Patrick Matthew

IDD analysis (Sutton and Griffiths 2018)  found that Matthew appears to have coined at least 198 original phrases in NTA. Thirty (15%) of those phrases were first replicated pre- Darwin's Origin of Species (1859). In date order, List 2 contains the first to be second, pre-Origin, NTA phrase-replicating authors identified to date. Chambers, who actually cited Matthew's book, is included in this list because he was apparently first to second-publish Matthew's phrase only the month after the Origin had been first published and he had cited NTA in 1832. Everyone else in this part of the histographic analysis of NTA is a pre-1859 phrase replicator.

List 2

• 1832 — Mudie: "rectangular branching"
• 1833 — Ellerby: "plants so far asunder"
• 1835 — Main: "luxuriant growing trees"
• 1834 — Conrad: "admixture of species"
• 1834 — Roget: "living aggregates"
• 1834 — Low: "long continued selection"
• 1836 — Rafinesque: "evinced in the genus"
• 1837 — Wilson: "threatened ascendency"
• 1837 — Anonymous: "nature's own rearing" (Spectator Journal)
• 1837 — Dovaston: "sport in infinite varieties"
• 1838 — Anonymous translator: "portion of the surface of our planet"
• 1840 — Buel: "infirm progeny"
• 1840 — Swackhamer: "beat off intruders"
• 1841 — Johnson: "adapted to prosper"
• 1841 — Hill: "deeper richer soil"
• 1842 — Selby: "greater power of occupancy"
• 1844 — Low: "overpowering the less"
• 1846 — Emmons: "habits of varieties"
• 1846 — Alabama Supreme Court: "Infirmity of their condition"
• 1848 — Charnock: "stiffest and most obdurate"
• 1849 — Emmons: "deteriorated by culture"
• XX1852 — Wilkin: "figure is best accommodated" XX
• 1853 — Andrews: "impressions and habits acquired"
• 1854 — Mure: "dogmatical classification"
• 1855 — Fishbourne: "power to permeate"
• 1855 — Laycock: "mental or instinctive powers"
• 1856 — Gazlay: "adaptation to condition"
• 1858 — Powell: "restricted adaptation"
• 1858 — Floy: "law manifest in nature"
• 1858 — Leidy: "impressions in insects"

It is most important to note that my original (Sutton 2014) List 2 included Wilkin’s (1852) use of ‘figure is best accommodated’. However, I made a mistake there and my claim that he was fist to be second with that phrase was perfectly disproven and thankfully corrected by Grzegorz Malec in (2015). Notably, however, Malec’ s claim that managing to disprove only one – despite his best efforts to disprove more – of the F2B2 claims made for List 2 renders the entire list obsolete and completely disproves all the evidence in this book for Darwin’s plagiary of Matthew and Matthew’ influence on Darwin and Wallace, and on their influencers, and their influencer’s influencers is fanatically delusional hogwash. Consequently, the journal in which he published it published my rebuttal (Sutton 2016). Wikipedia, at the time of writing has published a link to Malec’s generally deceptive review as yet another state of fact denial action but in typical fanatical Darwin worship has not published my rebuttal – in the same journal - of the general conclusions he creates from it. Yet Malec’s fact denial review goes far beyond the counter-academic deviance of mere cherry picking, it is more a case of gross misrepresentation to the point of de facto fact denial amounting to historic revisionist behaviour. Who trusts Wikipedia?

Because David Low and Ebenezer Emmons were both first to be second twice with un-cited replications of Matthewisms, this list of the 30 earliest replications of Matthew's apparently exclusive phrases represents 28 individuals. And it must be particularly emphasized here that Low and Emmons thus provide profound confirmatory evidence for the F2B2 hypothesis.

The F2B2 hypothesis is that those who IDD detected were apparently first to be second wth apparently unique terms or phrases from NTA more likely than not read it. Once IDD found these people we needed to know something about them that might link them to reading NTA and /or to Darwin's social network. The whole purpose of this analysis is to identify possible routes for NTA knowledge contamination of the pre-1858 brains of  Darwin and Wallace before they replicated Matthew's theory and claimed it as their own dually independent conceptions.

~~~

Mudie (1777-1840) -  "rectangular branching."

Like Matthew, Robert Mudie was born in Forfarshire in the 18th century. He was variously employed as a newspaper editor, artist and author. A year after NTA was published, he was apparently first to be second (Mudie 1832) with the phrase "Rectangular branching".

Mudie wrote on the same theme of Matthew's ideas about circumstance suited varieties and human activities leading to species extinction.

Mudie co-authored a book with Darwin's most prolific informant, Edward Blyth (White, Blyth, and Mudie 1850), and worked with him on an earlier one (Léopold, G. et al. 1840). This is a pertinent fact that should not be ignored, because Blyth is one naturalist known to have significantly influenced Darwin pre-Origin by way of his post NTA articles on evolution. That Mudie was so closely associated with Blyth, a naturalist acknowledged to have profoundly influenced Darwin with his post-NTA journal articles on varieties and species, provides new evidence that he quite likely told Blyth about Matthew's hypotheses. Or else, perhaps Blyth learned of Matthew first from Loudon and told Mudie? Perhaps both Blyth and Mudie read NTA independently of Loudon? Who knows? But one thing that is certain is that the high probability of Matthewian knowledge contamination from Loudon to both Blyth and his friend Mudie, and then from Blyth to Darwin, cannot be rationally doubted.

The discovery that Blyth's friend and co-author Mudie probably read NTA is further disconfirming evidence for the Darwinist myth that Matthew failed to have any significant influence on Darwin. Although a prolific author, Mudie died in poverty in 1842, 17 years before the Origin was published.

