Darwin and Hooker Gleefully Determined that Only Men Like They Should be Permitted to Hypothesise About the Mutability of Species

Hooker and Darwin had a Meeting of Minds. Only Men Such as They Should be Allowed
to Handle the Subject of the Mutability of Species.

(Joseph Hooker 1845 - Letter to Charles Darwin):

"And now for species. To begin, I do think it a most fair & most profitable subject for discussion, I have no formed opinion of my own on the subject, I argue for immutability, till I see cause to take a fixed post…  I still maintain, that to be able to handle the subject at all, one must have handled hundreds of species with a view to distinguishing them & that over a great part,—or brought from a great many parts,—of the globe."

In an earlier blog post, I discuss how this fitted in with the scientific conventions of the time regarding the taboo of deductive reasoning. 

Unsurprisingly, both Hooker and Darwin did fulfil all of Hooker's gleeful self-selecting criteria for who could be considered eligible to handle to subject of mutability of species.

In his 1845 letter to Darwin, Hooker's arrogant self aggrandizing prescriptive proselytizing on who could and could not discuss the topic of the origin of species clearly excluded Patrick Matthew! Because, unlike Hooker and Darwin, Matthew was not a routine species comparison naturalist, and he had not collected many of them from parts of the globe - excluding his role in first importing giant Californian redwoods, the rightful glory for which Hooker's father's friend John Lindley slyly stole.  On which note, significantly, Lindley - like his friend and co-author John Loudon - was well known to believe in the mutability of species. And it was Loudon who wrote in 1832 that Matthew appeared to have something interesting to say on the topic of species. 

Charles Darwin hid Behind his Wife Emma in Order to Deal With Private Correspondence from Patrick Matthew

"Mr Darwin begs me to thank you warmly for your letter which
 has interested him very much. I am sorry to say that he is so unwell
as not to be able to write himself."

Letter From Emma Darwin to Patrick Matthew   21 November 1863

Dear Sir

Mr Darwin begs me to thank you warmly for your letter which has interested him very much. I am sorry to say that he is so unwell as not to be able to write himself.

With regard to Natural Selection he says that he is not staggered by your striking remarks. He is more faithful to your own original child than you are yourself. He says you will understand what he means by the following metaphor.

Fragments of rock fallen from a lofty precipice assume an infinitude of shapes—these shapes being due to the nature of the rock, the law of gravity &c— by merely selecting the well-shaped stones & rejecting the ill-shaped an architect (called Nat. Selection could make many & various noble buildings.

Mr Darwin is much obliged to you for sending him your photograph. He wishes he could send you as good a one of himself. The enclosed was a good likeness taken by his eldest son but the impression is faint.

You express yourself kindly interested about his family. We have 5 sons & 2 daughters, of these 2 only are grown up.  Mr Darwin was very ill 2 months ago & his recovery is very slow, so that I am afraid it will be long before he can attend to any scientific subject.

Darwin's Sly Emotional Manipulation of his Friends Joseph Hooker and Charles Lyell

A series of letters passed between Darwin and his hugely powerful naturalist friends and mentors Charles Lyell and Joseph Hooker. 

As I reveal in Nullius (Sutton 2014), Darwin emotionally manipulated them at Chritmastime by vacillating between pretending not to care about priority for the discovery of natural selection, when his baby son had just died, and proclaiming that he would do anything to ensure he got it. By such means Hooker and Lyell were apparently emotionally manipulated to present Darwin's paper before Wallace's Ternate Paper - so that it would thereafter be called 'Darwin's and Wallace's theory'; and to do so when Wallace had not given permission for his paper to be read, but to mislead the Linnean Society into thinking he had. Later Wallace would ask for and receive money and favours from the three for what they did with his paper and for his public acceptance of their arrangement. It is originally revealed in Nullius that Wallace later fraudulently doctored a copy of a letter in his autobiography to conceal the fact. 

On  29th June 1858 Darwin wrote to Joseph Hooker

'My dear Hooker

I have just read your letter, & see you want papers at once. I am quite prostrated & can do nothing but I send Wallace & my abstract of abstract of letter to Asa Gray, which gives most imperfectly only the means of change & does not touch on reasons for believing species do change. I daresay all is too late. I hardly care about it.

But you are too generous to sacrifice so much time & kindness.  It is most generous, most kind. I send sketch of 1844 solely that you may see by your own handwriting that you did read it.

I really cannot bear to look at it. Do not waste much time. It is miserable in me to care at all about priority.

The table of contents will show what it is. I would make a similar, but shorter & more accurate sketch for Linnean Journal.  I will do anything

God Bless you my dear kind friend. I can write no more. I send this by servant to Kew.

Yours  C. Darwin'

Dr Arlin Stoltzfus on the Great Price Biologists will Pay for Worshipping a Proven Serial liar and Plagiarising Glory Thief

.Odds are shifting in favour of veracity @TeessideSitP See remarks of Dr Arlin Stoltzfus: https://t.co/QEG2x12s5y pic.twitter.com/if2RwLeQEL

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) August 27, 2016

SOURCE:  https://sandwalk.blogspot.co.uk/2016/07/what-is-theory-of-evolution.html?showComment=1470592772548#c5425344406995652816

GET YOU SOME OF THAT (GYSOT) VERACITY 

GYSOT-V

Social Media Comment form Dr Arlin Stoltzfus (2016)

'...to someone who has read parts of what Sutton has written, your reply looks very foolish. Contrary to what you state, Darwin does not "cite Matthew as a source" of his thinking. Instead, Darwin admits that Matthew preceded him, but then claims that no naturalists paid attention, and he indirectly blames Matthew for this (by putting his theory in the appendix of an obscure mis-titled book on naval arboriculture). That is, Darwin continues to take credit for what he calls "my theory", and simply writes himself a set of excuses for *not attributing Matthew as the source*, e.g., by referring to it as "Matthew's principle of selection." 

