An occasional series on eminent Scots unjustly ignored or forgotten
Patrick Matthew, farmer, fruit grower, horticulturist and original thinker
From the minute we were entranced by a bug on a rug, or wondered why blackbirds are black and gulls are white and live by the sea, we were told an old bearded man took a long journey on a sailing ship called the ‘Beagle’, and explain it all in his Origin of the Species – Charles Darwin. What a pity he was too slow to acknowledge his theory came from a Scottish farmer, Patrick Matthew. Alfred Russel Wallace was no better at telling the truth. It was not Darwin or Wallace who presented an original theory – it was Matthew.
A can of wriggling worms
Let me deal with Wallace here and now. Wallace claimed he had no prior knowledge of Matthew’s discovery. In recent times, investigations prove Wallace did have sight of Mathew’s work. Readers should acquaint themselves with the full story of this outrageous plagiarism in the research of Dr Mike Sutton, ‘Nullius in Verba’, an expose of Darwin and Wallace’s secret, a spotlight on the shameless role of the Royal Society.
The test is not who thought of natural selection first, but who published it first and described it accurately. There’s no getting away from it, that honour belongs to Matthew.
Wallace had lots of time to study Matthew’s papers before publishing his in 1855, Matthew’s theories published over twenty years earlier, in 1831. It’s quite a coincidence both Wallace and Darwin called their ideas ‘Natural Selection’, a term coined by Matthew as ‘the natural process of selection’.
Who was Patrick Matthew?
The more one reads of Matthew, the more one likes him. “Every Scottishman has a pedigree” said Sir Walter Scott, and he was right. Matthew was born in 1790, the second son of a line of distinguished gentlemen farmers. They farmed in the Carse of Gowrie from the sixteenth century, a fertile area between Perth and Dundee.
He was educated at Perth Academy. His name next appears in Edinburgh University Library Matriculation Index in 1804-05 attending the classes of Professor Gregory who held the chair of Medicine. He also attended classes in chemistry. His studies were interrupted by the death of his father, and he returned to help his mother develop the vast orchards they held at Gourdiehill. In many regards, Matthew, like Robert Burns, was a nationalist.
Before he published his now renowned book on tree culture, he appears to have travelled extensively in Europe making friends among fruit and wine growers that he met. It was his friendship with a German orchard farmer that saw his revolutionary work laid before Darwin lest Darwin took all the credit.
Patrick Matthew was a Chartist, a believer in the reform of Westminster. He canvassed against the abolition of monopolies, repeal of the Corn Laws, against hereditary titles and wealth, and in favour of free trade. He wrote letters to the Dundee Advertiser on botany and natural selection. There is recorded evidence he tried to raise the subject of evolutionary selection at a meeting of the British Society for the Advancement of Science (the villain is always ‘British’), but his proposal for the day’s agenda was suppressed by the visiting English chairman W. Sharpley.
His two sons Charles and James emigrated to New Zealand and set up the first commercial fruit orchards there, the seeds from Gourdiehill. Young trees were also sent in barrels. Like their father to them, they passed on their enthusiasm for hybridising.
A Perthshire farming friend wrote of Matthew: “The Laird of Gourdiehill was somewhat aloof, outspoken when the occasion demanded, but was a kindly, studious, and well-read man who believed in neither God nor the Devil!”
Matthew died in 1874, said to be buried in Errol cemetery. I doubt Darwin heard of his passing, such is the penalty of the pioneer that I know so well from my own work in Scotland. What is fairly certain is, both Darwin and Wallace read his work and lifted it piecemeal as the core of their theories, each assuming a Scottish author of an obscure book would never be cited as the originator of the origin of the species.
How, when, where?
In the autumn of 1831, shortly after Darwin sailed to the Galapagos Islands in the Beagle, Matthew published his book in Edinburgh and London that laid out his theory of natural selection under the title, Naval Timber and Arboriculture.
To this rather orthodox but erudite piece of tree arboriculture there is included an extraordinary appendix. Matthew writes of his theories on ‘the origins of species and varieties’ summed up the origin of the species in a few sharp sentences. Matthews had good cause later to remind Darwin of its existence when it became clear to him that Darwin must have read his work but had not acknowledged it anywhere.
