Plagiarising Science Fraud

Plagiarising Science Fraud
Newly Discovered Facts, Published in Peer Reviewed Science Journals, Mean Charles Darwin is a 100 Per Cent Proven Lying, Plagiarising Science Fraudster by Glory Theft of Patrick Matthew's Prior-Published Conception of the Hypothesis of Macro Evolution by Natural Selection
Showing posts sorted by date for query jameson. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query jameson. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Friday 25 January 2019

Matthew had an International Reputation Long Before Darwin

In my research on Matthew, the originator of the the theory of macroevolution by natural selection, I have proven many times that contrary to the Darwinite myth, he was not simply an unread obscure writer on forest trees.

Matthew had an international reputation as an agriculturalist and writer on that topic in Europe and the USA (see Woodbury cited at end of his post) long before Darwin. Yet the serial liar Darwin sought to portray Matthew (even after Matthew had informed him that the opposite was true) that he was a mere obscure Scottish writer on forest trees. Credulous neo-religious Darwin and Wallace cultish worshippers have fallen for Darwin's sly propaganda plagiarising cover-up lies ever since.



Here, in this one further example, we see Matthew's (1831) book (which contains the original conception of macro evolution by natural selection) cited and praised in relation to information about spreading soot around plants to improve their growth. My book (Sutton 2014 & 2017) on the topic reveals that years before Darwin and Wallace replicated Matthew's original breakthrough ideas without citation that Matthew was read and cited many times, not only in the Encyclopedia Britannica, but at least 25 times, seven by naturalists, four of whom (Loudon, Chambers, Selby and Jameson) were at the epicentre of their influence.

The Gardener's Magazine and Register of Rural & Domestic Improvement, (1837) Volume 3. pp 517-518

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=_TdNAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA518&dq=matthew+naval+timber+fertilizer+charcoal&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiIjqfhmbvbAhWLKsAKHQqVAo0Q6AEILDAA#v=onepage&q=matthew%20naval%20timber%20fertilizer%20charcoal&f=false




The historian Ton Munnich kindly translated a Dutch article published in 1832 on Matthew's research (here) that reproduced the text of Matthew's Lightning Rod Experiment. As cited in On Knowledge Contamination see pp. 184-185), The Gardener’s Magazine and Register of Rural and Domestic Improvement, vol. 9, Longman, Rees, Orme, Brown and Green 1833 also published the results of that very same experiment.




Ton also reveals that the same Matthew information had been published in Germany on this topic.  

Ton Munnich via On 24.01.2019 (private email correspondence) kindly provides us with the following intelligence:

: about the magazine
The "Algemeene Konst- en Letter-bode" existed from ca. 1800 until 1862.
It published weekly an issue of ca. 15 pages. 
It was a magazine for the educated general readership.
About developments in science, medicine, agriculture, art, literature, new publications, etc.

: about Patrick Matthew's article
The 52 issues of 1832 are bound in two volumes. Vol. 1 contains issue 1 to 27.
Page-numbering went on throughout the year.
Matthew's article is in issue 8, published on Friday, February 17, 1832.
That issue goes from page 113 to 128. Matthew's article uses ca 70 lines. 
It starts on page 125 (lower half), then 126 (whole page) and 127 (two lines).
  •  "...the article was taken from "Frorieps Notizen", which took it from R. Jameson's "Edinburgh New Philosophical Journal". (the translator's note does not add from which specific issue it was taken, only the names of the German and Scottish magazines). (in Germany Ludwig Friedrich von Froriep edited a kind of science-news magazine : "Notizen aus dem Gebiete der Natur- und Heilkunde". Also known as "Frorieps Notizen".
  • So perhaps the article was translated twice.  First from English into German, and then from German into Dutch."
CONCLUSION

The fact (uniquely noted by Ton Munnich) that Matthew's Lightning Rod Experiment was first published by Robert Jameson is extremely important. Jameson was Darwin's Edinburgh University Tutor! Matthew and Jameson and Jameson's nephew (the naturalist William Jameson) are intricately bound together and - yet again provide many potential routes for 'knowledge contamination' of Darwin's and Wallace's brains via The Hookers of Kew (see important earlier post)

Pre 1859 citations of Matthew in the USA

Woodbury, L. (1832) Live Oak. Report of the Secretary of the Navy. December 15th. House of Representatives. Executive Documents. Duff Green. Washington.