Sutton gathers the evidence that Matthew's book was not just read by naturalists, but (1) received multiple published reviews and (2) was cited by (3) naturalists in Darwin's circle of acquaintances and influences. Loudon's review actually mentions that Matthew's book contained interesting ideas on the origin of species. To find out why naval arboriculture was so interesting to Brits, you'll have to read Sutton, or just consider the basis of the British Empire in 1831. 

*Clearly*, Matthew has priority by ordinary scholarly standards, and clearly Darwin misrepresented the situation by spinning a yarn about Matthew's obscurity. Sutton points out that Darwin's followers have uncritically repeated that yarn for 150 years. 

The only remaining question is whether Darwin was actually influenced in some way, which might range from vague diffusion of ideas through a personal network, to stealing the ideas and trying to hide it. 

Sutton offers textual evidence that Darwin was influenced by Matthew, and points out personal connections that may have been a conduit for this influence. I have not spent much time reviewing this evidence, but it is based on similarities of phrasing. There is no smoking gun. 

However, now that Sutton has pulled back the curtain on this, it is no longer responsible in scholarly writing to assert that Darwin wasn't influenced by Matthew, or even to assert that there is no evidence-- there is circumstantial evidence, however weak. If you doubt the evidence then the appropriate way of saying it is "I'm not convinced by the evidence that Darwin was influenced by Matthew." 

But again, this only addresses the issue of borrowing. The issue of priority is already settled, in favor of Matthew.'

The Saturday Analyst and Leader and Other Letters of Complaint about Charles Darwin's Glory Thieving

Don't unthinkingly go along with the zombie hoard of myth parroting Darwinite mynah birds, who simply repeat whatever their heroes tell them is so. Because the independently verifiable disconfirming facts for the fallacy that Matthew was content with Darwin's reference to his prior publication in the third edition of the Origin of Species (Darwin 1861), and  in every edition thereafter, are 100 per cent proven to exist by simple virtue of being in print in the independently verifiable 19th century publication record:

• Matthew sent a second letter to the Gardener's Chronicle to politely rebuke and correct Darwin for writing that no naturalist had read Matthew's (1831) orignal ideas before Darwin and Wallace (1858) and Darwin (1859) replicated them without citing Matthew.
• Matthew complained in the The Dublin University Magazine
• Matthew complained in the Saturday Analyst and Leader.
• In 1864 Matthew published a political pamphlet entitled "SCHLESWIG-HOLSTEIN" that proclaimed him as "Solver of the Problem of Species". That was an act of defiance, one that we know, from his personal correspondence on the Matthew problem, really got under Darwin's skin. 
• Matthew's futile fight for recognition against the Darwinists, can be seen in a footnote to his letter to the Farmers Magazine, he wrote (Matthew 1862.page 413):
  
  `The writer has not been has not been much used to speak of what he has done. For more than thirty years after the publication of "Naval Timber and Arboriculture" he never, either by the press or in private conversation, alluded to the original ideas therein brought forward, knowing that the age was not suited for such. And even now, notwithstanding the great teaching influence of our cheap daily press, such is the power of sham, bigotry and prejudice over the editors of these, directly by perverting their own minds, or indirectly by perverting their candour, honesty and truth in accommodation to the reader's prejudices, together with the subserviency of the Editors to power and place that he is not sure the age is yet ripe. He was so far of this opinion, that he did not speak of these original ideas till driven to do so in protecting them as his.'

• Matthew complained to the Dundee Advertiser in 1862 that he had been platformed blocked from speaking on his origination of natural selection by organisers of the annual meeting of the British Association for Advancement of Science: 

'Sir,— The conduct towards me of the soi-disant British Association for the Advancement of Science has been such that I consider it right to lay the subject before the public. I gave in to their Assistant-General Secretary nine papers to be read. Of these they rejected seven and admitted two, one of the latter, on Botany, I withdrew, as I thought it required the rejected to appear along with it. 

The other I did not withdraw, as it had an immediate importance, but which the Society managed, by delaying the reading till the last, not to read.I will match the importance of these nine papers, in a national point of view, against all that was read at the Dundee meeting, of which the public will have an opportunity to judge. With regard one of these papers, on what is termed Darwin’s Theory of Natural Selection, but which theory was published by me about thirty years before Darwin (honourably acknowledged in his last edition by Darwin), at a time when man was scarcely ready for such thoughts, I surely had the best right to be heard upon this subject. Yet others were allowed to speak upon it, and its parent denied to do so. Such is the conduct of a Society terming itself the British Association for the Advancement of Science.— l am, &c.,' 

Francis Darwin wrote, perhaps implying his father's anger, over the Saturday Analyst and Leader article: 

"In spite of my father's recognition of his claims, Mr. Matthew remained unsatisfied, and complained that an article in the 'Saturday Analyst and Leader' was "scarcely fair in alluding to Mr. Darwin as the parent of the origin of species, seeing that I published the whole that Mr. Darwin attempts to prove, more than twenty-nine years ago."—Saturday Analyst and Leader, Nov. 24, 1860.