Though it took coaxing, Darwin eventually acknowledged Matthew’s work existed before his. He waited until the second edition of his book, but studiously omitted to offer Matthew the fame of discovering the connection between nature and the survival of the fittest and the most adaptive. “I apologise to Mr Matthews for my entire ignorance of his publication”. Darwin’s weak excuse was that Matthew had lost meaning by scattering his theory among chapters – a lie. The Royal Society has yet to correct the historical record.
Matthew’s work was read by the few, Darwin’s by the many, boosted by subsequent severe scientific controversy, receiving the endorsement of British scientific establishment only after a raging battle over God versus Nature. Biologist and anthropologist, Thomas Henry Huxley famously defended Darwin’s ideas in open debate, bulldog fashion. Matthew found no need to travel out of his country to discover natural selection, nor a hero to defend him. He saw and studied it all around him in Scotland.
Darwin, unlike Matthew, had taken care to publish his work with quasi-religious hypocrisy attached to divert denunciation from the Church of his day. (The ruse did not work.) In this he was influenced by another Scot of his day, Robert Chambers. Chambers earlier work suggested The Creator laid out the animal and plant kingdoms like a carpet, that then allowed higher forms of life to evolve from lower forms. It was if The Almighty was too lazy to do it all himself, scattering a pile of bones on the ground like a voodoo man to see how they foretold the future of Earth.
Matthew felt no need to appease the Church, and rejected Chamber’s ideas. He practised natural selection in fruit tree growing, saw the regeneration of trees before his very eyes as it happened, tasted it in better apples and pears. The Hand of God had nothing to do with the varieties he paired.
‘Naval Timber and Arboriculture’
Mathew’s book Naval Timber and Arboriculture deals to an extent with rural economy, and in an age when tree growing was of paramount interest to British shipbuilders, the British government perpetually at war with its European seafaring neighbours.
The Appendix is divided into six parts:
The First Note deals with sea power and territorial acquisition. Matthew saw and deplored how the British state used the law of the strongest in its imperialistic quest to acquire and ravage foreign territories. The Second Note outlines the laws of Nature, the law that ‘sustains the lion in its strength, the hare in its swiftness, and the fox in its wiles.’ Adapt or die. Matthew related that maxim radically to politicians, to ‘selection anew’, if stock is to improve. The Third Note, like the second, is way ahead of its time. It deals with immigration and how it can invigorate a species. The Fourth Note deals with extreme opposites, good and evil, war and peace and imperialism. The Fifth Note deals with the register of shipping tonnage on the principles of ship construction.
The Sixth Note is a geological discussion on the features of the Firth of Tay. From his observations he concludes, rightly, that Holland was joined to Scotland at one time, later raising the level of the sea and shaping our coastline. His liberated mind, free of religious dogma, averred there was sufficient evidence around to explain geological differences and features. In this section Matthew introduces the dynamics of geology to explain the evolution of life on earth.
“The destructive liquid currents, before which the hardest mountains have been swept and comminuted into gravel, sand and mud, which intervened 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 a new diverging ramification of life, which, from the connecting 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 deposits of regular specific character.”
Few scientists anywhere in the world, let alone Europe, Darwin included, were as clear, precise, or as radical as Matthew’s assessment of the history of the earth. It would be astonishing that he faded so quickly into obscurity were it not for the negative influence of the English scientific community, those with the most status dismissing his ideas as ‘merely a lucky summary’, yet he was regarded in highest respect by his Scottish and English arboriculture peers.
Plant growers in the eighteenth century were well aware of segregation and hybrid vigour, and Matthew realised it was present in all living things. It took Darwin twenty years of collecting data from his travels and then in the form of letters sent from others to put all that together and come up with a theory.
The unnatural process of selection
Though Darwin admitted Matthew had understood natural selection years before him, Wallace was a lot less honourable. In his Contributions to the Theory of Natural Selection (1870), Wallace is disparaging about Matthew’s discovery. “They certainly propound the theories of natural selection but Matthew made no further use of the principle, and so failed to see its wide and immensely important applications.” That’s some inflated ego at work, or perhaps the wrath of a deflated ego.
Wallace could not point to any earlier mention of natural selection than Matthews. The first mention of the book arrived in the Gardener’s Magazine of 1835 when it reviewed Matthew’s book. For him to brush aside Matthew’s discovery as if skin flakes is damn dishonest. To secure respect and immortality, Wallace made sure his name would always be attached to the coattails of Darwin.