~~~

Ellerby: "plants so far asunder"

I could discover almost nothing about the life of T. S. Ellerby other than that he was a pastor at the Zion Church in Toronto, Canada, in the 19th century. He was, in 1833, apparently first to be second with Matthew's phrase "plants so far asunder."

~~~

Main (1775–1846)  "luxuriant growing trees."

In 1835, James Main (botanist) was apparently first to second-publish, without citing, Matthew's apparently unique phrase "luxuriant growing trees."

Like Darwin's mentor, Lyell, Main was a member of both the Linnean Society and the British Association for the Advancement of Science, as was Darwin and many others in his inner circle. Main was also a professional plant collector and shareholder of the East India Company (see Fan 2009 p.164).

Main is particularly notable for his book Popular Botany. He published other works on botany and agricultural matters.

Aged 71, Main died 13 years before the Origin was published.

~~~

Conrad (1803–1877)

In 1834, Timothy Abbot Conrad, an American geologist, malacologist and palaeontologist, was apparently first to second-publish Matthew's apparently unique phrase "admixture of species."

Conrad was a close friend and personal correspondent of Darwin's mentor Charles Lyell. Furthermore, Lyell was a personal guest of Conrad when he visited America in 1841 and 1842.

Conrad, who was elected a member of the Academy of Natural Sciences in 1831, was the official geologist and palaeontologist of the New York Geological Survey. He wrote numerous books and academic articles.

As a staunch creationist to the end, we know that Conrad had zero motivation to promote Matthew's hypothesis, because when Darwin's Origin was first published 25 years after Conrad was apparently first to second-publish Matthew's unique phrase, his personal notes reveal the extent of his bitter opposition to natural selection theory (see Abbott 1895).
Conrad was 56 years old when the Origin was published.

~~~

Buel (1778-1839)  F2b2 = "infirm progeny"

In 1840, Jesse Buel was apparently the first to second-publish Matthew's original phrase "infirm progeny."

Buel's father fought the British, serving as an officer, in the American War of Independence. One of fourteen siblings born into a Connecticut farming family, Buel was at turns a successful printer, bankrupt and then successful newspaper publisher, journal editor, landlord, famous agricultural reformer, U.S. judge and finally, like Matthew, he became an orchard owner.

Buel served as secretary of the State Board of Agriculture. Throughout the 1830s, he independently published the popular agricultural improvement journal The Cultivator and authored several books. He ran an experimental farm where he tested ideas for agricultural improvement. Like Matthew, he advocated liberal use of manure to prevent soil exhaustion and, just like Matthew, appreciated the personal and business benefits of successfully entering his produce into prestigious competitions.

Highly respected, with an international reputation for his agricultural expertise, Buel was an honorary member of the Lower Canada Agricultural Society, the London Horticultural Society, the Royal and Central Society of Agriculture at Paris and the Society of Universal Statistics in Paris (see Lossing 1855). He was awarded the London Horticultural Society's Silver and Bankian medals for apples and plums sent by the barrel for judgement.

That Judge Buel is mentioned in an article written by Izaac Hill (1841), who we will come to shorty, in which Hill is apparently first to be second with Matthew's phrase "deeper richer soil" is most important, because U.S. Senator Izaac Hill was preceded in the same position in public office by Levi Woodbury, who cited NTA. These interconnections provide further powerful confirmatory evidence that the IDD method is accurate in identifying Buel as someone who read NTA, and that these three influential men shared intelligence about the importance of Matthew's ideas within it.

Aged 61 years, Buel died 20 years before the Origin was published.

~~~

Dovaston (1782–1854) - 'sport in infinite varities'

In 1837, John Freeman Milward Dovaston, the botanist, ornithologist, poet and naturalist, was apparently first to second-publish Matthew's unique phrase "sport in infinite varieties." Dovaston published the phrase in The Magazine of Natural History (1837). This magazine, known informally as Loudon's Magazine of Natural History, was owned and operated by John Loudon, who we know read and reviewed NTA in 1832.

As did Matthew, Dovaston inherited from his father a prosperous tree nursery. Dovaston's nursery, which was called simply "The Nursery," was in the village of West Felton in Shropshire. The Nursery became prosperous due to the fashion for planting trees among the aristocracy (Allen 1967).

As if the shared John Loudon link and the shared tree-nursery inheritance is not a big enough coincidence in the lives of Matthew and this man, who apparently first replicated his phrase, Dovaston attended the same school as Charles Darwin: The Shrewsbury School, in Shropshire!

By way of further remarkable coincidence, Dovaston suffered, like Darwin, with a chronic and mysterious digestive disorder. After several serious illnesses from digestive disorders, Dovaston's health failed in 1847, and he was permanently bedridden. Like Darwin in his middle years, he also showed a reluctance to travel far.

Dovaston is particularly noted for his poetry and his friendship with the engraver Thomas Bewick, whose book A History of British Birds he helped to edit.

Aged 72 years, Dovaston died five years before Darin's Origin was published.

~~~

Ellerby  - "plants so far asunder."

I could discover almost nothing about the life of T. S. Ellerby other than that he was a pastor at the Zion Church in Toronto, Canada, in the 19th century. He was, in 1833, apparently first to be second with Matthew's phrase 

Gazlay

In 1856, the little-known writer Allen W. Gazlay, writing anonymously as Cephas Broadluck, (see Halkett 1971) was apparently first to second-publish Matthew's original phrase "adaptation to condition," in a book entitled Races of Mankind—the title of which is a topic that both Darwin and Asa Gray were financed to research by the British Association for the Advancement of Science. That was a topic covered also in NTA. Indeed, concern about such non-scientific deductions on the subject of human varieties was one principal motive for founding the British Association for the Advancement of Science in the very year that NTA was published.

