Appendecies

APPENDIX ONE

On Naval Timber and Arboriculture: With Additional Commentary and Footnotes by Mike Sutton


As disconfirming evidence for the Matthew Appendix Myth—that Matthew buried his entire hypothesis of the natural process of selection within a few scattered paragraphs/sentences/pages of an appendix to a book on an unrelated subject—this Appendix exclusively presents text from Matthew's (1831) NTA in two parts.

Part One contains the text directly relevant to Matthew's hypothesis, which was included in the main body of his book. Part Two presents the relevant natural selection text from his Appendix, which begins on page 363 of NTA.


In Part One, we can see how Matthew uses his concepts of struggle, competition, overtopping, artificial and natural selection, power of occupancy, circumstance, adaptability to condition and suitability to circumstance, all in the main body of his book, along with his brief observations on climate, diversity and diversification of species. In Part Two, we can see why he concentrated those ideas in an appendix, because it is there that Matthew serves God his redundancy notice.


Were his book to be deemed seditious and heretical, its Appendix could be surgically removed with no great loss to the functioning of the whole. The surgery could be performed by the publisher, bookseller or any owner. As we have seen in this book, Matthew was not the first heretical naturalist to do exactly that. Two decades prior to Lord Monboddo's (1774) and Buffon's (1775) famous assertions on the topic of apes resembling humans, I discovered the same ‘Appendix ploy’ used in relation to heretical, and fallacious, arguments for humans being of the same species as apes That little historical gem is in Edwards (1751).


On the wider issues of evolution, the exact same heretical appendix ploy was used also by Whitehouse 1778 (see Stott 2012, p.173).


In an age when both the church and scientific community ruled that natural theological explanations were not to be discussed by natural scientists, the structure of Matthew's book was one of rational and essential contemporary compromise. Contrary to modern Darwinist dysology that Matthew strangely hid his ideas in an appendix, an appendix was in 1831, the very first place to look for radical ideas. Matthew's big idea was not buried anywhere, it was not placed in an appendix because he failed to understand its significance, but because he did. And so would anyone who read the book.


Most importantly then, it must be stressed that Matthew's discovery of the natural process of selection was not buried anywhere. There is no subtlety in NTA. The discovery of natural selection was purposefully concentrated and boldly placed in plain sight, where it could not possibly be overlooked. Matthew's hypothesis was deliberately concentrated in a highly visible, yet easily removed Appendix. Because of its radical importance, Matthew's great discovery was more likely than not be read and its heresy absolutely understood and unquestionable.


== Part One ==


From the main body of the book


NAVIGATION is of the first importance to the improvement and perfecting of the species in spreading, by emigration the superior varieties of man...


Page 1:

...an overflowing population, chained, from the state of society, to incessant toil, the scope of their mental energies narrowed to a few objects from the division of labour, all tending to that mechanical order and tameness incompatible with liberty; thus, perhaps, equally in danger of deteriorating and sinking into caste both classes yielding to the natural law of restricted adaptation to condition...


Page 3:

There are several valuable varieties of apple trees of acute branch angle, which do not throw up the bark of the breeks; this either occasions the branches to split down when loaded with fruit, or if they escape this for a few years, the confined bark becomes putrid and produces canker which generally ruins the tree. We have remedied this by a little attention in assisting the rising of the bark with the knife. Nature must not be charged with the malformation of these varieties; at least had she formed them, as soon as she saw her error she would have blotted out her work.


Pages 9 and 10 (Footnote):

We have never yet found one individual apple plant, raised from seed, to be the counterpart of another; but differing even in every part and habit, in bud, leaf, flower, fruit, seed, bark, wood, root; in luxuriance of growth; in hardihood; in being suited for different soils and climates, some thriving in the very moist, others only in the dry; in the disposition of the branches, erect, pendulous, horizontal; in earliness and comparative earliness of leaf, of flower of fruit.'


We hope the above remarks will not be lost on those who have the management of the sowing, planting and thinning of woods, and that they will always have selection in view. Although numerous varieties are derived from the seed of one tree, yet if that tree be of a good breed, the chances are greatly in favour of this progeny being also good.


Page 67:

Our common larch like almost every other kind of tree consists of numberless varieties, which differ considerably in quickness of growth, ultimate size, and value of timber. This subject has been much neglected. We are, however, on the eve of great improvements in arboriculture; the qualities and habits of varieties are just beginning to be studied. It is also found that the uniformity in each kind of wild growing plants called species may be broken down by art or culture and that when once a breach is made, there is almost no limit to disorder, the mele that ensues being nearly incapable of reduction.