Mike Sutton still fighting the corner of Patrick Matthew against great odds. https://t.co/JPcUPqpnzV

— Teesside SitP (@TeessideSitP) August 27, 2016

Darwin was always considered to be scientific royalty - that is why Robert Grant, being enhanced to meet the grandson of Erasmus Darwin, made the mistake of entrusting, Charles Darwin with his discovery about sea sponges. Charles was, after all, the grandson of Erasmus Darwin, that great proven repeat plagiarist fellow of the Royal Society.

 Darwin got away with plagiarism and was able to "crankify" the originator, Matthew, because he was supported in that self-interest glory thieving endeavour by many influential peers - such as Charles Lyell, the Hookers of Kew and David Anstead who were prepared to sink to great depths to deceive the scientific community and wider society on his behalf (see Sutton 2014).

Why was Darwin so Revered?

 Why has the Darwin and Wedgwood family (into which Darwin married via his first Cousin Emma) been so honored by the mighty Royal Society - having at least 10 family members receiving prestigious fellowships? Why does the Royal Society refuse to accept the originator Patrick Matthew as having full and complete immortal great thinker, influencer and originator status over Darwin and Wallace for his own prior published, and pre-1858 cited, conception of macroevolution by natural selection?

The Royal - in-Bred - Royal Society Family #juxtasupposin https://t.co/OA2lGSuMaK pic.twitter.com/2GJHyrCa1U

— BlessedVirginDarwin (@OnNavalTimber) August 27, 2016

Dr Arlin Stoltzfus (2016) explains:

'I would be happy to explain to you what is the point of exploring the evidence regarding who deserves credit for an idea such as natural selection. The point is the same as for any other idea: as a scholar, one wants to get this right, because correct attribution is an important part of the social fabric of scholarship, including science. The correct source for natural selection, under the normal rules of attribution, is Patrick Matthew. If, instead, everyone decides to give credit to some revered figure who came in second-place, then this diminishes scholarship and science, and makes it into more of an elite popularity contest. Here's a rhetorical question for you: would you like credit to go to scientific royalty, or would you like science to be more of a meritocracy? 

Everyone agrees that Darwin had more influence. There is no difficulty in adjusting our language to respond to this fact, e.g., consider the case of the Modern Synthesis. Mayr, Simpson and Dobzhansky clearly were the most influential in promoting modern neo-Darwinism, but we attribute the actual combination of Darwinism and genetics to Fisher, Haldane and Wright. We could simply refer to Darwin in the same way-- we could say that natural selection was proposed by Matthew, and perhaps Wells, then popularized by Darwin and his influential social circle. 

However, what has happened in this case is that, when the evidence that contradicts misinformation peddled by Darwin and his followers is brought forth, Darwinian zombies lurch forward with the same ignorant dismissals, non sequiturs, and so on, which are then cut down, which just makes room for the next wave of zombies. 

So, the point is really about the zombie horde. If there were no zombie horde, then the point would be about attribution, but given that the horde is activated whenever Darwin is criticized, the zombie horde becomes the central issue.'

And here (Stoltzfus 2016)

'OMG, this is not an "extraordinary claim"! First of all, it is not a claim about evolution, but a claim about scholarship regarding evolution. This is just one of a gazillion cases in which a particular claim with scarcely any foundation is repeated until it becomes part of orthodoxy, e.g., read Ghiselin about how evolutionary biologists endlessly repeat the false trope of a conflict between Lamarck and Darwin. 

Literally, if we stack up the evidence in the two pans of a balance, on one side *all we have* is Darwin's assertion that naturalists can all be excused for not noticing Matthew's ideas because they appeared only in the appendix of a book on naval arboriculture. 

In the other pan of the balance, we have the evidence that naturalists read Matthew's work, that the ideas about evolution were not just in the appendix, that the work was reviewed publicly, and that the ideas on evolution were noticed. This evidence shows that Darwin's statement was literally incorrect. 

Then, there is evidence on a further point: we know that Matthew informed Darwin that, in fact, naturalists had read the book, and we know that Matthew provided verifiable evidence, i.e., he pointed to a citation. If Darwin had cared to ascertain the truth that Loudin reviewed the book, he could have verified Matthew's claims. Matthew made a second, more obscure, claim about an anonymous colleague who was afraid to repeat his radical views, but there was no way for Darwin to verify this. 

In science, a statement backed by citing a source trumps a mere assertion. 
[I'm not sure if this is still true, but there was a time when ACS journals instructed reviewers that they could not contradict an author's referenced statement without providing a citation. ] When Matthew wrote his open letter to Darwin citing a source that contradicted Darwin's claim, Darwin was officially trumped. The proper response would have been to rebut Matthew's evidence, or else to retract or withdraw the claim. 

The incredible amount of heat being generated here is not an indication that this is some kind of extraordinary unicorn-in-the-garden claim. It is simply a sign that Sutton has committed lese majeste, and the defenders of scientific royalty are coming out to defend His Majesty King Darwin. 