~~~

Low (1786–1859)

In 1834, David Low was apparently first to be second with Matthew's phrase "long continued selection" in his book Elements of Practical Agriculture: Comprehending the Cultivation of Plants, the Husbandry of Domestic Animals and The Economy of the Farm.

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

Darwin adopted the same original Matthewism in his essay of 1842 :

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

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

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

Low published several notable books entitled, respectively, Elements of Practical Agriculture (1834), The Breeds of Domesticated Animals (1840) and An Enquiry into the Nature of the Simple Bodies of Chemistry (1848).

In his book On Landed Property, and the Economy of Estates (1844), on page 546, Low was once again apparently first to be second with an NTA expression—once again without citing Matthew. In this later book, it was Matthew's original phrase "overpowering the less." This discovery of Low twice replicating Matthew's unique phrases in different books confirms the veracity of the First to be Second-Publish Hypothesis, and the value of the method in identifying plagiarism of ideas is further confirmed by the fact that Low replicated Matthew's exclusive theme that trees grown by means of artificial selection in nurseries were inferior to those naturally selected by nature.

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

It is of paramount importance at this juncture to note that this newly discovered evidence in fact provides Darwin with a defence against Eiseley's (1979) claim that Darwin's use of artificially selected trees to explain natural selection, in his unpublished 1844 essay, is clear evidence of plagiarism. Because although Low almost certainly got it from Matthew (1831), Darwin could have got it from reading Low. Whatever the case, again we see Matthew's progeny in the relevant literature as influencing the man who influenced the man. However, and most importantly, we should note that Low published that book in 1844, which is the very same year Darwin’s private essay replicated the exact same highly idiosyncratic tree analogy.

Interestingly, in his notebook of books to read, Darwin writes in December 1839, "Advertised. David Low Treatise on Domestic Animals; also Illustrations of the Domestic animals of Gt. Britain—must be read carefully." But in that same notebook, Darwin makes no mention of having read Low's Elements of Practical Agriculture or of On Landed Property. In the Origin, however, Darwin went on to use the same Matthew-coined phrase "long continued selection," as several other writers did following Low's 1834 first replication of it. Whereas Low hyphenated the phrase, Darwin used it without the hyphen, just as Matthew had it in NTA.

It is unlikely to be purely coincidental, given that he was apparently twice to be first with apparently original Matthewisms in different publications and, most significantly, that Low was a former Perth Academy schoolmate of Patrick Matthew. Furthermore, he might even be the unnamed professor that Matthew (1860a) referred to in the Gardener's Chronicle, as the professor at an esteemed university who could not teach NTA's heretical hypothesis of natural selection because he feared being pilloried in church on the cutty stool. Perhaps it is from that same fear of public censure that Low failed to cite NTA as the source of the phrase? Perhaps he forgot where it came from? Perhaps he intended from the outset that others would associate the phrase with his own work, rather than its originator's?

More likely than any of the above, perhaps he simply had no choice but to give Matthew's book the silent treatment, due to the unwritten rules of conduct in practice among 19th century gentlemen of science. It is important to stress at this point that this silence was not complete, and it most certainly was not a conspiracy. As explained later in this chapter, and in more depth in others, it was an expectation of group-identity propriety. In the case in point, it was Low's gain and Matthew's loss, which makes the guilt neutralizing scientific convention of what amounted to a general silent treatment for books such as NTA institutionally corruptive.

Low's books broke none of the rules of those gentlemen of science. Darwin (1857a) recommended his On Domesticated Animals to the Royal Society on the grounds that "the time is coming when all records of domestic variation will be admitted as most very important." This suggests that further research into the possibility that Darwin and Low corresponded, or met, is, for obvious historical and criminological reasons, probably an area worthy of hot-academic pursuit.

Both Low and Robert Chambers (who cited NTA, met and corresponded with Darwin) lived in Edinburgh and were members of the Royal Society of Edinburgh. Low met with Prideaux John Selby, another member of the Royal Society of Edinburgh who cited NTA. Selby was also an associate of Darwin.

Low and Selby served on a committee of the Berwick and Kelso Railway Company (Report of the Committee of the Berwick and Kelso Railway Committee 1837).

One thing is absolutely certain, which is that Matthew influenced Low. In turn, Low influenced Darwin's work. The case of Low furnishes us with yet another new discovery of hard evidence, which disconfirms as a myth the Darwinist belief that Matthew failed to influence either Darwin or any other naturalist with his discovery of natural selection.

Low's un-cited use of Matthew's classic phrase allowed Darwin to use it in what has now become a much quoted part of the Origin. At the time of writing, this phrase is incorrectly associated with Darwin alone.

