After the publication of ‘Nullius in Verba: Darwin’s greatest secret’ ’ we must evolve from the current official Darwinist position that none read Matthew’s 1831 book ‘On Naval Timber and Arboriculture’ to incorporate the unique discovery that 52 more likely than not read it, 19 of whom were in Darwin’s and Wallace’s social circle, and that seven naturalists actually cited it – three of whom were at the very epicentre of influence and facilitation of Darwin’s and Wallace’s pre-1858 published work on natural selection.
Click here to visit my BestThinking blog for a sneak preview of the newly discovered naturalists whom Darwin and Wallace knew who read and cited Matthew's book and unique ideas years before Darwin and Wallace replicated them. Discover also one of the six lies Darwin told to achieve primacy over Matthew.
Patrick Matthew was born in 1790 on a farm called Rome beside the River Tay in Scotland
In 1831 Matthew published his discovery of natural selection in a book entitled On Naval Timber and Arboriculture. Amazingly, 28 years later, Darwin and Wallace each claimed to have independently discovered the exact same theory. tDarwin (186)0) claimed no prior knowledge of Matthew’s book.
Contrary to the Darwinist myth that nobody read it, with hi-tech research methods, I have discovered the hidden books in the library that prove Matthew's 1831 book was read and cited by at least seven naturalists before Darwin and Wallace each replicated the unique ideas within it. Three of those naturalists were in Darwin’s inner circle and one, Prideaux John Selby (1842) - in the very year Darwin wrote his first unpublished essay on natural selection - cited Matthew's book many times in his own book on trees and therein commented on his failure to understand Matthew's unique 'survival of the most circumstance suited' notion of 'power of occupancy' of certain trees.
Selby later edited and published Wallace’s (1855) first paper on organic evolution, It is known today as the famous 'Sarawak Paper'. Moreover, thirteen years before that same famous paper was published, William Jardine, who co-edited Wallace's Sarawak paper with Selby, also had Matthew's book in his hands. And he held onto it for some time, because it was Jardine who purchased it in Scotland for Selby.
Surely Selby or Jardine must have mentioned Matthew's unique ideas to Wallace. Because Matthew's ideas were replicated for the very first time in Wallace's Sarawak paper. And both Selby and Jardine edited and published that very paper for Wallace!
Were Darwin and Wallace Schnooks or Crooks?
It is already known - but studiously ignored by Darwinists - that the naturalist and garden designer John Loudon, reviewed Matthew's book and mentioned the originality of his hypothesis ' the natural process of selection'..
When Matthew was just fifteen years of age, Loudon drew the plans for landscaping what are now the parklands of Scone Palace, which neighboured Matthew's birthplace of Rome Farm. It seems likely they would have met. Moreover, Loudon was a friend of William Hooker - the Director of the Royal Botanical Garden's at Kew . William Hooker was also the father of Darwin’s best friend and botanical mentor Joseph Hooker. Loudon , the most influential Victorian Gardiner wrote more than six million words in his lifetime, including proposals for the establishment of Kew Gardens.
Nullius in Verba presents a multitude of similar close social connections between Darwin, Wallace and those naturalists I uniquely discovered to have actually cited Matthew's 1831 book in the published literature.
Disology: Science of Discovery
Take nobody's word for it
Darwin and Wallace committed the greatest science fraud in history. Without Matthew neither Darwin nor Wallace would have written anything original nor worth reading on the subject of evolution and the discovery of it would not have been made until the second quarter of the 20th century, perhaps later. Without Matthew there would not today be a theory called natural selection. We would probably refer to it today as The Development Theory, and would understand it from an entirely different perspective.