The problem Matthew caused for himself was espousing his political views in the midst of his natural selection theory, and that included his applause for the French revolution. The British establishment did not like that one bit. In fact, Matthew took it for granted everybody understood natural selection existed, but liberté, égalité, fraternité were far more important to attain than any endorsement of his work by the Royal Society. Consequently, he lost interest in the former and pursued democracy by the latter.
For my part, a Scot who dislikes his country robbed of due credit for originating anything, learning fast from the fabrications of the British state that keep Scotland servile, I add that we should beware of those who turn fallacious statements into unshakeable truths by dint of their perceived status, repetition, and the passage of time.
‘Discoverer’ of the evolution of natural selection must be removed from Darwin’s claim.
****************************************
NOTES:
1: This essay is a work in progress.
2: Nullius in Verba – is the motto of the Royal Society.
3: Sources: (a) E. Blyth – an attempt to classify the varieties of animals; (b) R. Chambers – The Vestigies of the Natural History of Creation; (c) F. Darwin – Letters of Charles Darwin Vol 3; (d) J. Gloag – Loudon’s England; (e) T.H. Huxley – Vestiges of the Natural History of Selection; (f) P. Matthew – Naval Timber and Arboriculture; (g) W.J. Dempster – Matthew and Natural Selection; (h) Dr M. Sutton – Nullius in Verba; (i) A.R. Wallace – Contributions to the Theory of Natural Selection.
4: More first rate analysis here: britsoccrim.org/volume14/pbcc_2014_sutton.pdf …
5: And here: nauka-a-religia.uz.zgora.pl/index.php/pl/czasopismo/46-fag-2015/921-fag-2015-art-05 …
6: The history of cartographer and explorer Dr John Rae is not dissimilar to the treatment of Patrick Matthew: https://wp.me/p4fd9j-1pt
Grouse Beater 
Naturally I’d never heard of Patrick Matthew, but I see the Britannica has a piece on him confirming that he indeed published prior to both Darwin and Wallace. It seems he was also a bit of an agitator, (Chartist) arguing for such outlandish ideas as the reform of parliament. No doubt that went down well in British Establishment circles.
Meanwhile, the scientific establishment are more interested in whether Darwin or Wallace or both jointly discovered the theory with a bit of mud being thrown at both of them for intriguing or worse. So poor Matthew is ignored. It was ever thus in science with those of lowly status being ignored. Women, for instance, have frequently been relegated to the status of “clerks” in scientific discoveries, while the men, who merely signed their names at the bottom of the paper, gained the plaudits.
Yet another example, Graham. of how a colonised country loses out on the most basic of things, and yes, women often find themselves mentioned in the page bottom notes when in fact they were the driving force in scientific discovery.
“Learn something new every day.” I just did. Many thanks, GB.
It is an interesting journey for me too. I knew of Matthew’s discovery but until I researched things, I didn’t know of all of the unsavoury political intrigue among the scientific community. For that skinny, Sutton’s book is the one to buy.
The more I learn the more I realise that I am pretty ignorant. I accept responsibility for much of that but also feel that so much of our history, our writers, our achievements have been (deliberately) hidden and obscured from us. The treatment of Matthew is yet another example of this.
Disinterest in, or suppression of, a nation’s culture is par for the course by the colonial power.
Fascinating! Cheers, GB.
Brilliant informative article. I shall never again drive the A90 between Perth and Dundee without a thought for Patrick Matthew.
A number of honest contemporary biologists and historians troubled by the sidelining of Matthew have complained of late over the establishment’s treatment of him, and some quite recently when encountering ignorant commentary by the media. What sticks in one’s craw is how mealy-mouthed Darwin and Wallace were told to acknowledge Matthew’s pioneering work.
Thank you. Keep up the great work!
Thankyou GB for another enlightening article on Scotland’s history.
You’re welcome. 🙂
I will read this later, hadn’t heard of him either, so not surprised. I have been trying to compile a list of Scots scientists in particular who have been sidelined, ignored and mostly actually written out of history. In all areas of science Scotland was instrumental in discovering and inventing.
What you find is that those who perhaps studied or worked in Scotland, but who were English born, often are awarded some recognition, if not in fact a statue, on Scotland’s streets.
Anyone ever see a statue to James Hutton? The ‘father’ of geology, who discovered that the earth was indeed more than 6000 years old, the first person to prove it!
Ever see a plaque about John James Waterston, for his amazing innovative work on Kinetic theory? No.