Page 76:

The consequences are now being developed of our deplorable ignorance of, or inattention to, one of the most evident traits of natural history, that vegetables as well as animals are generally liable to an almost unlimited diversification, regulated by climate, soil, nourishment, and new commixture of already formed varieties. In those with which man is most intimate, and where his agency in throwing them from their natural locality and dispositions has brought out this power of diversification in stronger shades, it has been forced upon his notice, as in man himself in the dog, horse, cow, sheep, poultry.- in the apple, Pear, plum, gooseberry, potato, pea, which sport in infinite varieties, differing considerably in size, colour, taste, firmness of texture, period of growth, almost in every recognisable quality. In all these kinds man is influential in preventing deterioration, by careful selection of the largest or most valuable as breeders; but in timber trees the opposite course has been pursued. The large growing varieties being so long of coming to produce seed, that many plantations are cut down before they reach this maturity, the small growing and weakly varieties, known by early and extreme seeding, have been continually selected as reproductive stock, from the ease and conveniency with which their seed could be procured; and the husks of several kinds of these invariably kiln dried, in order that the seeds might be the more easily extracted! May we then wonder that our plantations are occupied by a sickly short lived puny race, incapable of supporting existence in situations where their own kind had formerly flourished - particularly evinced in the genus Pinus more particularly in the species Scots fir; so much inferior to those of Nature's own rearing, where only the stronger, more hardy soil, suited varieties can struggle forward to maturity and reproduction?


We say that the rural economist should pay as much regard to the breed or particular variety of his forest trees, as he does to that of his live stock of horses, cows, and sheep. That nurserymen should attest the variety of their timber plants, sowing no seeds but those gathered from the largest, most healthy, and luxuriant growing trees, abstaining from the seed of the prematurely productive, and also from that of the very aged and over mature; as they, from animal analogy, may be expected to give an infirm progeny, subject to premature decay.


Pages 106-108:

When woods are planted of various kinds of timber, the stronger, larger growing kinds will sometimes acquire room by overwhelming the smaller: but when the forest is of one kind of tree, and too close, all suffer nearly alike, and follow each other fast in decay, as their various strength of constitution gives way; unless, from some negligence or defect in planting, a portion of the plants have come away quickly, and the others hung back sickly for several years, so that the former might master the latter: or when some strong growing variety overtops its congeners. In the natural forest of America, when a clearance by any means is effected, the young seedlings, generally all of one kind, spring up so numerous, that, choaking each other, they all die together in a few years. This close springing up and dying is sometimes repeated several times over; different kinds of trees rising in succession, till the seeds in the soil be so reduced as to throw up plants so far asunder as to afford better opportunity for the larger growing varieties to develop their strength; and, overpowering the less, thus acquire spread of branches commensurate to the height, and thence strength of constitution sufficient to bear them forward to large trees.


Pages 153-154:

Indeed the difference of quality in timber depends chiefly on the infinite varieties existing in what is called Species, though soil and climate have no doubt considerable influence, both in forming the variety, and in modifying it while growing. Of varieties those which have the thinnest bark under equal exposure have the hardest wood.


Page 202:

In like manner, in all the other relations, we see Nature especially accommodating the character of each individual plant, to the exigencies of its particular situation. In the interior of woods, the wind can exert a far less mechanical effect on individual trees; and therefore, while they axe positively determined to push upwards towards the light, they are negatively permitted to do, so by the removal of any necessity to thicken their trunks, for the sake of greater strength, and to contract the height of them, in order to afford the blast a shorter lever against the roots. But, with trees in an open situation, all this is widely different. There they are freely exposed to the wind, and the large expansion of their branches, gives every advantage to the violence of the storm. Nature accordingly, bestows greater proportional thickness, and less proportional elevation on trees, which are isolated, or nearly so; while their system of root, which, by necessity, is correlatively proportional to their system of top, affords likewise heavier ballast, and a stronger anchorage, in order to counteract the greater spread of sail, displayed in the wider expansion of the branches. Every individual tree is thus a beautiful system of qualities specially relative to the place which it holds in creation of provisions admirably accommodated to the peculiar circumstances of its case.