This behavior has become a major curse on evolutionary biology. We're all going to pay a price for the generations of short-sighted hero-worshipping evolutionary biologists who built a brand identity on the reputation and status of a dead person whose views would by no means survive today.' 

The "Poor Hugh" Strickland Connections to Matthew, Darwin, Wallace and the Hookers of Kew: Ingredients for a silly conspiracy theory

Background: On a Small Sample Typical Darwinite Credulous Stupidity

Following Scottish press coverage of the bombshell historical discovery that Patrick Matthew's orignal and prior-published conception of macro-evolution by natural selection, had - as opposed to the prior 'knowledge claim' by the world's leading Darwinists - in fact had been discovered (by me) to be 100 per cent proven to have been read by naturalists pre-1858, because they cited Matthew (1831) in pre-1858 publications, and that these newly discovered Matthew citing naturalists were at the epicentre of influence of Darwin and Wallace, science historian John van Wyhe resigned from the journal that published my (Sutton 2016) peer reviewed science paper on these new discoveries, following its publication, and sent a statement to the journalist Michael Alexander of the Scottish press that what has been newly discovered is both silly and a conspiracy theory (read the facts on van Wyhe's press statement here).

In reality, as opposed to desperate and completely unevidenced new paradigm resisting Darwinite propagandising, my orignal work in this field deals in facts only and I make it absolutely clear that there is no evidence of any orchestrated conspiracy against Matthew. That said, it is a fact that Darwin, Lyell and Joseph Hooker did conspire to present Darwin's paper before Wallace's Ternate paper at the Linnean Society in 1858, and Hooker and Lyell mislead the Linnean society to believe Wallace had given permission for his paper to be read. Moreover, we know that following Matthew's (1860) first letter to the Gardener's Chronicle, laying claim to his prior-published origination, that Joseph Hooker forwarded, dated and confirmed his approval of Darwin's reply that no naturalist had read Matthew's orignal ideas pre-1860. Yet Matthew's letter revealed that the famous naturalist John Loudon had read and reviewed his book in 1832. In his review Loudon (1832) noted that Matthew appeared to have something orignal to say on the origin of species.

Here is proof Charles Darwin engaged in heinous fraudulent glory-theft of the original discovery of another. pic.twitter.com/hA3aFDYr2Y

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) December 8, 2015

Loudon, a noted botanist and polymath, was without doubt a noted naturalist and Darwin would have known it. Besides the highly respected books he published on trees, Loudon owned and edited The Magazine of natural history and journal of zoology, botany, on the front cover of which he always proclaimed himself a member of various natural history societies. On some editions it carried the following strapline: The Magazine of Natural History, JOURNAL OF ZOOLOGY BOTANY MINERALOGY GEOLOGY AND METEOROLOGY : CONDUCTED By JC LOUDON FLS GS &c MEMBER OF THE ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF LONDON AND OF VARIOUS NATURAL HISTORY SOCIETIES ON THE CONTINENT.  As his journal notes, with letters F.L G and ZS after his name, he was, being a noted and respected naturalist, a member of the Linnean Society, Geological Society and Zoological Societies of London. If Loudon was not a naturalist, then neither was Darwin or any other 19th century naturalist either.

Both Hooker and Darwin were immensely familiar with the published work of Loudon on botany - Hooker positively reviewed one of Loudon's books and Darwin heavily annotated several books by Loudon in his personal library, and he and Hooker mentioned Loudon positively in correspondence. (see Sutton 2016 for the fully cited sources). These facts reveal the great concerted public dishonesty of Darwin and the depths his closest friends were prepared to sink to in order to support him in weaving a tapestry of fallacies to create the myth of his independent conception of Matthew's prior published, read and cited orignal ideas. No conspiracy theory there, just dishonesty and dreadfully biased pseudo-scholarly Darwinite fallacy spreading that no naturalist read Matthew's  pre-1858.

On which note....

All the ingredients needed to construct a silly, fun, conspiracy theory can be found in the history of discovery of natural selection. As an amusing exercise, here is one example. 

They found poor Hugh Strickland dead. 

His gold watch had stopped at 4.20 pm, the precise time 
of impact by the express train.

The origin of the following facts from Nullius (Sutton 2014) are fully referenced in the book:

• On 23rd July 1845 Hugh Stickland was married at Jardine Hall to Catherine, D. M. Jardine, second daughter of  the famous naturalist Sir William Jardine Bart. 
• William Jardine bought a copy of Matthew's (1831) On Naval Timber for Selby, who cited it many times in 1842. Most significantly, Selby was the chief editor of the journal that published Alfred Wallace's famous 1855 Sarawak paper on organic evolution. 
• In 1849 Strickland very forcefully slapped-down Darwin's concerted self-interested attempts to have the rules of academic priority changed so that more famous naturalists would have priority for the earlier discoveries of those who were lesser known if the later replicators published more evidences and details.
• In 1852 Stickland was made a member of the Royal Society. 
• In 1853 he attended a meeting of The British Association for Advancement of Science at Hull. Following discussions at the geological section, on his way home he stopped off at Retford to examine a railway cutting through the rock. There he was struck and killed by a train.
• William Jardine (Strickland's father in law) was a correspondent of Darwin, receiving a first edition review copy of his Origin of Species in 1859.
• Darwin's notebook of books read, pre-1858, is jam-packed with references to Jardine's books.
• William Jardine was co-editor with William Hooker (father of Darwin's best friend Joseph Hooker) of the Magazine of Zoology and Botany.
• William Hooker (pre-1858) was Alfred Wallace's mentor, sponsor and correspondent.
• William Hooker was best friends with the botanist John Lindley, who was an associate and secret co-author with Loudon. The botanical naturalist Loudon reviewed Matthew's book in 1832 and wrote, on p. 703. then that it had something original to say on "the origin of species" no less! John Lindley's book 'An outline of the first principles of Horticulture' was reviewed immediately below the prominent review of Matthew's book - on the very same page! Not far below, on Page 706, is a review of William Hooker's and Greville's book on ferns, Then on page 712,  a  book review of William Hooker's Botanical Miscellany is ti be found. 
• Loudon's botanical work on trees was extremely well respected and well known to Darwin (who heavily annotated several of Loudon's works in his private library and listed several in his notebook of books read) and to Darwin's best friend Joseph Hooker, who wrote a stunning review of one of Loudon's books pre-1858 (see Sutton 2016).  Yet Joseph Hooker (1860) agreed the contents of Darwin's reply to Matthew's (1860) letter to the Gardener's Chronicle, in which Darwin claimed no naturalist had read Matthew's orignal ideas before 1860.
• Lindley, subsequently wrote several papers on Naval Timber, and - like Loudon - is known to have believed in the transmutation of species. In 2016 it was discovered that Lindley stole Matthew's glory in 1853. Because, despite possessing a letter from Matthew to prove that Matthew and his son John were first. Lindley claimed that he was first to propagate the hugely famous and much loved giant Californian redwoods in Britain and that Lobb was first to export them to Britain. This deception facilitated Darwin's (1860) subsequent tale that Matthew was an obscure author.
• The year after Jameson (1853) cited Matthew's book and mentioned his natural selection related observation that tree species could grow better outside their natural environment William Hooker blocked his promotion within the East India Company.
• The British Association for Advancement of science was founded in 1831 - the very same year Matthew's bombshell book was published. It was founded, in great part, for the purpose of addressing work on the topic of the origin of species.  
• Selby and William Jardine were founding members of The British Association for Advancement of Science.
• Selby was a friend of both Darwin's father and Darwin's great friend Jenyns. Both had been his house guests and Jenyns wrote a book about Selby.
• Later it was at the 1868 British Association for Advancement of Science meeting where Matthew was platform blocked from speaking about his orignal discoveries. By then Darwin's friends, Lyell, Hooker and Huxley had ensured Darwinians controlled the British Association. Lyell, Hooker, Chambers and Wallace were all allowed to speak on Matthew's prior-published idea. Matthew was not. And no mention was made of Matthew's origination. 
• David Douglas (of the Douglas Fir tree fame) worked as an apprentice gardener at Scone palace, from where he became William Hooker's protégé. Significantly, Matthew was born at Rome Farm in the grounds of Scone Palace. Later moving to inherit Gourdie Hill House and orchards nearby -  and the two had ample opportunities to meet . From 1823 onwards, Douglas went on many plant collecting expeditions and corresponded regularly with his mentor William Hooker. Many of those letters are in the Director's Archive at Kew Gardens. Douglas met an ignoble end in 1834 in Hawaii, where he was either gored by a bull after falling into a 'wild bullock-trap  pit' or else - claim some - most likely murdered!

The Patrick Matthew Puzzle

Until the publication of Nullius (Sutton 2014), it was universally proclaimed as a science "knowledge claim" that no naturalist /no one at all read Patrick Matthew's (1831) prior publication of the full hypothesis of macro evolution by natural selection before Darwin and Wallace (1858) and Darwin (1859) replicated it and, to excuse themselves for not citing Matthew, claimed to have done so independently of Matthew or anyone else.

In reality, Big Data analysis newly revealed in 2014 that Matthew's orignal ideas were read by at least 25 individuals, because they cited it in the published literature! Moreover, 19 of those who read it were in Darwin's inner social circle! Of the seven naturalists now newly known to have cited Matthew's book in print pre-1858, three played pivotal roles at the epicentre of Darwin's and Wallace’s published and unpublished work on natural selection before the ‘Origin of Species’ was first published in 1859.

In the picture below are some of the seven citing naturalists. Pictured are John Loudon, - Prideaux John Selby, - Robert Chambers and William Jameson of the East India Company.

The Patrick Matthew Puzzle question is: "Why is the extremely famous and influential naturalist Sir William Jardine also featured in this picture?"

Four of the Citing Seven Naturalists and Sir William Jardine.
Why is Jardine in this picture?

The Scientific Kidnapping of Patrick Matthew's Own Child

In her book 'Darwin's Ghosts: The Secret history of evolution' Rebecca Stott (2013) coined the ludicrous and easily disproven fallacy that Patrick Matthew was content with Darwin's acceptance of his priority for first conceiving the hypothesis of macro evolution by natural selection. The reality is that Matthew went to his unmarked grave fighting for recognition (see Sutton 2014 for the fully cited details). There being so many myths and fallacies in the history of discovery of evolution by natural selection, Stott's behaviour confirms the Dysology Hypothesis.