Woodbury, L. (1833) Live Oak Timber for the Navy. Military and Naval Magazine. Vol. 1 Number 3. (here)

Woodbury, L. (1838) Live Oak. House of Representatives. December 15, 1832. Report of the Secretary of the Navy on Live Oak. Navy Department. December 14th. In: Register of Debates in Congress: Comprising the Leading Debates and Incidents of the Second Session of the Eighteenth Congress: Dec. 6, 1824, to the First Session of the Twenty-fifth Congress, Oct. 16, 1837. Together with an Appendix, Containing the Most Important State Papers and Public Documents to which the Session Has Given Birth: to which are Added, the Laws Enacted During the Session, with a Copious Index to the Whole. Volume IX. Washington. (see p. 128).

Woodbury, L. (1852) Writings of Levi Woodbury, LL.D. Political, Judicial and Literary.Volume 3 - Literary. Boston. Little, Brown and Company. p. 361.



Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Wednesday 23 January 2019

2019 Further Newly Unearthed Citations of Matthew's (1831) Book

Following the many newly unearthed citations of Matthew's (1831) book "On Naval Timber and Arboriculture " revealed in  'Nullius in Verba Darwin's: greatest secret' (Sutton 2014, 2017), here are some newly discovered others that I  found in Jan 2019

1. The anonymous essayist (1843) "S G 2" pp 226-227. "Economical uses of the Larch" in  Knight's Penny Magazine, Volume 3, [edited by Charles Knight.] https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=W-E2AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA227&dq=%22Mathew%22+%22naval+timber%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwizr_2xvIPgAhURtnEKHRn9BQwQ6AEIXjAJ#v=onepage&q=%22Mathew%22%20%22naval%20timber%22&f=false

2. Patrick Matthew citing his (1831) book in  'Testimonials in favour of W.L. Lindsay ... as a candidate for the office of Conservator of the museum of the Royal College of Surgeons, Edinburgh (1852). - Note in this same publication we find a testimonial by Robert Jameson (Darwin's Geology professor no less!Moreover the testimonials are for a naturalist whose work Darwin later relied upon!) (Click here for the details) 
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Tuesday 15 January 2019

Why is the concept of Knowledge Contamination so important?


Conclusion on the topic of 'knowledge contamination' from the latest IDD method bombshell breakthrough in the history of scientific discovery and Darwin's and Wallace's plagiarism of Matthew's prior-published and often-prior cited theory (see related earlier blog post here).

 Above all else, the unearthing of the fact that both heretical evolutionist Professor Robert Jameson and  his nephew, the botanist William Jameson knew of Matthew and were aware of his work On Naval Timber is confirmation for the concept of knowledge contamination and its applicability in the story of Darwin's and Wallace's plagiarizing replication of Matthew's theory of evolution by natural selection from that book. This is because pre-1858 Matthew twice appeared in print citing himself as the author of On Naval Timber in works edited by and also contributed to by Robert Jameson  (who was, incidentally, Darwin's tutor at Edinburgh University), whose nephew William Jameson was a regular correspondent of William Hooker. William Hooker was in turn an associate of Charles Darwin and father of Darwin's best friend, evolutionary confidant and botanical motor Joseph Hooker. If knowledge contamination is not relevant then anyone claiming so perhaps believes no amount of what might be seen as improbable and closely linked multiple coincidences ever sum to a likelihood that they are not actually coincidental at all? By way of example: Are we to believe that the fact Robert Jameson edited the journal containing an article by Matthew, in which Matthew cited his own 1831 book and where an advert for that book made the subject matter of species and varieties in it plain and clear, and that Matthew appeared in an academic testimonial with Robert Jameson, where Matthew again cited his book has nothing at all to do with the fact William Jameson then cited Matthew's book and mentioned one of Matthew's important observations that supported Matthew's original theory of evolution by natural selection? 

 My assumption is that 19th century scientists would as likely as not discuss then if they were aware of the heretical ideas in Matthew's book. And aware of them they were made, not only by the famous naturalist and editor Loudon who wrote in 1831 a very public review that Matthew's (1831) book contained important new information on what he termed the "origin of species", but amongst others by an anonymous reviewer who wrote that he/she disdained so much as rumination on Matthew's writings on law of nature, a fact that Darwin deification fanatical official Wikipedia editors fought desperately to permanently delete by deleting it again and again when its fully referenced source in the historic publication record was put on the Patrick Matthew page on Wikipedia. This desperate Darwinist superfan fact denial behaviour, on the world's worst encyclopedia, with all fully verifiable facts on that disgraceful matter can be seen here. What were those Wikipedia editors so afraid of? And what do they remain afraid of today? I think the answer is they were and remain afraid of 'knowledge contamination' of the wider scientific community and the wider general public with newly unearthed data that disconfirms all Darwin fans mere mythology about Darwin's originality, honesty and disproves the lies Darwin wrote about Matthew and the myth fuelled bias-blinkered and fake-facts claptrap his fanatical followers have written about Matthew since. 