Aged 73 years, Low died in the year the Origin was published.

~~~

The above is just a random fraction taken from my 2014 book 'Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret' research findings on the  F2B2 hypothesis. 

Foreword

The first edition of Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret (Sutton 2014) is a 600-page e-book that is currently unavailable for sale due to widespread criminal internet piracy of e-books and associated criminal ID fraud. The book reveals (in List 2) who was apparently first to be second (F2b2) with apparently unique terms and phrases coined by Patrick Matthew and the potential Matthewian knowledge contamination links of some of those authors to Darwin and Wallace and to their influencers and associates. As I explain in a science journal article of  reply to a disingenuous de-facto fact denial and, therefore, mischievously misleading book review of Nullius (here), the main findings in Nullius are to be found in List 1 of those - including seven naturalists -  newly discovered to have cited Matthew's (1831) book and their relationship to Darwin and Wallace and to their influencers and influencer's influencers. These findings are to be found in the abridged paperback of Nullius (vol 1. 2017). The reason those findings are so important is because they bust the myth started by Darwin's proven deliberate lie that apparently no naturalist had read Matthew's prior published breakthrough before Darwin’s and Wallace supposedly dual independent replications (Wallace and Darwin 1858 and Darwin 1859).  Having been corrected in an exchange of published letters in print by Matthew on the first lie, Darwin later lied again that no one whatsoever had read Matthew’s breakthrough pre-1858. And it is on this innumerably zombie parroted Darwin lie-based myth that the now newly busted paradigm of Darwin's and Wallace's supposedly miraculous immaculate conceptions of Matthew's  prior published breakthrough are based.  Complimenting the discoveries in List 1, the List 2 based F2b2 hypothesis proposes the likelihood of some form of original and unique Matthewian 'knowledge contamination' of the subsequent natural selection replicating work of Wallace and Darwin. My original List 2 discoveries related to the F2b2 hypothesis will be included in a volume 2  paperback of the Nullius (forthcoming). Currently, Vol. 1 is available world-wide from all Amazon sites, good bookshops and libraries.

Read an expert peer reviewed academic article on the IDD method (here).

Please do beware of counterfeit and bogus pirated copies of both the e-book and paperback of Nullius being sold online. These are compiled by criminal hackers, malicious cyberstalkers and identity fraudster scammers. Consequently, PDF and other downloadable files of Nullius are quite likely to contain phishing malware or other viruses. Moreover, the text may have been mischievously altered. Internet book pirate sites often look very professional, plausible and legitimate and are likely to rip-off your credit card and bank account details.Furthermore they may delivering anything but the product you think you are buying. Free downloadable versions may well install malware. To be safe and to read the actual newly discovered facts, buy Nullius only from Amazon sites or brick and mortar book shops. Alternatively, your library can get you a genuine copy.

With regard to those who cited Matthew's book, it is obvious that those we now newly know Darwin and Wallace knew, and who their friends and influencers knew - who actually read and then cited Matthew's book pre-1858 (List 1)- could have influenced Darwin and Wallace with the bombshell ideas in in it. Hence, knowledge contamination of ideas in publications can occur even when the person so influenced did not read the knowledge at its original source.

By way of a proposed simple typology of possibilities of “knowledge contamination”, all types which we now know could have occurred in the cases of those 19th century writers who actually cited Matthew's book or who were, out of the 30+ million historic publications analysed with the BigData IDD method, apparently first to be second in print with apparently original Matthewian terms and phrases, prior published unique ideas may contaminate the minds and work of others in three main ways (from my peer reviewed science article On Knowledge Contamination: New Data Challenges Claims of Darwin’s and Wallace’s Independent Conceptions of Matthew’s Prior-Published Hypothesis. Philosophical Aspects of Origin 2015, vol. 12

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.

Robert Mudie and the First to be Second (F2b2) Hypothesis, by Mike Sutton (Taken in large part from original blog post of Saturday, 8 August 2015)

A bullet-point abstract of just some, among many original pertinent facts on the F2b2 hypothesis, which confirm its veracity (from Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret 2014 and 2017, which provides full references to these independently verifiable facts, discovered by original Big Data analysis of obscure texts within the long forgotten 19th century historic publication record)

• Cuthbert Johnson, a well-known agricultural chemist, was apparently first to be second in print in 1841 with Patrick Matthew's apparently original natural selection related term: 'adapted to prosper'. The following year he cited Matthew's (1831) book 'On Naval Timber and Arboriculture' on a different topic. Johnson, like Darwin was a member of the Royal Society. Pre-1858, Darwin was a correspondent of Johnson's brother.

• The Scot, Robert Chambers, in his 1859 book review of Darwin's (1859) Origin of Species, was apparently first to be second in print with Matthew's (1831) apparently original term 'natural process of selection'. That term was apparently originally four word shuffled by Darwin (1859) to 'process of natural selection'. Pre-1858, Darwin and Chambers met and corresponded. Chambers is the author of the best-selling book on evolution the 'Vestiges of Creation' (1844) - a book which Darwin and Wallace each admitted was a great influence on their pre-1859 work on natural selection, and is widely proclaimed to have 'put evolution in the air' in the first half of the 19th century. Chambers cited Matthew's (1831) book on another topic in 1832, later in 1840 Chambers cited Matthew's second (1839) book 'Emigration Fields'. Chambers even went so far in 1842 as to write his own guide on arboriculture after citing Matthew's (1831) book on the same topic.