Here’s a snippet of what he did. http://everything.explained.today/John_James_Waterston/
Also, partially recognised perhaps, was http://www.darcythompson.org/about.html
I even thought that Thomas Telford was English until a couple fo years ago! Given that the town of Telford is named after him, and that there is literally no commeration of him in Scotland to speak of, except for Telford college which has changed it’s name.
Hell, Telford’s achievements are massive! I only discovered he built the amazing Dean Bridge in Edinburgh when looking at what he had achieved. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Thomas-Telford
The list of Scottish scientists and inventors, who you will never have heard of is very long indeed.
More work to do on this when time allows.
Good examples, ArtyHetty. I have Hutton down for a future subject, but as you point out, the list is almost endless. (I’ve a female next.) Our artists are just as ignored, though many were as good if not better than their European counterparts.
Many thanks for this blogpost. Matthew’s grave has now been found and you can visit it on the Patrick Matthew trail in the Carse of Gowrie. That and more news can be found on the Patrick Matthew Website: https://patrickmatthew.com/Latest%20news.html
I think that only proud Scottish people are going to be able to get the facts of this matter into the orthodox history of scientific discovery and plagiarising science fraud. Perhaps Scotland should start with its GCSE Biology – and cease teaching and assessing students on the basis of proven fallacies that Darwin is the originator of the theory Matthew prior published in full and Darwin’s and Wallace’s friends and influencers cited before either of those replicators penned a word on the topic in their private notebooks and private essays and and later publications.
Thanks Grouse. It is interesting to look at what has been achieved and how, or if it has been acknowledged that those who were instrumental in innovative and pioneering projects were Scottish.
There is a great site now called, ‘Museum of Scottish Shale’ it’s online but also actual museum is out at New Lanark. On reading some of the articles, and there are many, I read that at ‘Wardend OIl Works’ there was a Scottish man, Robert Maclaurin, who invented a process whereby, he developed a process to manufacture smokeless fuels, ‘and a trial plant equipped with Maclaurin retorts, were installed at Glasgow Corporation’s Dalmarnock gas works, in about 1923, which produced a solid smokeless fuel, gas and a crude oil’. Not sure about copyright so can’t share the page as yet.
Try searching for him online, no mention anywhere at all!
The whole site is really fascinating though.
Regarding Scotland’s transport infrastrucure, it was only ever minimally invested in and built by Scotland’s colonial British masters, to trasnport sheep around Scotland’s stolen land, and to then also take Scotland’s hugely abundant reources and products out of the country.
You can find some short films on Scotland’s massive industry and transport, arts etc, and even politics ( some about oil but most ‘not available’) on the National Library of Scotland’s ‘moving image’ archive. All pretty much in copyright so do not share anywhere. Another fascinating insight into how Scotland has been royally screwed by the British National colonial state.
Look forward to the next article Grouse.
Have a good weekend all!
Ps, On the subjest of artists too, I went to a talk at the National Gallery of Scotland when the Beyond Carravagio’ exhibition was being held. The reason Scotland does not have a Carravagio painting, was because, the curators rejected an offer to have an amazing painting of his for a few ‘Guineas’. ‘The Taking of Christ’.
They decided to take a hugely inferior painting instead, by one of Caravaggio’s followers, so the painting by him was eventually bought by Dublic National gallery. Makes you wonder why, because anyone with one iota of artistic knowledge would know that the Carravagio was a masterpiece by a genuis artist, would they not, or, maybe it was an oversight, a very bad decision anyway.
Here is a story about the painting, though it doesn’t mention what we were told at the talk at the gallery, that it was rejected by the NGS.
https://listeningtoart.org/03.07/
This excellent site is published by William Denton.
Thank you, Dysology. I shall add that fact to the essay.
Thank you for this, as they say every day is a school day. I had previously believed that Darwin had stolen from Wallace, now, well, I have much more reading to do. More power to your pen Sir! Thanks again.
One of sciences great hijacking stories, Alisdair. 🙂
Thank you, for the history lesson. I found the article truly enlightening, I had never heard of Patrick Matthew, I suspect he is one of many our history lessons did not include.
There’s a powerful stage play in that confrontation.
Here is another amazing Scottish srtist, who was ignored, and it is relevant re Darwin.
https://www.lindahall.org/patrick-syme/
FYI,
“His name next appears in Edinburgh University Library Matriculation Index in 1804-05 attending the classes of Professor Gregory who held the chair of Medicine.” – This is a namesake from Newbigging who ended up an army surgeon in Bengal where he died 25 years later.