"Mr Matthew", ejaculated Emma Darwin, "my husband is more
 faithful to your own original child than you are yourself!" At that
precise moment the three knew she'd put her foot in it. You could
have cut the atmosphere with a snark.

Darwin's son Francis (Darwin 1887. p.302):

`Mr. Matthew remained unsatisfied, and complained that an article in the 'Saturday Analyst and Leader' was "scarcely fair in alluding to Mr. Darwin as the parent of the origin of species, seeing that I published the whole that Mr. Darwin attempts to prove, more than twenty-nine years ago."--Saturday Analyst and Leader, Nov. 24, 1860.'

Interestingly, years earlier, Darwin's wife Emma (Darwin 1863) used the same parent metaphor in a letter she wrote on Darwin's behalf to reply to a letter from Matthew that is - once again - unfortunately lost, which renders what follows rather cryptic:

`With regard to Natural Selection he [Darwin] says that he is not staggered by your striking remarks. He is more faithful to your own original child than you are yourself.'

Despite Darwin's defensive platitudes, Matthew had sufficient self-regard to continue asserting the truth for the publication record. In 1865, then 75 years old, he wrote to the German scientist Ernst Hallier to let it be known that natural selection was his discovery and concept and not Darwin's (Hallier 1866 p.382):

`Matthew himself wrote me about it in a letter of 6 October 1865, in which he first brought to my attention his book on naval timber and arboriculture, published on January 1st 1831, by Longman et Co London and Adam and Charles Black Edinburgh . He wrote: "I fully brought out the theory of competitive natural selection. This was about 30 years before Darwin brought out the same. In his preface to the edition of his work on the origin of species, Darwin states that I anticipated him by many years, and apologizes for his unintentional blunder. The fact is my work did appear before its time, when bigotry and prejudice were in the ascendant."'

The publication record therefore proves that, despite the most embarrassing lack of genuine expert knowledge among all the leading Darwinian authors on this subject - Stott being their mere toady - Patrick Matthew never ever gave up on letting the general public and other scientists know that natural selection was his original discovery!

In 1874 Patrick Matthew went to an unmarked grave, somewhere in Errol churchyard in Scotland, having fought all his life, without success, for the recognition he deserved for discovering natural selection many years before Darwin and Wallace. For example, at the 1867 British Association for the Advancement of Science conference in Dundee, Scotland, which was attended by Darwin's friends Charles Lyell, Robert Chambers and Alfred Wallace - Matthew (1867), then aged 77 years, was platform blocked! He complained in the press that he was strategically prevented from speaking about his discovery. No one listened then, because Darwin and his adoring Darwinists had so cleverly, yet fallaciously, portrayed Matthew as a deluded crank.

Shattering the Darwin Myth I. Charles Darwin's Plagiarising Crookery. On Darwin, Robert Grant and Interloping Glory theft

Grant was livid that Darwin had slyly capered off with his - at that time unpublished - original discovery, found more evidences to support it and then presented it at a learned society! Weirdly, but typically, Darwin saw no shame in it.

Darwin's successful perpetration of the world's greatest plagiarising science fraud by glory theft, of Patrick Matthew's prior-published discovery (see Sutton 2016) was preceded by an simpler act of the same sly ilk against the Edinburgh University scholar Robert Grant.

'Darwin's sly, thunder-stealing actions made Grant realize he had made a big mistake in sharing the complex details of his discovery ahead of its full publication. The ambitious Darwin, obviously with no original ideas of his own, unexpectedly exploited the information Grant shared in confidence. He wanted "in" on Grant's exclusive breakthrough, and so made sure to get his very own glorious supporting evidence for it. Grant, quite rightly, slapped the capering interloper down. Poor, wee, upset Darwin, indeed!'

Source of text  Mike Sutton (2014) Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret: Here 

 https://kindle.amazon.com/post/Y0pvUEUWTbevr71HJA3Euw

Darwin's own account of his presentation at the Plinian Society at the of Grant's discovery - supported by Darwin's extra evidences - can be read here. Unsurprisingly, given what we know of Darwin's serial dishonesty, it contains nothing of Grant's fury at Darwin's glory theft.  In that regard, elsewhere, Darwin slyly tried to spin the truth to make it look like Grant had an irrational territorial hissy-fit (see Sutton 2014 for all the details).

Practicing to Deceive? Study the actions of a master crook: https://t.co/HkIfsrR0nb pic.twitter.com/i31cosRRbB

— Supermythbuster (@supermyths) August 24, 2016

When they Delete the Facts and Publish Lies about You, then you Know You've Arrived

#wikipediaisneolengua https://t.co/K8XXdfoH1E

— Emilio Cervantes (@BiologiaPensamt) August 24, 2016

The Fact-Wedgie Awards 2016

The 2016 Fact Wedgie Award.  Science Category Winner: The Royal Society.

For failure to accept the new and paradigm busting facts (Sutton, 2014 and 2016), which have been discovered in the history of discovery of natural selection, the annual Fact-Wedgie Award - for being most wedgied by new and uncomfortably embarrassing facts - goes to the Royal Society.