Pages 261- 263:

Gardeners certainly experience the branches and roots of crab apple to be harder than the varieties with thicker bark, larger more downy leaves, and larger fruit. The largest growing apple varieties, however, are not the above mentioned mild varieties, but those which have a pretty close approximation to the crab. We have taken slips from some of the very largest of our pear trees, and having placed them close to the ground on young stocks, have found they threw out spines and rectangular branching similar to crabs. Those most dissimilar to the crab have thick annual shoots, without any lateral rectangular branching, and very thick bark; they have been gradually bred to this condition by repeated sowing, always choosing the seed of those partaking most of these qualities for resowing, their disposition to vary to mildness being at the same time influenced in some measure by culture and abundant moist nourishment: but these mild varieties; although they throw out a strong annual shoot while young, seldom or never reach to any considerable size of tree, unless they are nourished by crab roots, their own roots being soft and fleshy, and incapable of foraging at much depth or distance. Their branches and twigs as they get old are also very soft and friable, covered with a thick bark, but the timber of the stem is very little inferior in hardness to crab timber.


We ask if even the fact of these unnaturally tender varieties (obtained by long continued selection, probably assisted by culture, soil and climate, and which, without the cherishing of man, would soon disappear),, being of rather more porous texture of wood goes any length to prove our author's assertion? We have paid some attention to the fibre of the genus Pyrus, and find that the Siberian crabs have by far the smallest vessels. Having grafted the large Fulwood upon the smallest Red Siberian Crab, or Cherry-apple, the new wood layers above the junction swelled to triple the thickness of those below. By ingrafting other kinds upon other stocks we have found the reverse to take place n[o] doubt owing to those with largest vessels swelling the most, there being the same number of vessels above and below the junction, each corresponding, or being a continuation of the other. But this small Siberian crab, when ingrafted upon a common crab, grew fully as quickly during several years as the Fulwood under the same circumstances; and the timber though of much finer texture, scarcely exceeded the other in hardness.  Sir Henry tells us, that the oak is less durable in Italy and Spain than in England. We tell Sir Henry, that the redwood pitch pine from Georgia and the Floridas, on the confines of the torrid zone, is more durable than the red wood pine from Archangel, on the confines of the frigid zone. But does this fact regarding the oak of the south of Europe prove any thing regarding the oak of England,- that it will always be deteriorated by culture for several years after planting, or that the quality may not suffer as much from slowness of growth as from fastness, or from the climate being too cold as from being too warm?


Page 285 (Footnote): The fineness of vessel or fibre of the Siberian crab may be induced by the arid warm air the continued radiation of heat and light upon the portion above ground and the coldness of the ground around the roots during the short summer in Siberia where the air and surface of the ground is warm and vegetation progressive while the ground remains frozen at a small depth Like all varieties of plants habituated to colder climate the Siberian crab developes its leaves under less heat than varieties of the same kind which have been habituated to milder We have not taken Sir Henry in the literal sense Timber is well known to decay sooner in a warm than in a cold country.

The reason why Highland Scots oak spokes are superior to English is because the latter are generally split from out the refuse of the timber cut for naval purposes principally the branches and tops of large trees whereas those from the Highlands of Scotland are from the root cuts of copse. We believe most carpenters of Scotland are aware of this. The oak from the Highlands of Scotland is however for the most part of excellent quality growing generally on dry gravel and rock not on cold moist clayey soils. The hardest we have ever seen was from a steep dry gravel bank of south exposure, in an open situation, much exposed to the western breeze. The Highland oak from these soils is generally of a greyish colour, and very dense; whereas that from moist soils is often reddish brown, and defective. Should Sir Henry weigh portions of oak from these soils in a pair of material, in place of mental scales, we think his conclusions would be somewhat different. The strongest hardest ash we have seen, was cut from a hard, dry, adhesive clay, of course a young tree.


Sir Henry, speaking of the Western Highlands and Islands of Scotland, states that "it is from a want of soil, and not of climate, that woods of any given extent cannot be got up in these unsheltered but romantic situations." Of many situations of these bleak districts, this must be admitted, but we cannot receive it as a general fact; and even where it holds true, the want of (proper) soil, or formation of peat is a consequence of the want of climate, although this may have reacted to increase the evil. There must have been a greater warmth of climate, at least in summer when the forests grew, which lie buried in the mosses of the northern part of Scotland, and of the Orkney and Shetland Islands, as some kinds of timber are found in situations, where such kinds by no circumstances of gradual shelter under the present climate could have grown. There are several indications of a greater warmth having been general throughout Britain, and even farther eastward, and that a slight refrigeration is still in progress. We instance the once numerous vineyards of England,- the vestiges of aration so numerous upon many of our hills, where it would now be considered fruitless to attempt raising grain..."


