr Mike Weale’s malicious complaint on behalf of Dr van-Wyhe was investigated by Nottingham Trent University, chaired by a professor of criminal justice and monitored throughout by HR. The report of the investigation concluded Weale had acted most strangely and disingenuously and there was no case to answer for. A representative of HR then telephoned me and suggested I contact the VC of Weale’s university to inform them what Weale was doing and what sort of dishonest and malicious, time wasting, employee they had. I declined. Unlike the sly, pathetically cowardly little lily-livered greasy weasel Weale, I had no childish malicious desire to try to wickedly deprive an academic of their career by writing to their employer. The recorded, fully evidenced, history of Mike Weale’s backstabbing, sly plagiarising, and cowardly unscientific behaviour now defines him for all eternity as does the company he keeps.

Next, on Wikipedia, Dagg brags to Derry that he has not cited me - this behaviour is conducted by Dagg despite the fact his Linnean Society article is based in no small part on my original (Sutton 2014) discovery that Selby cited Matthew pre- 1831. That behaviour amounts to an effective act of serious deliberate and apparently malicious plagiarism admission by Dagg, in my opinion. Moreover, Dagg writes also that he believes his paper somehow (perhaps magically?) refutes the evidence for Matthewian knowledge contamination of the replicating work of Darwin and Wallace.

For his part, Weale - who has regularly deleted any comments he does not approve of on his website - arguably facilitates, aides and abets, Derry's impotent and plainly delusional childish malicious criminal cyberstalking and harassment behaviour by publishing a clear named link to Derry's cyberstalking harassment blog site (here and archived here). In my opinion, like the disreputable pseudo-scientific quacks who harassed Edzard Ernst at Exeter University for the New Data he collected on their membership, these  individuals sought to discredit me personally in a similarly failed childish attempt to jealously bury my original uncovering of the New Data on who really read and cited Matthew pre-1858 and what it means for the history of discovery in science.

These cyber-sniping friends of foul-feather appear to be sticking together. But it seems that both their beaks and brains are clearly not naturally suited to either rational adult or open scholarly conduct. On which note, I have been invited by those who care about such matters to address on camera (for the record) and before members of the press and academics, the respective behaviour of Derry, Dagg and their associate Weale - and others - on December 6th 2018 (here). Facts are facts. We are to be judged by what we do. Weale was too afraid of the facts to debate with me before his peers. See  https://archive.is/dMmuw

Of some concern to police, psychologists and criminologists regarding Derry's behaviour, is the fact that obsessed and abusive harassing cyberstalkers, who target young females in that way, are known to escalate to homicidal activity (e.g. here). Derry is on legal notice from Nottingham Trent University to cease and desist harassing and stalking staff of that university.  

Appendix of Evidence of Dr Dagg's Deliberate and Malicious Plagiarism Sent to the Editor of the Boilogical Journal of  the Linnean Society.

1. Dagg's website in question is here (archived) where you can see he tries to discredit my research about a mistake in the iron content of spinach. This is relevant because it is evidence that his later plagiarism in your journal is both deliberate and malicious. 
2. Next, dating back to my book and articles on the subject in 2014 (Dagg's published work on them archived) You will see that Dagg's same website obsesses further about my prior published research on Patrick Matthew.
3. Dr Dagg's prior published malicious review of my book is archived (here). If you scroll down this archived file you can read his fully signed Amazon book review of my book and his admission, he also read my earlier book on the topic of 2014, which like my second book contains the Selby 1842 discovery from my research.
4. Dr Dagg's publicly published correspondence about his Linnean Journal article and about me, with Julian Derry (who has been written to by Nottingham Trent University's legal department and head of Corporate Affairs to demand he cease his libel and obsessive harassment of myself and others regarding our research and peer reviewed publications into Darwin and Matthew) is included in the image (highlighted) screenshot. That image is on the Wikipedia talk page on Patrick Matthew (archived here) 
5. 100% proof (yes such a thing actually does exist) that Dagg plagiarised my Selby discovery with malicious intent HERE and more insanely jealous obsessive published nonsense from him Here and Here and Here  
6. Most seriously, Here we have Dagg publishing information about the peer review process and names the reviewers of his plagiarising article and the editor of the journal in the Linnean journal. Note that he also names his assistants in writing it: Julian Derry (the criminal harasser who is under legal notice to cease and desist from Nottingham Trent University) and Mike Weal (who also plagiarised my Selby discovery data in his own Linnean society paper and then sent ludicrous allegations to the VC of Nottingham Trent University to try to have me dismissed for defending my peer reviewed published research on Darwin's plagiarism from claims it is all a silly conspiracy theory. Weal's malicious allegations were thrown out by Nottingham Trent University in an investigation that concluded they were "disingenuous" and that no action should be taken. ) 

Besides my two books on the topic of Matthew and Darwin, which have been extensively covered in the national press, published proof that my prior-published research findings are the original source of the Selby cited Matthew in 1842 can be found in many published sources. These sources include, but are by no means limited to, this peer reviewed academic article (https://core.ac.uk/reader/42392608). And also in this prominently published article on a Sunday Lecture I gave on the topic at Conway Hall in London (here).

The research Dagg  plagiarized by failing to attribute the Selby (1842) reference to my research has been extensively covered in the press and is, therefore, by no means obscure. I attach examples of

press coverage below:

1. The Daily Telegraph 2014 (archived) (also archived here)

2. Scottish Daily Mail 2014 (archived)

3.The  Courier  March 15th 2016 (archived)

4. Deadline March 16th 2016 (archived)

5.The Courier 19th March 2016 (archived)

6. The Courier 22nd March 2016 (archived)

7. The Scotsman  2016 (archived)

8. The Nottingham Post 2016 (28.3.2016)

9. Five Thirty Eight 2016 (archived)

10. Sputnik (France) 2016 (archived)

11. Sputnik (Germany) 2016 (archived)

12. The Courier (May 2016) (archived)

13. The Courier (May 2017) (archived)

14. Several articles (May 2017) Press Reader

15. The Courier (August 2017) (archived)

16. The Courier (Sept 2017) (archived)

17. The Evening Telegraph (Sept 2017) (archived)

18. The Courier (Sept 2018) (archived) 

19. The Courier (Nov 2019) (archived)

I have further published (some not published) independently verifiable evidence that Dagg  deliberately and maliciously plagiarized my research.

Honestly, you could not make this stuff up, because the wider public would never believe it. What does this tell us about the Linnean Society and these three, whose names appear on the front page of one of its published papers? The very same journal that published, in 1858, Darwin's and Wallace's replications of the theory, without referencing Matthew, which both later admitted was Matthew's original conception. Yet, in an act of proven post-hoc glory theft plagiarism, Darwin and Wallace continued to claim it as their own.