• The Scot, David Low, in 1834 was apparently first to be second with Matthew's apparently original natural selection related term 'adapted to prosper'. Darwin adopted the same Matthewism in his 1842 private essay and later in his (1859) 'Origin of Species'. Confirming the F2b2 hypothesis, in a later book, Low (1844), was apparently first to be second in print a second time with another apparently unique Matthewism. This one is "overpowering the less." In that second replication, Low also replicated Matthrew's highly idiosyncratic explanatory natural selection analogy of differences between trees grown in nurseries versus those growing in the wild. Most importantly, Low was a Perth academy schoolmate of Matthew. Darwin recommended Low's work to the Royal society. Moreover, pre-1858, Low met and corresponded with Robert Chambers and with Prideaux John Selby - both of whom were well known to Darwin, both of whom cited Matthew’s (1831) book in the decade before Darwin's and Wallace's 1858 replications of Matthew's bombshell scientific breakthrough. Notably, Selby was the editor of the journal that published Wallace’s 1855 Sarawak paper on evolution! Routes for potential Matthewian 'knowledge contamination' of Darwin's and Wallace's replications of Matthew's original prior-published breakthrough are confirmed by these David Low connections alone.

• The Scot, Robert Mudie was apparently first to be second to replicate in print Matthew's (1831) apparently original term for crab apple trees 'rectangular branching'. This is important for the study of various potential routes for knowledge contamination because Blyth (Darwin's self-admitted most prolific pre-1858 informant on the topic of species and varieties) co-wrote two books with Blyth. And the editor of two of Blyth's most influential articles was John Loudon who reviewed Matthew's (1831) in 1832 and wrote in that review that Matthew appeared to have something original to say on the topic of 'the origin of species' no less!

Introduction

My original work in discovering the links between David Low and Robert Mudie to Patrick Matthew's (1831) original prior-published discovery of the 'natural process of selection' and Darwin's replication of it would not have been possible without Google Chrome and the IDD Big Data research method (see Sutton 2014), which enabled me to search through over 30 million books and journals.

So effective is the IDD research method that it enabled me to get back further with the Google search engine than Google's own staff - where I used the Google Monster to sniff out its namesake. In fact, I used Google to discover the original Google! You can read that amusing story about the unique power of IDD over other methods of using Google, employed by Google's own staff and others, here.

The Mudie Connection Between Matthew and Darwin was Orignially Unearthed using the Internet Date Detection (IDD method)

In the year I was born, Loren Eiseley caused a stir among Darwinite historians of science and Darwin biased superfans in 1959 when he accused Charles Darwin of plagiarizing the work of Edward Blyth (see Smith 1979)  for an interesting but somewhat disingenuous overview of Eisleley's collected works of 1979, where Smith, in the general and unfortunately biased fashion of so many typical desperate Darwinists gives, in my opinion, the dismissive false impression - deliberate or just remiss - that it is he who has discovered that Blyth took much from Mudie's 1835 "Feathered Tribes" book, when in fact Eiseley (1979, page 61) laboured the point, and it is from him that Smith gets it. This is obvious, just so long as you bother to read Eiseley carefully.

Unfortunately, at a time when others were far more diligent, neither Mudie nor Matthew were good at citing their influencers (see my blog on Matthew's plagiarism). A key difference between Blyth and Smith is that Blyth was careful to cite his sources. The difference between Blyth and Darwin is just the same! The difference between Eiseley and Smith is that Eiseley was careful to cite his sources. The difference between Eiseley and Darwin the same.

Eiseley's collected papers on the topic of Darwin's plagiarism of Blyth can be found in the Book that contains those collected papers on Darwin. namely, Darwin and the Mysterious Mr X, which was published in 1979, two years after Eiseley's death.

Loren Eiseley (1979) ably demonstrated (pp 61-62) that Darwin cumulatively borrowed from Blyth's (1835) book 'The feathered tribes of the British islands' and his other published papers, without citing them.

Edward Blyth, twice co-author with Robet Mudie cited Mudie's work that Darwin replicated without citation. Blyth is widely acknowledged to have had a significant Influence on Darwin pre-1858. Blyth's most influential papers were edited by Loudon, who had earlier - in 1832 - reviewed Patrick Matthew's (1831) book and said it might have something original to say on "the origin of species"! Darwin's associate William Hooker (father of Darwin's best friend) knew Loudon and his friends very well!

Much of Darwin's prose, it was ably demonstrated by Eiseley, came from Blyth's papers of 1835 and 1837. But it is true also that nothing much of the full hypothesis of natural selection comes from them (see Smith 1979   ); although they are important papers on variety and habitat etc. But when it comes to his 1837 paper on to topic of "variation" and the "localizing principle" -  (published by Longman and co - Matthew's London publisher - no less) - Eiseley (1979, p. 91) explains that Blyth comes close to the theory on natural selection. On this point, Eiseley- points out the work of De Beer which shows how much Blyth influenced Darwin's writing in his private Zoonomia notebook of 1837-38. What De Beer and Eiseley failed to note is that Blyth's "localizing principle" is heavily dependent upon Matthew's bombshell observations six years earlier of "power of occupancy".

In particular, we must remember that the religious Blyth did not believe in the evolution of species and pulled back from where his prose was leading-back to Matthew's conclusions that species could vary so much that they became new species. See Eiseley (1979 p.58 for an explanation of this fact). And that is a key point about the limitations of stopping at Blyth, as Eiselely did, and of not going back from him to Matthew - who originated and wrote out the entire theory of natural selection and was cited many times and reviewed by Blyth's editor - John Loudon and with whom we can establish collegiate links with Blyth's friend Mudie and others (as explained in great detail in Nullius) and particularly Mudie's acknowledged influence on Blyth and the prose and ideas that Darwin copied from Blyth, without any attribution, that Blyth did attribute to Mudie.

Some 55 years later, now that the dust has settled on Eiseley's (1959) work, and his many papers that followed, it is essentially agreed that Darwin did steal much prose from Blyth and no doubt was influenced by the information he provided. However, unlike Matthew - the Originator of Natural selection and the great analogy that explained it, Blyth was well acknowledged by Darwin from the third edition of the Origin of Species onward as an important and highly valued general influence on his work.