Pages 283-286:

In tall trees this greater deposition on the stem, in proportion to that on the roots, twigs, and leaves, some will think instinctive; some will refer it to an effort of nature to supply the necessary strength to enable the stem to resist the great strain of the winds upon the elevated top. If it take place to a greater extent than what arises from the greater elongation of the necessary vessels of communication, perhaps it is owing to the evaporation or stagnation of the sap on the tall exposed stem, and to the considerable motion or waving of the stem by wind promoting deposition, evincing one of the deep balancings of material cause and effect, or circumstantial regulation, which mocks the wisdom of the wise.


Page 301:

Our author's next implied assumption, that a tree produces best timber in a soil and climate natural to it (we suppose by this is meant the soil and climate where the kind of tree is naturally found growing), is, we think, at least exceedingly hypothetical; and, judging from our facts, incorrect The natural soil and climate of a tree, is often very far from being the soil and climate most suited to its growth, and is only the situation where it has greater power of occupancy than any other plant whose germ is present. The pines do not cover the pine barrens of America, because they prefer such soil, or grow most luxuriant in such soil; they would thrive much better, that is, grow faster in the natural allotment of the oak and the walnut, and also mature to a better wood in this deeper richer soil. But the oak and the walnut banish them to inferior soil from greater power of occupancy in good soil, as the pines, in their turn, banish other plants from inferior sands -some to still more sterile location, by the same means of greater powers of occupancy in these sands. One cause considerably affecting the natural location of certain kinds of plants is, that only certain soils are suited to the preservation of certain seeds, throughout the winter or wet season. Thus many plants, different from those which naturally occupy the soil, would feel themselves at home, and would beat off intruders, were they once seated. We have had indubitable proof in this country, that Scots fir grown upon good deep loam, and strong till (what our author would call the natural soil of the oak), is of much better quality, and more resinous, than fir grown on poor sand (what he would call the natural soil of the Scots fir), although of more rapid growth on the loam than on the sand; and the best Scots fir we have ever seen, of equal age and quickness of growth, is growing upon Carse land (clayey alluvium).


Pages 302-303:

Man's interference is useful in removing competitors, in giving it lateral room for extension, in training it skilfully to one leader and subordinate equality of feeders, should transplanting, early pruning up, or other cause, destroy the natural regular pyramidal disposition - not in pruning it up, thus reducing it to narrower compass, and destroying its balance to the locality.


The use of the infinite seedling varieties in the families of plants, even in those in a state of nature, differing in luxuriance of growth and local adaptation, seems to be to give one individual (the strongest best circumstance-suited) superiority over others of its kind around, that it may, by overtopping and smothering them, procure room for full extension, and thus affording, at the same time, a continual selection of the strongest, best circumstance-suited, for reproduction. Man's interference, by preventing this natural process of selection among plants, independent of the wider range of circumstances to which he introduces them, has increased the difference in varieties, particularly in the more domesticated kinds; and even in man himself, the greater uniformity, and more general vigour among savage tribes, is referrible to nearly similar selecting law - the weaker individual sinking under the ill treatment of the stronger, or under the common hardship.


As our author's premises thus appear neither self evident, nor supported by facts, it might seem unfair, at least it would be superfluous, to proceed to the consideration of his conclusions and corollaries.


Page 308:

There is a deposition from the atmosphere of saline matter going on at the surface of the earth, either evaporated from the ocean, and falling with the rain and dews, or formed by gaseous combinations - most probably both. In countries where the quantity of rain is insufficient to wash this saline accumulation away into the ocean as fast as it is formed, it increases to such a degree as almost to prevent vegetation only a few of what are termed saline plants appearing. This saline accumulation in warm dry countries bears considerable analogy to tannin deposit in cold countries.


Page 325 (Footnote):

Sea salt, perhaps also nitre and other salts, will be serviceable in a moist country, or far from the sea, where the plants and water contain little saline matter, and probably pernicious in a dry climate, where the plants and water generally contain much saline matter.


Page 325:

And besides, we have found varieties of the same kind or species of tree some of them adapted to prosper in dry air and soil, and others in moist air and soil. Although the above causes prevent a positive limitation of certain kinds of trees to certain soils, yet there are some which have superior adaptation to moist soils and others to dry; some whose roots from their fibrous soft character, can only spread luxuriantly on light, soft, or mossy soils, and others, whose roots have power to permeate the stiffest and most obdurate. The above explanations will account for much of the incongruity which we find in authors regarding the adaptation of certain kinds of timber to certain soils.