   Secord's book on the Vestiges (its anonymous author Robert Chambers also newly discovered by me to have cited Matthew's 1831 book) in : 'Victorian Sensation' absolutely demonstrates that the heretically delicious topic of organic evolution was on everyone's lips.  Moreover, two acts of Parliament were passed to stop such issues being discussed in public scientific societies. Knowledge contamination is such an important issue. If not, why were all those science clubs and societies formed - if not to bring naturalists together to discuss new ideas? That was one very important reason given for the founding of the British Association for Advancement of Science - for the very reason that others were hypothesising about evolution. So weighing all these facts, a quite reasonable assumption is, I think, that 19th century naturalists might well have discussed the topic of Matthew's book with fellow naturalists, if they were aware of it. Then there are all those letters from these so called "men of letters" - letters kept and even more burned that where is could have been discussed in correspondence. The time is now to look in the archives of those naturalists we newly know did read and cite Matthew's (1831) book (see Sutton 2015) to see what can be found in that regard pre-Darwin's and Wallace's 1858 claimed independent replications of Matthew's prior published - and prior cited by their friends, editors and influencers and their influencer's influencers - complete theory of macroevolution by natural selection, including his name for it and his highly idiosyncratic explanatory example and analogy of differences between artificial and natural selection.

Original expert peer reviewed article:   On Knowledge Contamination: New Data Challenges Claims of Darwin’s and Wallace’s Independent Conceptions of Matthew’s Prior-Published Hypothesis

My book containing more information: Nullius in Verba: Darwin's Greatest Secret (paperback version)


Original e-book will be re-released in or after 2019 after licence with its original (folded) publisher expires




. .
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Saturday 12 January 2019

More Newly Unearthed Unwelcome Facts On Probable Knowledge Contamination: Dr Lauder Lindsay (naturalist), Patrick Matthew and the Jameson's


An interesting new find for Matthewists: Here

In this newly unearthed publication 'Testimonials in favour of W.L. Lindsay ... as a candidate for the office of Conservator of the museum of the Royal College of Surgeons, Edinburgh (1852)' we find Patrick Matthew being asked to vouch for the abilities, character and suitability of the well known naturalist Lauder Lindsay for a senior appointment. Interestingly, Darwin would later cite Lauder Lindsay in his book The Descent of Man. Along with Matthew's testimonial we find further testimonials from naturalists. One is the famous uncle of a naturalist who cited Matthew's book (among over 25 others to cite it pre-1858) before Darwin (1858, 1859) replicated Matthew's discovery, claimed it as his own and then lied (see Sutton 2014 and Sutton 2015) that no naturalist / no one whatsoever had read Matthew's original ideas before Darwin's and Wallace's (1858) supposed independent conceptions and replications of Matthew's ideas, unique terminology and explanatory examples and idiosyncratic analogies. 

Most importantly, in this book, Matthew spells out that he is the Author of: 'On Naval Timber and Arboriculture' 

The relevant text is on page 18




The celebrated naturalist in question is Robert Jameson, whose (it is newly known Sutton 2014) nephew - William Jameson  - cited Matthew's book in 1853, which is a year after Matthew appears in print in this book of testimonials with hs famous uncle.

 William Jameson cited Matthew to point out Matthew's (1831) unique observation that some tree species could thrive even better in areas that were not their natural habitat. This was just one of Matthew's heretical points, which provided disconfirming evidence for the then orthodoxy in science that the Christian "God" put all species in a predestined place that was best and perfectly suited to them and the needs of all humans.  Most notably, Robert Jameson was famously Charles Darwin's tutor at Edinburgh University. Robert Jameson believed in evolution and is widely considered to be the anonymous author of the Edinburgh New Philosophical Journal article of 1826 that contains the first known English usage of the word "evolved" in the context of organic evolution. 