Blyth might not have published the hypothesis of natural selection before Darwin, but Patrick Matthew certainly did before them both.

Prior to the reading of Wallace's and Darwin's papers before the Linnean society in 1858, it is widely agreed by the top scholars in the field, including Darwin  and Wallace, de Beer, Mayr and Weale (see Nullius for references) that Patrick Matthew in 1831 originally penned the entire hypothesis of natural selection 

Of great importance, is the fact that it has gone unremarked until I wrote in 2014 these very same words you reading   , that the editor and publisher of Blyth's (1835, 1836) most important papers on organic evolution was John Loudon, who in 1832, reviewed NTA and remarked that Matthew had discovered something unique on the origin of species!

Since Darwin admitted Blyth's influence on his thinking, this discovery of almost certain knowledge contamination, is alone enough to completely demolish the 154-year-old Darwinian myth that Matthew had no influence on Darwin.

Eiseley thought also that in addition to stealing from Blyth that Darwin had read and plagiarized Patrick Matthew's discovery of natural selection. But apart from what Jim Dempster, and later Milton Wainwright    and Hugh Dower and myself, have written on that topic, Eiseley's discovery in this area has been most conveniently ignored by Darwinists.

Eiseley noted that following Matthew’s letter in the Gardener’s Chronicle of 1860 – claiming his priority – that Darwin (1868) replicated his 1844 private essay replication of Matthew’s unique prior-published analogy – this time citing Matthew.

In my earlier blog on Matthew's Artificial versus Natural Selection Analogy I included the text that Eiseley discovered. I now include it again.

Eiseley (1979): "Matthew wrote, '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 differences in varieties particularly in the more domesticated kinds...' "In his unpublished essay of 1844,

Darwin wrote, 'In the case of forest trees raised in nurseries, which vary more than the same trees do in their aboriginal forests, the cause would seem to lie in their not having to struggle against other trees and weeds, which in their natural state doubtless would limit the conditions of their existence…"

In that later text, to which Eiseley directs us, Darwin (1868) wrote:

"Our common forest trees are very variable, as may be seen in every extensive nursery-ground; but as they are not valued as fruit trees, and as they seed late in life, no selection has been applied to them; consequently, as Patrick Matthew remarks, they have not yielded different races…"

Eiseley knew nothing of David Low's 1844 replication of so much of Matthew's work (seeNullius). Therefore, he wrote that Darwin must have got this example from Matthew by 1844. However, I discovered with ID that Professor David Low replicated Matthew's original analogy in 1844 as well as being the first to second publish unique Matthewisms. Darwin read Low and recommended him to Royal Society. Low was Matthew's Perth Academy schoolmate and shared the exact same Edinburgh and London Publishers as Matthew (see my Position Paper Sutton 2014). How's that for a bunch of mere coincidences?

David Low (1844) wrote enough that was similar to Matthew's text for it to be said, I think, that Darwin could in fact have got the idea - as a form of indirect 'knowledge contamination' from him:

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

However, another got there before Low. His name was Robert Mudie and he was born in Matthew's county of Forfarshire in Scotland and he published on this topic only a year after Matthew. I came accross Mudie by searching with the IDD (See Sutton and Griffiths 2018) method for specific words terms and phrases that, out of 30+ million books and journals online, Matthew 1831 appears to have coined. Mudie in 1832 was first to be second to use the extremely rare and apparently unique phrase "rectangular branching". This strongly suggests it is more likley than not that Mudie read Matthew's book as soon as it came out. If not, then it sees probably that the term was read by somone else and that Mudie was in some way rapidly 'knowledge contaminated' by them.

Only later did I find, from reading Eiseley (1979), that Mudie was a friend and associate of Darwin's great influencer, Blyth. See page 171 of Eiseley 1979 - which explains that Blyth and Mudie worked together on an illustrated translation of Cuvier in 1840 - and that Blyth had read and cited much of Mudie's work. Some of the prose within Mudie's considerable output was about the camouflage of birds, Blyth used and cited it. That same prose, Eiselely discovered, was replicated without citation by Darwin.

The fact that I reached Mudie through an entirely different route than Eiseley - and the fact of Mudie's undoubted influence upon Blyth, who had an undoubted influence upon Darwin reveals two things. Firstly, it provides more data to confirm my "First to Be Second Hypothesis" by way of such unexpected and unpredictable triangulation. Namely that it seems more likely than not that Mudie read Matthew's book because he was frst to second publish Matthew's term "rectangular branching" also was first to replicate Matthew's unique "artificial versus natural selection explanatory analogy of differences" ; and secondly, it reveals almost certain knowledge contamination from Matthew to Mudie to Blyth to Darwin.

What was said to whom we may never know, but we do know by way of his correspondence to Joseph Hooker    that Darwin probably met Blyth pre-1848 - because in that year he recommended him to Hooker before he had, himslef, begun corresponding with him. Moreover, we know that Mudie and Blyth met because they collaborated together on two publications pre-1858. Face to face, via correspondence, via publications, or from third party oral information, my typology of knowledge contamination shows the various ways Matthew's prior published work could have entered Darwin's brain pre-1858.

If the internet was available in Eiseley's day there is little doubt that he would have made the same connection that I did, Namely that Mudie - who so influenced Blyth and Darwin - had surely read Matthew by 1832.

The case for Matthewian knowledge contamination of Darwin's brain by Mudie, who read Matthew (1831) and wrote about evolution without citing Matthew, is extremely powerful and it is far more significant than the simple fact discovered by Eiseley and celebrated by his peers, that the prose of Blyth (taken from his associate Mudie) - was replicated by Darwin without citation to its source.