Page 335:

The highest latitude to which a tree, or any other kind of plant, reproducing by see, naturally extends, depending on the ripening of the seed, and also on the power of occupancy, is however different from that where it will grow, when ripe seeds are procured from the coldest place where they ripen, and all the competitors removed; and under the system of shelter belts, hardy pine nurses, and seeds from the nearest place where they ripen, we have no doubt that oaks may be extended to a colder situation than Nature herself would have placed them in. For the higher more bleak portion of the country, we would recommend acorns grown in Scotland, in preference to those imported from England. We have several times observed wheat, the seed of which had been imported from England, sustain blight and other injuries in a cold moist autumn when a portion of the same field, sown of Scots seed, at the same time as the other, and under the very same circumstances, was entirely free from injury.


 

== NTA APPENDIX BEGINS ==


Part Two


Matthew's Appendix


Matthew's Note B


There is a law universal in nature tending, to render every reproductive being the best possibly suited to its condition that its kind, or that organized matter, is susceptible of, which appears intended to model the physical and mental or instinctive powers, to their highest perfection, and to continue them so. This law sustains the lion in his strength the hare in her swiftness and the fox in his wiles. As Nature, in all her modifications of life, has a power of increase far beyond what is needed to supply the place of what falls by Time's decay, those individuals who possess not the requisite strength, swiftness, hardihood, or cunning, fall prematurely without reproducing -either a prey to their natural devourers, or sinking under disease, generally induced by want of nourishment, their place being occupied by the more perfect of their own kind, who are pressing on the means of subsistence. The law of entail, necessary to hereditary nobility, is an outrage on this law of nature which she will not pass unavenged - a law which has the most debasing influence upon the energies of a people, and will sooner or later lead to general subversion, more especially when the executive of a country remains for a considerable time efficient, and no effort is needed on the part of the nobility to protect their own, or no war to draw forth or preserve their powers by exertion. It is all very well, when in stormy times, the baron has every faculty trained to its utmost ability in keeping his proud crest aloft. How far hereditary nobility, under effective government, has operated to "retard the march of intellect," and deteriorate the species in modern Europe, is an interesting and important question. We have seen it play its part in France; we see exhibition of its influence throughout the Iberian peninsula, to the utmost degradation of its victims. It has rendered the Italian peninsula, with its islands, a blank in the political map of Europe. Let the panegyrists of hereditary nobility, primogeniture, and entail, say what these countries might not have been but for the baneful influence of this unnatural custom. It is an eastern proverb, that no king is many removes from a shepherd. Most conquerors and founders of dynasties have followed the plough or the flock. Nobility, to be in the highest perfection, like the finer varieties of fruits, independent of having its vigour excited by regular married alliance with wilder stocks, would require stated complete renovation, by selection anew from among the purest crab. In some places, this renovation would not be so soon requisite as in others, and judging from facts, we would instance Britain as perhaps the soil where nobility will continue the longest untainted. As we advance nearer to the equator, renovation becomes sooner necessary, excepting at high elevation - in many places, every third generation, at least with the Caucasian breed, although the finest stocks be regularly imported. This renovation is required as well physically as morally.


It is chiefly in regard to the interval of time between the period of necessary feudal authority, and that when the body of the population having acquired the power of self-government from the spread of knowledge, claim a community of rights, that we have adverted to the use of war. The manufacturer, the merchant, the sailor, the capitalist, whose mind is not corrupted by the indolence induced under the law of entail, are too much occupied to require any stimulant beyond what the game in the wide field of commercial adventure affords. A great change in the circumstances of man is obviously at hand.


In the first step beyond the condition of the wandering savage, while the lower classes from ignorance remained as helpless children, mankind naturally fell into clans under paternal or feudal government; but as children, when grown up to maturity, with the necessity for protection, lose the subordination to parental authority, so the great mass of the present population requiring no guidance from a particular class of feudal lords, will not continue to tolerate any hereditary claims of authority of one portion of the population over their fellow-men; nor any laws to keep up rank and wealth corresponding to this exclusive power.- It would be wisdom in the noblesse of Europe to abolish every claim or law which serves to point them out a separate class, and, as quickly as possible, to merge themselves into the mass of the population. It is a law manifest in nature, that when the use of any thing is past its existence is no longer kept up.


Although the necessity for the existence of feudal lords is past, yet the same does not hold in respect to a hereditary head or King; and the stability of this head of the government will, in no way, be lessened by such a change. In the present state of European society, perhaps no other rule can be so mild and efficient as that of a liberal benevolent monarch, assisted by a popular representative Parliament. The poorest man looks up to his king as his own, with affection and pride, and considers him a protector; while he only regards the antiquated feudal lord with contempt. The influence of a respected hereditary family as head of a country, is also of great utility in forming a principle of union to the different members, and in giving unity and stability to the government.