“He also attended classes in chemistry.” – this 1808 entry is likely another namesake, given the family assertion that university ended upon John Matthew’s death in 1807.
To be fair to Dr Sutton, which I doubt you’re capable of, he doesn’t give much credence to either in his book.
Of university life: I have always thought of Matthew as a practical and curious man rather than an earnest and cloistered academic, but I did check the University records for my own research and the name is correct in all spellings.
In any event, there is no doubting Darwin flipped-flopped over how much he knew of Matthew’s theories and was rather too mean-spirited in giving his work full value. Those qualities don’t point to an honourable individual. Wallace was even more reprehensible in the way he treated Matthew. Dr Sutton has attempted to set the record straight.
Incidentally, I am aware of your years of persistence denigrating Dr Sutton’s research. I’d be obliged if you did not bring that obsessiveness to my essay pages, and that includes sending prescribed attenuated rebuttals by spam as if academic work fit for a Nobel Prize.
Should you misunderstand me, let me emphasise my meaning – it is a shot across your bows.
I will have to brow beat my colleague Dr. Mike Sutton a bit for not informing me of this thread.
After all … you would think that my being the 3rd Great Grandson of Patrick Matthew and having supplied him over several years with …shall we say… rather no small abundance of pieces of information in support of his Patrick Matthew research that he could have at least brought such an excellent thread to my attention.
It’s nice to actually start seeing some appreciation for who Patrick Matthew Actually was.
There is no doubt in my mind that more recognition of his genius is not far behind. I seriously doubt that the few older generational Royal Societal archaists, like David Atinburgh, when passing of old age, will have adequately prepared the RS newbies to withstand the coming onslaught of questioning. Questioning from an increasing surge to regain heritage and priority among an ever growing awakening to the obvious facts; not only Scotsmen of Science but colonial men of non English science backgrounds worldwide were displaced intentionally by the Secret Brotherhood that permeated both Societies of that age … and still doing so today.
Now then moving on … it was my pleasure to have stumbled onto this thread quite by accident.
Addressing you directly … Sir: Grouse Beater … I must say just how pleased I was to see your response to our Dubious friend always hiding in the bushes usually draped in a surgical mask. We refer to him as our blundering Masked Highwayman. My God !!!…is he ever going to publish that damn book of his? He’s been threatening to do so for years.
Of course who would want to go out to dinner with him just to receive his personal progress reports personally at the prices he was going to charge people, promising a personally signed copy when it did eventually get published. A shot over his bow is too good for our Masked Bandit friend. A swift kick in the arse hypothetically speaking would be more fitting …which Mike Sutton …again hypothetically speaking did rather well once upon a time.
Humor does bring rejoicing at times and this is one of those times. I’m sure he was dragging his tail with your shot over the bow…probably crawling back to his friend Georgie who is the Archivist for the Wallace papers. Sincerely hope you are not hesitant to publish my response, but your thread has really made my day.
And by the way would you help see to it that one of your followers …(a Mr. Ian McEwan )… is informed that he should on one of his next travels on the A-90 between Perth and Dundee at least stop at Inchture and see the marvelous double row of California Giant Sequoias that Patrick Matthew planted in 1853.
This is only a small remnant (about 60 tree ) of about 350 t 400 Giant Sequoias trees that were actually planted …most of the rest having been removed years later to make way for the A- 90 highway. That is another story of Glory theft of some of Patrick Matthew’s other actual works…but this time one that was properly reversed hat was also covertly carried out by another member of Charles Darwin’s inner circle of friends and associates.
You can get all of this information by checking either directly with Dr. Sutton’s patrickmatthew.com website or the Carse of Gowrie Sustainability Group’s website or contacting Fiona Ross the CoGSG Chair. In October 2017 They the CoGSG dedicated a Memorial Trail (approx, 13 Km ) beginning at P.M.’s burial site in the Errol Church Cemetery going in two directions towards Perth on one stretch and Dundee on the other. The inchture Giant Sequoias is part of the Patrick Matthew Memorial Trail. I and Dr. Sutton were the guest speakers for the Memorial Dedication.
Howard L. Minnick
Major, Corps of Engineers
United States Army ( Ret. )
Botanist Range Conservationist
& 3rd Great Grandson of Patrick Matthew
Welcome, Howard.