In 1831, citing himself as the author of the book On Naval Timber and Arboriculture (that we know both Matthew, Darwin and Wallace and others since fully admitted contains the first complete theory of macroevolution by natural selection - see Sutton 2015 for the citations to this fact recorded in the historic publication record), Professor Robert Jameson published Matthew's paper on meteorology (here - see image below). Clearly, Jameson would most surely have been fully aware of who Matthew was and of his dangerously heretical work - which had been noted in reviews as such (see Sutton 2014, 2017). On heretical ideas of evolution Jameson, we know - if it was he - would write only anonymously (see Jenkins 2015), as did the best seller author of "The Vestiges of Creation" the naturalist geologist and publisher  Robert Chambers (a correspondent and acquaintance of Darwin and Wallace's' greatest influencer) - who we do know for sure, but only due to my original research (e.g. Sutton, 2014, 2015, and 2017), also cited Matthew's 1831 book long before 1858.



 Matthew's newly discovered (on 12 Jan 2019) juxtaposition and citation of his book in a publication co-contributed to by Professor Robert Jameson is the second I have uniquely unearthed where this occurs. Both examples explain why Robert Jameson's naturalist nephew William cited Matthew's original ideas. Moreover, it is powerful circumstantial evidence that Professor Robert Jameson also read and understood Matthew's theory long before Darwin and Wallace stole it and claimed it as their own on the dishonest and totally wrong grounds that no naturalist / no one at all had read and understood Matthew's (1831) prior-published complete theory.   

 Perhaps Robert Jameson is the eminent naturalist who - as Matthew (1860) patiently explained to the proven lair Darwin -  understood Matthew's bombshell conception and original ideas - yet would not teach nor otherwise share them for fear of pillory punishment?

Conclusion


 Above all else, the unearthing of the fact that both heretical evolutionist Professor Robert Jameson and  his nephew, the botanist William Jameson knew of Matthew and were aware of his work On Naval Timber is confirmation for the concept of knowledge contamination and its applicability in the story of Darwin's and Wallace's plagiarizing replication of Matthew's theory of evolution by natural selection from that book. This is because pre-1858 Matthew twice appeared in print citing himself as the author of On Naval Timber in works edited by and also contributed to by Robert Jameson  (who was, incidentally, Darwin's tutor at Edinburgh University), whose nephew, William Jameson, was a regular correspondent of William Hooker, who was in turn an associate of Charles Darwin, Wallace's mentor and guarantor and father of Darwin's best friend, evolutionary confidant and botanical motor Joseph Hooker. If knowledge contamination is not relevant then anyone claiming so perhaps believes no amount of what might be seen as improbable and closely linked multiple coincidences ever sum to a likelihood that they are not actually coincidental at all? By way of example: Are we to believe that the fact Robert Jameson edited the journal containing an article by Matthew, in which Matthew cited his own 1831 book and where an advert for that book made the subject matter of species and varieties in it plain and clear, and that Matthew appeared in an academic testimonial with Robert Jameson, where Matthew again cited his book has nothing at all to do with the fact William Jameson then cited Matthew's book and mentioned one of Matthew's important observations that supported Matthew's original theory of evolution by natural selection?




Advertisements for Robert Jameson's books were published in the Edinburgh Literary journal along with those for Matthew's Naval Timber. The fact Matthew's book was about species and varities and their location in nature was made very clear indeed (see the example of one advert below in the same publication of 1830, here is one for Jameson. And here, some commentary on one of his publications.




+


+
Archived:  http://archive.is/jkmYZ and http://archive.is/73PqI and http://archive.is/ZHQfs

Note: There was a second (1854) copy of the testimonials as well. It's here

Note: At the 1867 Dundee meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science (where Matthew was platform blocked from speaking on his original discoveries) both he and Lauder Lindsay presented papers on other topics - see here.

Note Lauder Lindsay in 1855 citing assistance from who is most probably Patrick Matthew's son, who farmed in Germany here 

Note: In 1861 he was elected a member of the Royal Society of Edinburgh and, earlier, in 1858, Lindsay was elected a fellow of the Linnean Society (Darwin was a member and it was the society that published Darwin's and Wallace's plagiarizing joint article in 1858)  More here.

 Postscript 30. 01. 2019
See a more recent post with further observations on the links between Matthew and Robert Jameson
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,

Monday 4 June 2018

Not an obscure writer on forest trees at all

In my research on Matthew I have proven many times that contrary to the Darwinite myth, he was not simply an unread obscure writer on forest trees.