In respect to our own great landholders themselves, we would ask, where is there that unnatural parent -that miserable victim of hereditary pride - who does not desire to see his domains equally divided among his own children? The high paid sinecures in church and state will not much longer be a great motive for keeping up a powerful family head, whose influence may burthen their fellow-citizens with the younger branches. Besides, when a portion of land is so large, that the owner cannot have an individual acquaintance and associations with every stream, and bush, and rock, and knoll, the deep enjoyment which the smaller native proprietor would have in the peculiar features, is not called forth, and is lost to man. The abolition of the law of entail and primogeniture, will, in the present state of civilization, not only add to the happiness of the proprietor, heighten morality, and give much greater stability to the social order, but will also give a general stimulus to industry and improvement, increasing the comforts and elevating the condition of the operative class.


In the new state of things which is near at hand, the proprietor and the mercantile class will amalgamise,- employment in useful occupations will not continue to be held in scorn,- the merchant and manufacturer will no longer be barely tolerated to exist, harassed at every turn by imposts and the interference of petty tyrants;- Government, instead of forming an engine of oppression, being simplified and based on morality and justice, will become a cheap and efficient protection to person and property; and the necessary taxation being levied from property alone, every individual will purchase in the cheapest market, and sell the produce of his industry in the dearest. This period might perhaps be accelerated throughout Europe, did the merchants and capitalists only know their own strength Let them, as citizens of the world, hold annual congress in some central place, and deliberate on the interests of man, which is their own, and throw the whole of their influence to support liberal and just governments, and to repress slavery, crime, bigotry - tyranny in all shapes. A Rothschild might earn an unstained fame, as great as yet has been attained by man, by organizing such a power, and presiding at its councils.


== Note F ==


This part of the Appendix begins with Matthew's geological observations and is then immediately followed by a concentrated body of several pages of natural selection relevant text.


It is interesting to note that Darwin (1839) published an extremely erroneous Royal Society geological paper on the parallel roads of Glen Roy.

In the case of the upper carse on the Tay Firth, there is evidence both from its vestiges and from records, that it had occupied, at least, the entire firth, or sea-basin, above Broughty Ferry, and that about 50 square miles of this carse has been carried out into the German Ocean by the strong sea tide current a consequence of the lowering of the German Ocean and of the deepening of the outlet of this sea basin at Broughty Ferry, apparently by this very rapid sea-tide current. This carse appears to have been a general deposition at the bottom of a lake having only a narrow outlet communicating with the sea, and probably did not rise much higher than the height of the bottom of the outlet at that time.


An increase of deposition of alluvium, or prevention of decrease may, in many cases, be accomplished by artificial means. The diminution of the carse of the Tay was in rapid progress about sixty years ago, the sea-bank being undermined by the waves of the basin, the clay tumbling down, becoming diffused in the water, and being carried out to sea, by every ebbing tide, purer water returning from the ocean the next tide- flow. This decrease was stopped by the adoption of stone embanking and dikes. A small extension of the carses of present high-water level in the upper part of the firths of Tay and Forth, has lately been effected, by forming brushwood stone and mud dikes, to promote the accumulation.


In doing this, the whole art consists in placing obstructions to the current and waves, so that whatever deposition takes place at high water or at the beginning of the flood- tide, when the water is nearly still, may not again be raised and carried off.


Notwithstanding this accumulation, and also the prevention of further waste of the superior carse, the deepening of the Tay Firth formerly carse, and of the gorge at Broughty Ferry, seems still in progress, and could not, without very considerable labour, be prevented In the case however, of the sea basin of Montrose, a little labour, from the narrowness of the gorges, would put it in a condition to become gradually filled with mud. Not a great deal more expenditure than what has sufficed to erect the suspension bridge over its largest outlet, would have entirely filled up this outlet, and the smaller outlet might have been also filled to within several feet of high-water, and made of sufficient breadth only, to emit the water of the river which flows into the basin. The floated sand and mud of this river, thus prevented from being carried out to sea, would in the course of years, completely fill up the basin.