Mudie (1832) Page 368 wrote:

‘If we are to observe nature, therefore, we must go to the wilds, because, in all cultivated productions, there are secondary characters produced by the artificial treatment, and we have no means of observing a distinction between these, and those which the same individual would have displayed, had it been left to a completely natural state. The longer that the race has been under the domestication and culture, the changes are of course the greater. So much is that the case that in very many both of the plants and animals that have been in a state of domestication since the earliest times of which we have any record, we know nothing with certainty about the parent races in their wild state. As to the species, or if you will the genus we can be certain. The domestic horse has not been cultivated out of an animal with cloven hoofs and horns; and the domestic sheep has never been bred out of any of the ox tribe. So also wheat and barley have not been cultivated out of any species of pulse, neither have Windsor beans at any time been grasses. But within some such limits as these our certain information lies; and for aught we know the parent race may, in its wild state, be before our eyes every day and yet we may not have the means of knowing that it is so. The breeding artificially has been going on for at least three thousand years…’   

Mudie (1832)  Page 369-370

‘But there is another difficulty. When great changes are made on the surface of a country, as when forests are changed into open land, and marshes into corn fields, or any other change that is considerable, the changes of the climate must correspond; and as the wild productions are very much affected by that, they must also undergo changes; and these changes may in time amount to the entire extinction of some of the old tribes, both of plants and of animals, the modification of others to the full extent that the hereditary specific characters admit, and the introduction of not varieties only but of species altogether new.

That not only may but must have been the case. The productions of soils and climates are as varied as these are; and when a change takes place in either of these, if the living productions cannot alter their habits so as to accommodate themselves to the change there is no alternative, but they must perish.’

Mudie (1832) seemed to be recommending that humans engage in trying to approximate a kind of natural process of selection (370-371):

“Cultivation itself will deteriorate, and in time destroy races, if the same race and the same mode of culture be pursued amid general change. Our own times are times of very rapid change, and, upon the whole, of improvement; we dare not, without the certainty of their falling off, continue the same stock and the same seed corn, season after season, and age after age, as was done by our forefathers. The general change of the country, must have change and not mere succession, in that which we cultivate; and thus we must cross the breeds of our animals, and remove the seeds and plants of our vegetables from district to district. There is something of the same kind in human beings..”

The Matthew --> Mudie --> Low --> Blyth --> Darwin Connection

Much of the text that follows is taken from my previous blog on the F2b2 Hypothesis:

The Case of Robert Mudie and Matthewian 'Knowledge Contamination' of Darwin's so called 'independent discovery of natural selection.

•In his Book The Botanic Animal Robert Mudie (1832) was apparently the first to replicate the Matthewism "rectangular branching" - a phrase not used in print again (apparently) until 1855 and next in 1871.

•Mudie (1832) was first to replicate Matthew's (1831) unique Artificial Selection versus Natural Selection Explanatory Analogy of Differences.

•The Scot, Mudie, like Matthew, was born in Forefarshire Scotland

•Mudie, a prolific author, worked energetically for borough reform with R. S. Rintoul, editor of the radical Dundee Advertiser - a newspaper that was very kind to Patrick Matthew - giving him a voice when others would not.

•Mudie was a friend and twice co-author with Blyth    - the naturalist who most assisted and influenced Darwin pre-Orign. And Blyth's two early papers on species variety - that so influenced Darwin - were edited by John Loudon who reviewed Matthew's 1831 book in 1832 and remarked that it may have had something original to say on "The Origin of Species".

•Mudie died in 1842 - leaving his second wife (daughter of a captain in the East India Company) penniless. One report describes him as an intemperate spendthrift worn out too early by excessive intellectual endeavor and poverty.

•The highly respected anthropologist and science historian Loren Eiseley (1979, p. 214) spotted in a different 1832 publication of Mudie's that this particular Scot had somehow grasped, something, quite significant:

'Long ago when Darwin was still a youth aboard the Beagle, the Naturalist Robert Mudie, faithful to his century, had written:

' "There is a law that maintains the species." Scarcely had he made this assertion before he was busy explaining that all cultivated plants or animals were more or less monsters and that of the appearance of their parentage we know little or nothing. Even of wild forms he ends by hinting ambiguously of the emergence of species "altogether new". Finally he verges on complete heresy. "There is something," he almost whispers, "of the same kind in human beings," '

Eiseley was citing and quoting from: Mudie, R. (1832) A Popular Guide to the Observation of Nature. Whitaker, Constable's Miscellany of Original and Selected Publications of Literature, Science & the Arts. Vol. LXXVII Teacher and Co,  London, And Waugh and Innes.Edinburgh. pp. 366-371.

In his own earlier book of 1832, Mudie writes a great deal of text that focuses upon Matthew's topic of forest trees and the effects upon wood of the natural and cultivated circumstances in which it grows.

Conclusion

Did Mudie read his Forefarshire neighbor's - Patrick Matthew's - book, published the year before one of his own replicated a unique Matthewism and another of his books touched upon the same heresy? Did he influence Blyth with some type of Mathewian knowledge contamination so that Blyth's work - that so significantly influenced Darwin - infected Darwin's brain? Did Darwin get his knowledge about the difference between trees under artificial selection and those under natural selection directly from Matthew, and/or indirectly from either (or both) Mudie and Low?

Was Blyth, Darwin's great influencer, more likely than not double-dosed with Matthewian knowledge via his editor Loudon, who reviewed Matthew's book, as well as by Mudie? I would say so.