Here, in this one further example, we see Matthew's (1831) book (which contains the original conception of macro evolution by natural selection) cited and praised in relation to information about spreading soot around plants to improve their growth. My book (Sutton 2014 & 2017) on the topic reveals that years before Darwin and Wallace replicated Matthew's original breakthrough ideas without citation that Matthew was read and cited many times, not only in the Encyclopedia Britannica, but at least 25 times, seven by naturalists, four of whom (Loudon, Chambers, Selby and Jameson) were at the epicentre of their influence.

The Gardener's Magazine and Register of Rural & Domestic Improvement, (1837) Volume 3. pp 517-518

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=_TdNAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA518&dq=matthew+naval+timber+fertilizer+charcoal&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiIjqfhmbvbAhWLKsAKHQqVAo0Q6AEILDAA#v=onepage&q=matthew%20naval%20timber%20fertilizer%20charcoal&f=false



Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , ,

Thursday 18 January 2018

Google Research Forces Publication of Encyclopaedia Britannica's New Page on Patrick Matthew




Identity Verified

POSTSCRIPT JAN 19TH 2018. 

 Having deleted the myth started as a lie by Darwin that no naturalist / no one whatsoever read Patrick Matthew's (1831) prior published theory before Darwin and Wallace replicated it and claimed it as their own, I am pleased to see that the Encyclopedia Britannica has now also deleted the Appendix Myth from its page on Patrick Matthew.  The encyclopedia could benefit form making it clearer that whilst it is correct (e.g. see Rampino) that Matthew's catastrophic extinction events version of the theory is more correct than Darwin's now debunked uniformitarian beliefs, Matthew also explained evolution by natural slection occurring between extinction events:

 Matthew (1831) wrote clearly on how evolution occurred over great lengths of time between extinction events: (see Sutton 2014)

 ‘…diverging ramifications of life, which from the connected sexual system of vegetables, and the natural instincts of animals to herd and combine with their own kind, would fall into specific groups, these remnants in the course of time moulding and accommodating their being anew to the change of circumstances, and to every possible means of subsistence, and the millions of ages of regularity which appear to have followed between the epochs, probably after this accommodation was completed affording fossil deposit of regular specific character.’

 Mike Sutton

PLEASE NOTE The (Sutton 2014) e-book of Nullius in Verba Darwin's greatest secret (CITED BELOW) is currently unavailable due to criminal and civil book piracy investigations into hackers, cyberstalkers and ID fraudsters (see bottom of page at PatrickMatthew.com on the original e-book) However, the abridged (vol 1) paperback (Sutton 2017) is available from all amazon stores, libraries and bricks and mortar bookshops e.g.https://www.amazon.co.uk/Nullius-Verba-Darwins-greatest-secret/dp/1541343964 





Thinker in Science / Social Sciences / Sociology
Mike Sutton
Mike Sutton
Dr Mike Sutton is the author of 'Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret'.
Posted in Science / Biology & Nature / Genetics & Molecular Biology

Google Research Forces Publication of Encyclopaedia Britannica's New Page on Patrick Matthew


Feb. 23, 2016 2:03 pm
Categories: Counterknowledge, Dysology
Keywords: Encyclopaedia Britannica, Patrick Matthew, Charles Darwin
image
Public Domain
Google Forces Encyclopaedia Britannica to Evolve on History of Discovery of Natural Selection
I am quite heartened to learn by private correspondence today that, following a letter from Jim Dempster's daughter - Soula Dempster - the Encyclopaedia Britannica has entirely re-written its Patrick Matthew page to reflect many of the "real facts" as opposed to the old Darwinist "false facts"- such as the old Darwinist myth that the original ideas on natural selection in Matthew's (1831) book went unread before Matthew brought them to Darwin's attention in 1860 - after Darwin (1859) had replicated them in The Origin of Species without citing their originator.
Nevertheless, at the time of writing the Encyclopaedia Britannica does, unfortunately for veracity, continue with the old debunked Darwinist "Appendix Myth   "as though it is true rather than a falsehood started as a deliberate lie by Darwin in 1860.
As early as 1842 - the year Darwin penned his first private essay on natural selection - Wallace's Sarawak paper's editor, and Darwin's Royal Society associate and friend of his father and of his great friend Jenyns - Selby cited Matthew's book many times and wrote that he could not understand why Matthew claimed, incidentally in the main body of his book not in its appendix!, that some trees could thrive in non-native areas. Matthew's explanation was an example of his original natural versus artificial selection explanatory analogy of differences, which both Darwin and Wallace replicated. Selby was like many naturalists at the time a deeply religious man who believed the Christian God placed all of his designed species in the designed place most suited to them. Matthew's accurate observations were heresy. Another naturalist, Jameson - of the East India Company - a regular correspondent of William Hooker - who was the father of Darwin's best friend Joseph Hooker - wrote in 1853 of the importance of the exact same Matthew observation on timber growing - citing Matthew. All these original New Data details - with full independently verifiable references - are in my book Nullius in Verba: Darwin's Greatest Secret   .