From some vestiges of the upper carse, as well as of the lower or submarine carse, in situations where their formation cannot easily be traced to any local cause, it seems not improbable that the basin of the German sea itself, nearly as far north as the extent of Scotland, had at one time been occupied with a carse or delta, a continuation of Holland, formed by the accumulation of the diluvium of the rivers which flow into this basin, together with the molluscous exuviae of the North Sea, and the abrasion of the Norwegian coast and Scottish islands, borne downward by the heavy North Sea swell.


In the case of the delta of Holland having extended so far northward, a subsidence of the land or rising of the sea, so as to form a passage for the waters round Britain, must have occurred. The derangement at several places, of the fine wavy stratification of these carses, and the confusedly heaped-up beds of broken sea-shells, shew that some great rush of water had taken place, probably when Belgium was dissevered from England. Since the opening of the bottom of the gulf, the accumulation may have been undergoing a gradual reduction, by more diffused mud being carried off from the German Sea into the Atlantic and North Sea, than what the former is receiving the same process taking place here as has been occurring in the basin of the Tay. The large sandbanks on the Dutch and English coast,- in some places, such as the Goodwin Sands, certainly the heavier, less diffusible part of the former alluvial country, and portions of these alluvial districts being retained by artificial means,- bear a striking resemblance to the sand banks of the sea basin of the Tay - the less diffusible remains of the removed portion of the alluvium which had once occupied all that basin, and to the remaining portion of the alluvium also retained by artificial means.


[Here, Matthew's discovery of Natural Selection continues]


Throughout this volume, we have felt considerable inconvenience, from the adopted dogmatical classification of plants, and have all along been floundering between species and variety, which certainly under culture soften into each other. A particular conformity, each after its own kind, when in a state of nature, termed species, no doubt exists to a considerable degree. This conformity has existed during the last forty centuries. Geologists discover a like particular conformity - fossil species - through the deep deposition of each great epoch, but they also discover an almost complete difference to exist between the species or stamp of life, of one epoch from that of every other. We are therefore led to admit either of a repeated miraculous creation; or of a power of change, under a change of circumstances, to belong to living organized matter, or rather to the congeries of inferior life, which appears to form superior. The derangements and changes in organized existence, induced by a change of circumstance from the interference of man, affording us proof of the plastic quality of superior life, and the likelihood that circumstances have been very different in the different epochs, though steady in each tend strongly to heighten the probability of the latter theory.


When we view the immense calcareous and bituminous formations, principally from the waters and atmosphere, and consider the oxidations and depositions which have taken place, either gradually, or during some of the great convulsions, it appears at least probable, that the liquid elements containing life have varied considerably at different times in composition and in weight; that our atmosphere has contained a much greater proportion of carbonic acid or oxygen; and our waters, aided by excess of carbonic acid, and greater heat resulting from greater density of atmosphere, have contained a greater quantity of lime and other mineral solutions. Is the inference then unphilosophic that living things which are proved to have a circumstance-suiting power a very slight change of circumstance by culture inducing a corresponding change of character - may have gradually accommodated themselves to the variations of the elements containing them, and, without new creation, have presented the diverging changeable phenomena of past and present organized existence.


The destructive liquid currents, before which the hardest mountains have been swept and comminuted into gravel, sand, and mud, which intervened between and divided these epochs, probably extending over the whole surface of the globe, and destroying nearly all living things, must have reduced existence so much, that an unoccupied field would be formed for new 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.


There are only two probable ways of change - the above, and the still wider deviation from present occurrence.- of indestructible or molecular life (which seems to resolve itself into powers of attraction and repulsion under mathematical figure and regulation, bearing a slight systematic similitude to the great aggregations of matter), gradually uniting and developing itself into new circumstance suited living aggregates, without the presence of any mould or germ of former aggregates, but this scarcely differs from new creation, only it forms a portion of a continued scheme or system.


In endeavouring to trace in the former way, the principle of these changes of fashion which have taken place in the domiciles of life, the following questions occur: Do they arise from admixture of species nearly allied producing intermediate species? Are they the diverging ramifications of the living principle under modification of circumstance? Or have they resulted from the combined agency of both? Is there only one living principle? Does organized existence, and perhaps all material existence consist of one Proteus principle of life capable of gradual circumstance-suited modifications and aggregations without bound under the solvent or motion giving principle, heat or light? There is more beauty and unity of design in this continual balancing of life to circumstance, and greater conformity to those dispositions of nature which are manifest to us, than in total destruction and new creation. It is improbable that much of this diversification is owing to commixture of species nearly allied all change by this appears very limited, and confined within the bounds of what is called Species: the progeny of the same parents, under great difference of circumstance, might, in several generations, even become distinct species incapable of co reproduction.