Please act against denials of fact: Vote on the open letter to the Royal Society: Here

Royal Society Awarded Thong for Awarding Gongs to Credulous Myth Mongering Fallacy Spreaders https://t.co/LMpbVPMAh6 pic.twitter.com/Z4tyHqOdd5

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) August 23, 2016

Smoking Gun Evidence: What is it Exactly? Proposing the Concept of "Gunsmoke Evidence"

The term "smoking gun" is generally held to mean an item of of incontrovertible incriminating evidence. My 19th edition of Brewer's Phrase and Fable (2012. p.1253) explains:
 'The phrase acquired a particularly apt association with the widely diverging views, before, during and after the invasion of Iraq in 2003 about whether Saddam Hussain still possessed WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. Their discovery would have been hailed by the finders as a smoking gun.'    

At the time of writing, Wikipedia is once again wrong in its etymology, this time to claim that the term 'smoking gun' derives from an 1893 Sherlock Holmes story. 

Anyway, better than mere 'smoking gun' incriminating evidence of Wikipedia's mistake exists, because  it is 100 per cent proven to have been used in published print at least as early as 1878 (Appleton's Journal. p. 17):

'Two men approached, the younger with a smoking gun:

"So it's you, is it?" said she as he came up.
"It is I" said he with a smile.
"Well I think you've got very little to do to go round shootin' fleckers. This one in particular. I was just gettin'  used to him."

On Smoking Gun Evidence in the story of who really did read Patrick Matthew's prior published origination of the hypothesis of natural selection.

Darwin and Wallace (1858) and Darwin (1859) replicated Matthew's origination of macroevolution of natural selection. They failed to cite Matthew, and they claimed to have arrived at Matthew's prior-published bombshell concept independently of Matthew. Darwin and Wallace excused themselves for doing so by claiming (as a proven lie in Darwin's case) that Matthew's ideas were unread by any naturalist  / anyone at all before 1860. In reality, as opposed to the credulous zombie-hoard mynah birding of Darwin's lies (e.g. de Beer 1962, Mayr, 1982), by Darwin's followers and promoters, the Darwinists, Darwin's and Wallace's friends, associates, correspondents and facilitators and their influencers influencers, the naturalists Loudon, Chambers, Selby and Jameson all read and cited Matthew's book pre 1858 (see Sutton 2014).

So what constitutes 'smoking-gun' evidence in this case?  I would propose that there are three areas where the usefulness of the phrase needs to be examined.

1.  Smoking gun evidence that Darwin or Wallace read the original ideas in Matthew's (1831)book themselves or in some other way copied from it.
2. Smoking gun evidence that, as opposed to the 'no naturalists read it' premise, that other naturalists did read Matthew's orignal ideas pre-1858.
3. Smoking gun evidence that Darwin lied in 1860, and in 1861 (and in every edition of the 'Origin of Species' thereafter) when he claimed that no naturalist / no one at all read Matthew's orignal ideas before 1858. 

Smoking gun evidence

The 'New Data' discovered in 2014 and first published in Nullius in Verba provides better than mere smoking gun evidence for 2 and 3 above. We know other naturalists did read Matthew's orignal ideas pre-1858, because they cited his 1831 book before that date and mentioned those original ideas. The 100 per cent proof of the matter exists in the print record of the 19th century published literature.  And Darwin's lies are proven because before he wrote them Matthew informed him in print in the Gardener's Chronicle (1860), very clearly and forcefully, that at least two naturalists did read his ideas and that his book was banned by the public library of Perth in Scotland (see Sutton 2015 and also Sutton 2016). But, with regard to point 1, above, we have not discovered a letter to or from Darwin or Wallace, or a notebook or diary entry, anywhere, that indicates Darwin or Wallace read or were told about Matthew's (1831) book before they replicated so much of Matthew's orignal work. But the fact that much of Darwin's and Wallace's and the notebooks and correspondence of other 19th century naturalists is lost or destroyed means that absence of evidence in this regard cannot rationally be considered as evidence of absence it ever happened.

However, what we do have with regard to point 1 is solid proof that some form of pre-1858 Matthewian knowledge contamination of the minds of Wallace and Darwin could have happened via Loudon, Selby, Chambers, Jameson and others newly discovered to have read and cited Matthew's (1831) book pre-1858.

And we know that knowledge contamination can take place in at least three main ways (see Sutton 2016):

1. Innocent Knowledge Contamination: The spread of original ideas in a prior-publication via (a) subsequent published sources on the topic, which failed to cite the Originator as their source, or (b) word of mouth and/or correspondence to the replicator by those who read the Originator’s work or communicated with others who did — understood its importance in whole or simply in part — but failed to tell the replicator about its existence. 
2. Reckless or Negligent Knowledge Contamination: (a) The replicator reads the original publication, absorbs information such as original ideas and examples and terms, but forgets having read it — and never does remember. (b) The replicator reads the original publication and takes notes, but forgets the source of the notes. (c) The replicator is told about original ideas in a publication by someone — who understands their importance in whole or simply in part — who explains they come from a publication, but the replicator fails to ask the name of the author and title of the publication. 
3. Deliberate Knowledge Contamination (science fraud): The replicator reads the original publication, or is told about its contents, takes notes, or is given notes, remembers this, but pretends otherwise.