Click to view    the Encyclopaedia Britannica page in question. 

Historically, this is an interesting and most ironic development because in my book Nullius I originally revealed    that Matthew's (1831) book was advertised on 3/4 of a prominent page of Part 5, Volume 2 of the Encyclopaedia Britannica 1842.
It is most ironic that Google technology, which I (Sutton 2014   ) originally used to show exactly who really did read and cite Matthew's (1831) book and the ideas in it on natural selection pre 1858, allows us to show the Encyclopaedia Britannica that it is wrong to claim Matthew's book and the orignal ideas in it went unread, because as early as 1832 and in 1842 this hugely influential in the 19th century encyclopaedia was citing and advertising Matthew's book.
  • Google, therefore, has helped the Encyclopaedia Britannica to evolve to be veracious on the topic of the discovery of evolution with evidence it should have known about, but clearly did not.
  • Only because it has recently been "computerised" - and hence discoverable on the Internet - as part of the Google Library Project, was I able to find that evidence on my 14-year old clunky laptop, sitting at home whilst watching TV. Now that's what I call progress, because I don't like paper libraries.
image
Public Domain
Matthew's (1831) book was prominently advertised in the Encyclopedia Britannica from 1832 onwards
Significantly, the above advert had in fact been in the published literature since 1832 in the Encyclopaedia Britannica. Because, as Dr Mike Weale usefully points out on his Patrick Matthew Project website   :
'Note that although the official publication date for the 7th Edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica was 1842, in reality it was published in instalments starting in 1827. Volume 4 was available in bound form in 1832, which explains why all the books in the publishers’ advertising insert (“lately published by Adam Black, Edinburgh, and Longman, Rees, Orme, Brown and Green, London   “) are from 1831-2 (for example, Memoirs of the Wernerian Natural History Society, Vol 6   ). Coincidentally, Volume 21 (the last volume, which really was published in 1842) contains a citation of Matthew’s book    in its article on “Timber”. The advert is very similar to the Edinburgh Literary Journal (1831) advert, except the quotes from reviews have been updated. Even the aggressively negative review from the Edinburgh Literary Journal is quoted as a “Sample of Venom”, perhaps to pique the reader’s interest!''

In 2015 Dr Mike Weale discovered    an additional individual - who cited Matthew's book before Darwin and Wallace replicated the original ideas and explanations in it without citing Matthew - bringing the known total to 26, He writes:
'Selected citation #4. Augustin Francis Bullock Creuze. Article on “Timber” Encyclopaedia Britannica, 7th Edition (1842), Vol. 21, p.291   

 

Also here (added March 2021) 
This brief citation is noteworthy for confirming that Matthew’s (1831) book was regarded as “valuable” by the author of the 1842 Encyclopaedia Britannica article on “Timber”. Note that Volume 21 really was published in 1842, unlike the other volumes which although they stated “1842” on their title pages were in reality published in earlier years. The article is signed “(B.Z.)”, identifiable as Augustin F. B. Creuze (1800-1852) via the Table of Signatures    in Volume 1. Creuze also authored other articles for the Encyclopaedia Britannica, including a lengthy one on “Ship-building” that was published as a separate treatise   , but Matthew is not cited in it. The article reproduces a table from Matthew’s book on the “number of concentric layers of sap-wood”. The citation is also noteworthy for making a reference to the “many things irrelevant to its subject” in the book. A similar opinion was expressed in the 1860 review of the book   , likely by James Brown.
The following table of the number of concentric layers of sap-wood observed in various species of timber trees is extracted from a valuable work on Naval Timber by Patrick Matthew; a work which abounds in much sound practical information, though mixed up with many things irrelevant to its subject.'

More on the significance of what was written in the Encyclopedia Britannica advert for Matthew's (1831) book


   
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)