The self regulating adaptive disposition of organized life may, in part, be traced to the extreme fecundity of Nature, who, as before stated, has in all the varieties of her offspring, a prolific power much beyond (in many cases a thousandfold) what is necessary to fill up the vacancies caused by senile decay. As the field of existence is limited and pre-occupied, it is only the hardier, more robust, better suited to circumstance individuals, who are able to struggle forward to maturity, these inhabiting only the situations to which they have superior adaptation and greater power of occupancy than any other land the weaker less circumstance-suited being prematurely destroyed. This principle is in constant action, it regulates the colour, the figure, the capacities, and instincts; those individuals of each species, whose colour and covering are best suited to concealment or protection from enemies, or defence from vicissitude and inclemencies of climate, whose figure is best accommodated to health, strength, defence, and support; whose capacities and instincts can best regulate the physical energies to self advantage according to circumstances - in such immense waste of primary and youthful life, those only come forward to maturity from the strict ordeal by which Nature tests their adaptation to her standard of perfection and fitness to continue their kind by reproduction.


From the unremitting operation of this law acting in concert with the tendency which the progeny have to take the more particular qualities of the parents, together with the connected sexual system in vegetables, and instinctive limitation to its own kind in animals, a considerable uniformity of figure, colour, and character, is induced, constituting species; the breed gradually acquiring the very best possible adaptation of these to its condition which it is susceptible of, and when alteration of circumstance occurs, thus changing in character to suit these as far as its nature is susceptible of change.


This circumstance-adaptive law, operating upon the slight but continued natural disposition to sport in the progeny (seedling variety), does not preclude the supposed influence which volition or sensation may have over the configuration of the body. To examine into the disposition to sport in the progeny, even when there is only one parent, as in many vegetables, and to investigate how much variation is modified by the mind or nervous sensation of the parents, or of the living thing itself during its progress to maturity; how far it depends upon external circumstance and how far on the will irritability and muscular exertion is open to examination and experiment. In the first place, we ought to investigate its dependency upon the preceding links of the particular chain of life, variety being often merely types or approximations of former parentage; thence the variation of the family, as well as of the individual, must be embraced by our experiments.


This continuation of family type, not broken by casual particular aberration, is mental as well as corporeal, and is exemplified in many of the dispositions or instincts of particular races of men. These innate or continuous ideas or habits, seem proportionally greater in the insect tribes, those especially of shorter revolution; and forming an abiding memory, may resolve much of the enigma of instinct, and the foreknowledge which these tribes have of what is necessary to completing their round of life, reducing this to knowledge, or impressions, and habits, acquired by a long experience. This greater continuity of existence, or rather continuity of perceptions and [i]mpressions, in insects, is highly probable; it is even difficult in some to ascertain the particular stops when each individuality commences, under the different phases of egg larva pupa or if much consciousness of individuality exists. The continuation of reproduction for several generations by the females alone in some of these tribes, tends to the probability of the greater continuity of existence, and the subdivisions of life by cuttings, at any rate must stagger the advocate of individuality.


Among the millions of specific varieties of living things which occupy the humid portion of the surface of our planet, as far back as can be traced, there does not appear, with the exception of man, to have been any particular engrossing race, but a pretty fair balance of powers of occupancy,- or rather, most wonderful variation of circumstance parallel to the nature of every species, as if circumstance and species had grown up together. There are indeed several races which have threatened ascendency in some particular regions, but it is man alone from whom any general imminent danger to the existence of his brethren is to be dreaded. As far back as history reaches, man had already had considerable influence, and had made encroachments upon his fellow denizens, probably occasioning the destruction of many species, and the production and continuation of a number of varieties or even species, which he found more suited to supply his wants, but which, from the infirmity of their condition - not having undergone selection by the law of nature, of which we have spoken cannot maintain their ground without his culture and protection. It is however only in the present age that man has begun to reap the fruits of his tedious education, and has proven how much "knowledge is power." He has now acquired a dominion over the material world, and a consequent power of increase, so as to render it probable that the whole surface of the earth may soon be overrun by this engrossing anomaly, to the annihilation of every wonderful and beautiful variety of animated existence, which does not administer to his wants principally as laboratories of preparation to befit cruder elemental matter for assimilation by his organs.

 


~~~

 

 

APPENDIX TWO

 

 

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 19th 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). 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 (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.


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 Jenyn’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), libelling 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 emphasise 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 11th. 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. 21st 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 by Ron 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. 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. 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   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 on Google Books to 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 28th.

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