Darwin always maintained that neither he nor any naturalist known to him had read Matthew's 1831 book, which contained the full prior-published hypothesis of natural selection and the most powerful analogy in the world to explain it. Darwin was 100 per cent wrong! He did know four of the seven naturalists who read it. All seven cited Matthew's book it in the literature pe-1858! And three of those naturlaists (Loudon, Selby and Chambers) played major roles at his and Wallace's epicenter of ipre-1858 influence on natural selection.

Seeing Matthew's comparison between artificial selection and nature - not just in terms of the specific examples he used but focusing instead on that analogy - "Artificial versus Nature's Selection Explanatory Analogy of Differences" Matthew was the first person ever to use that analogy. Others had earlier explained what artificial slection did but they never compared varieties selected by man with the fewer number of varieties in the wild (many such as Blaine (1824) came very close - see his footnotes on pages 97 to 98   .) in describing how greyhounds and pointers were not best suited to hunting under certain conditions in the wild. But, as did Matthew's predecessors, he failed to point out the natural selection implications that there are - when we compare artificially selected domesticated with wild species - fewer varieties in the wild, or else specifically stating that they could not survive in competition with wild varieties in any natural conditions

We now know Robert Mudie - in 1832 - was first to replicate Matthew's analogy and he influenced Blyth and Blyth cited him many times and co-authored with him twice. Darwinists accept that Blyth influenced Darwin and that Mudie influenced Blyth. What no one knew until I discovered it in 2014, is that Mudie (1832) was also first to be second with Matthew's unique phrase "rectangular branching". Mudie was also born in the same county as Matthew - Forfarshire in Scotland. Clearly, Mudie read Matthew's book by 1832.

If Mudie did not influence Blyth with intelligence about Matthew's book, then we are expected to believe that so much that Blyth (whose editor Loudon reviewed Matthew's book in 1832) wrote that was similar to what Matthew wrote was conceived independently of Matthew's prior-publication of the same ideas, when only the year before Mudie, who was Blyth's close friend.had read Matthew's 1831 book - a book that contained the very same ideas and that was the original source of those ideas that Blyth replicated before Darwin replicated them next in 1844 and 1859.

Darwin opened the Origin of Species with Matthew's 1831 unique analogy of Artificial versus Natural Selection! The very first words Darwin (1859) wrote are: " ‘When we look to the individuals of the same variety or sub-variety of our older cultivated plants and animals, one of the first points which strikes us is, that they generally differ more from each other than do the individuals of any one species or variety in a state of nature.”

Only when we realize that Matthew coined that analogy do we now see the conclusive evidence of Matthew's massive influence on Darwin. Matthew coined the worlds most powerful analogy to explain his unique discovery the worlds most important scientific theory. So important was the analogy - so influential - so powerful Darwin used it to open "The Origin of Species".

Read my blog on the topic to understand why, by virtue of being biologists, Darwinists failed to realize that Matthew also coined the very same analogy Darwin replicated to explain natural selection 27 years after Matthew originated it!

Not so much a dual immaculate conception by Darwin and Wallace as a case of immaculate deception! Game set and rational match to Matthew!

If such a macabre thing were possible, I expect Loren Eiseley and Patrick Matthew would be singing in their graves.

To find out more: Read my book Nullius in Verba for more highly detailed information about Darwin's and Wallace's great plagirising science fraud by glory theft

Archived reference

Smith (1979) Here

First edition Kindle e-book 'Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest sectret'  (published in 2014 by Thinker Media, Thinker Books USA).

Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret 600-page Kindle e-book is currently unavailable due to ongoing investigations into criminal book piracy, copyright fraud, cyberstalking, criminal malicious communications, malware dissemination and ID fraud by cybercriminals who have hacked it and those who are disseminating the illegal hacked files.

From November 2017, you are advised not to download any version of this e-book, because the illegally hacked and disseminated hacked files are likely to be infected with hacker malware by those sharing and disseminating them. Moreover, the book's original academic content is likely to have been altered by the criminals involved.

Please purchase the official paperback abridged version from Amazon here. Paperback volumes 2 and 3 are forthcoming.

Available only from all Amazon sites, good bricks and mortar bookshops and libraries world wide. Bogus fake versions are being sold on various other websites online by criminal book pirates and identity fraudsters.

Nullius in Verba (paperback vol. 1) is avaialable from all Amazon sites, good bookshops and libraries. E.g Amazon.com and Amazon.co.uk

Depicting Darwin's and Wallace's dually miraculous immaculate conceptions of Patrick Matthew's prior published bombshell breakthrough in science, which their friends and influencers in fact did read before they conceived it independently! Rather like two people conceiving the child of a supernatural deity whilst each is surrounded by men whose testicles are fertile.  Oil on Canvas by Gabriel Woods.

And so we see that the science problem of Darwin's and Wallace's claim of miraculous virgin brained dual independent conception of a prior published theory, which both admitted was essentially the same as their own, and which Wallace wrote was even more complete, is solved by disproving the consensus that 0 people read Matthew's theory before they replicated it. Hence, any notion that mysterious forces govern the affairs of humans with otherwise amazing improbable coincidences is disproven in this case. The solution to this particular virgin conception problem is 30, which is the difference between 0 and 30. Hence, there were 30 routes for knowledge contamination to directly or indirectly prior-impregnate the brains of Darwin and Wallace with Matthew's bombshell breakthrough before they replicated it and then each claimed it as their own original idea.

From this example, we can learn how to solve the science problem of the Christian belief claim in the virgin conception of Mary with Jesus. All we need to find out is how many probably fertile human males were in a position to impregnate her.