This site and the essay is fortunate to catch your special attention. And you are owed grateful thanks for your literate contribution. I hope you will recommend this site to friends and relatives, though mostly concerned with Scotland’s future as well as its past. 🙂
Thanks in return … but while I have your current attention please note on your long range planner the Date of 20 October 2020.
We will be celebrating the 230th anniversary of Patrick Matthew’s 1790 birth which took place at Old Rome on the Grounds of Scone Palace which was the actual farmstead location now long removed. It was just south of the present Dundee Polo and Derby Grounds which Dr. Sutton and I were able to locate and had permission to search using some old maps.
Most of the several day celebrations will actually take place in Errol or at the Grounds of Megginch Castle where I will be staying. Dr. Sutton has previously accepted my personal invitation to be there and I think it only fitting that yourself and party should also be extended same. You might however have to reveal your true Identity however.
There are a lot of interesting connections within the regional territory around Errol and within the Carse that I think will be of interest to you. Some of those can be found in the references previously mentioned in my previous posting.
Again thank you for posting my comments
That’s a diary date and a date to advertise. Many thanks, Howard.
Just for the record. I did email my good friend Howard Minnick about this blog back in June 2019, before he found it independently.
Hi Howard – see email you missed, below.
It will be good to catch up when next we meet in Scotland. I hope there will be more haggis, good whisky dancing and a piper. Look Forward to meeting up with your family again. Hopefully Elaine and Eleena will be coming up for the next gathering of the clan.
From: mike sutton
Sent: Saturday, June 15, 2019 1:24 PM
To: minnichelmsdeep@yahoo.com
Subject: Might be of interest
Hi Howard. You might like this https://grousebeater.wordpress.com/2019/06/09/patrick-matthew-the-natural/comment-page-1/?unapproved=8144&moderation-hash=40a99c974a683b615b1e1adf89bb1cb4#comment-8144
Patrick Matthew – the Natural
An occasional series on eminent Scots unjustly ignored or forgotten From the minute we were entranced by a bug on a rug, or wondered why blackbirds are black and gulls are white and live by the sea…
grousebeater.wordpress.com
He never let’s me get away with anything…no slack whatsoever !!! What’s he going to be like when gets yo be my age !!! ???
For the historical record of how malicious harassing Darwinites have sought to re-bury the facts I unearthed about Darwin’s and Wallace’s lies and plagiarizing science fraud by glory theft of the Scot Patrick Matthew’s prior published complete theory of evolution by natural selection, with the Big Data IDD method, I have written a blog on just some of their activities with a link to the Patrick Matthew website containing publicly accessible archived files of their unethical harassment behaviour. This data will be used by future generations of researchers as a fully evidenced and independently verifiable example of what happens when here is an unwelcome paradigm change in science and he history of scientific discovery.
The blog post is here: https://patrickmathew.blogspot.com/2020/01/idiot-darwin-footwasher-cultists-get.html
The web page is here https://patrickmatthew.com/Book%20Reviews.html
A peer reviewed article on the Big Data IDD method is here: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/7/4/66
A timeline of the reactions to Matthew’s 1831 bombshell breakthrough is here: https://patrickmatthew.com/timeline-of-darwin%27s-and-wallace%27s-science-fraud-by-plagiarism-.html
The latest intrigue in this story of the world’s greatest science fraud by plagiarism is that the Royal Society (the organisation that awards Darwin Medals for those who parrot the myth of Darwin’s original genius) has plagiarised Brian J. Ford’s research. Moreover, the Biological Journal of the Linnean Society (the direct descendant of the Linnean Journal that first published Darwin’ and Wallace’s plagiarising papers in 1858) has repeat plagiarised my myth-busting research on who actually (as opposed to the Victorian science establishment myth of none) cited Matthew’ pre-1858. Why have these acts occurred? Is it because Ford and I have both published peer reviewed papers on Darwin’s plagiarism of Matthew?
You can read the full story on these latest anti-science events here: https://patrickmathew.blogspot.com/2020/08/an-open-letter-to-royal-society-and.html
Important update for any proud Scots interested in how the English scientific establishment stole and continues to publish associated science fraud facilitating and enabling disinformation on Patrick Matthew’s (1831) origination of the complete theory of evolution by natural slection years before Darwin or Wallace jotted a note down on the topic in so much as a private notebook: https://curtis-press.com/product/science-fraud-darwins-plagiarism-of-patrick-matthews-theory-by-mike-sutton/