Gunsmoke evidence

From the solid evidence from the correspondence and publication record of the 19th century (see Sutton 2104 for the fully cited proof of the following facts) we know that academics talk and share sources and ideas. We know that editors insist on changes and insertions to text and we know that Loudon edited two of Blyth's influential articles - which influenced Darwin and Wallace. We know that Loudon was a friend of Lindley (William Hooker's best friend, who was the father of Darwin's best friend Joseph Hooker) and a correspondent of William Hooker. And we know that William Hooker was Wallace's mentor and correspondent from as early as 1848 and that they met before Hooker wrote a letter of introduction for Wallace in 1848 so that he could set off specimen collecting for cash - some of which came his way from Hooker. We know that Selby edited Wallace's Sarawak paper,  was a friend of Darwin's father and Darwin's good friend and most frequent correspondent Jenyns. We know that Selby was a close associate of William Hooker's circle and we know that Chambers met and corresponded with Darwin pre-1858. Moreover, we know that Jameson was a regular correspondent of William Hooker pre-1858. All this, if not "smoking gun" evidence, is certainly evidence of multiple whiffs of gunsmoke; a type of evidence classed as "circumstantial evidence". In the story of Darwin, Matthew and Wallace there is an awful lot if it - and much more than is covered in this blog post (see Sutton 2014) This circumstantial evidence, combined with more than smoking-gun proof of Darwin's lies, and proof that the original ideas in Matthew's (1831) book were cited by Darwin's and Wallace's influencers and their influencer's influencers pre-1858, completely punctures the 'no naturalists read Matthew's orignal ideas pre-1858' and the 'honest Darwin' myth' - upon which is founded the old paradigm of Darwin's and Wallace's supposed dual independent conceptions of Matthew's prior-published hypothesis.

Conclusion

We do have two important items of better than smoking gun evidence of Matthew's pre-1858 influence on Darwin's and Wallace's work on natural selection. These are points 1 and 2 below. And we do have smoking gun evidence, as well as lots of gun smoke evidence in point 3 below:

1. We 100 per cent know that the orignal ideas in Matthew's (1831) book were read by Darwin's and Wallace's influencers and their influencer's influencers before Darwin and Wallace replicated them. This is better than 'smoking gun' evidence, because it absolutely disproves the 'no naturalist read Matthew pre-1859' premise that underpins the old Darwinite paradigm of Darwin's and Wallace's dual independent conceptions of Matthew's prr-published hypothesis.
2. We 100 per cent know Darwin lied when he claimed no naturalist /no one at all read Matthew's prior-published ideas before he replicated them. This is also better than 'smoking gun' evidence, because it completely disproves the honest Darwin premise that also underpins the Darwinite paradigm of Darwin's independent conception of Matthew's prior-published hypothesis.
3. Due to our rational understanding of the concept and typologies of  of 'knowledge contamination' we have a lot of smoking gun, evidence that those who read Matthew's (1831) orignal ideas had many opportunities to influence Darwin and Wallace and influence their influencers with Matthew's original ideas  many years before 1858. This represents "gun smoke evidence" that such knowledge contamination took place.
4. We have no smoking gun evidence that Darwin and Wallace did copy Matthew's orignal ideas or were knowledge contaminated by them pre-1858.

From this four-point analysis, it can be argued that insistence upon smoking-gun evidence to substantiate claims of Darwin's and Wallace's probable Matthewian 'knowledge contamination' is based upon a misunderstanding of the better than mere smoking gun paradigm busting facts of the New Data in this story and of the gun-smoke significance of the multiple examples of newly discovered clear routes for Matthewian knowledge contamination of the pre-1858 minds of Darwin and Wallace.

Please note: Wikipedia's corrupt editors are not averse to altering its story-lines by plagiarising my orignal discoveries and passing them off as their own (as they did with my unique discovery of the origination of the term 'moral panic') - so their fallacious account of the origin of the term "smoking gun" will undoubtedly change at some point, but without citation to this blog post. 

I Gave The @royalsociety & Scientific Establishment a "Fact-Wedgie". See what happened next: https://t.co/i3rmOJPwzB pic.twitter.com/b9G0Sho0jN

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) August 22, 2016

Mathew and the DNA Conception Question

Did Matthew really first conceive, by inspired deduction, the idea of DNA?

On page xiii: of his book, Evolutionary Concepts in the Nineteenth Century, Dempster (1996) writes:

"Patrick Matthew's importance derives from the fact the first naturalist to set correctly the organic history of the world.  To that he added the mechanism of the Natural Process of Selection. And to that he added an inspired speculation: 'Does organised existence, and perhaps all material existence, consist of one protean principle of life capable of gradual circumstance-suited modifications and aggregations, without bound under solvent or motion-giving principle, heat or light?' That principle we now call DNA."

On page 207 of his book, Evolutionary Concepts in the Nineteenth Century, Dempster (1996) writes:

'Molecular biology is a sign of the times. The centre of gravity of evolutionary studies has gradually moved fro the earth sciences to  microbiology. In considering the host of  molecules which are and have been studied, then one can appreciate that DNA given time can create anything. The wonder is that only Patrick Matthew has conceived that there might be a Proteus-like principle: '...capable of gradual circumstance-suited modifications and aggregations (Note F Appendix). Without that speculation he also saw clearly that life was a series of 'diverging .'

And on p. 208 of the same book Dempster has it:

'Today we would combine with time DNA's ability to create any living creature of plant. Patrick Matthew envisaged a Proteus principle of life; DNA would fit that speculation.'