DOCSLIB.ORG

Huxley and the Reception of the "Origin" Author(S): Cyril Bibby Source: Victorian Studies, Vol

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Huxley and the Reception of the Huxley and the Reception of the "Origin" Author(s): Cyril Bibby Source: Victorian Studies, Vol. 3, No. 1, Darwin Anniversary Issue (Sep., 1959), pp. 76-86 Published by: Indiana University Press Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3825588 Accessed: 13-08-2018 12:42 UTC JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at https://about.jstor.org/terms Indiana University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Victorian Studies This content downloaded from 150.135.165.110 on Mon, 13 Aug 2018 12:42:05 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms Cyril Bibby HUXLEY AND THE RECEPTION OF THE "ORIGIN" HE MOST IMPORTANT BOOK of its century, Darwin's Origin of ) Species, catalysed a complete rearrangement of ideological pat- m terns over a wide range of human thought. It is an interesting question why the book's impact was so immense. It was partly, no doubt, that its thesis bore so closely on vital matters of belief and speculation; partly the masterly manner in which vast numbers of facts were marshalled into overwhelming array; partly the deceptive bland- ness of style and simplicity of statement which allowed readers to im- agine that they really understood the book. And yet theories of evolu- tion were not new: they had cropped up repeatedly among the Greeks and Romans, and in more recent times had been proposed by both Lamarck and Darwin's own grandfather. Not even the theory of natural selection was entirely new: although Darwin was unaware of it, he had been in some measure anticipated by W. C. Wells in 1813 and in more detail by Patrick Matthew in 1831.1 Why, then, since these earlier evolu- tionists had made comparatively little impression and been but little reviled, was Darwin at once so successful and so abused? It is a fairly sound general rule that excessive indignation and unreasoning abuse arise from fear and insecurity, and, though the Eng- 1 W. C. Wells, Two Essays: One upon Single Vision with Two Eyes; the Other on Dew ... (1818); Patrick Matthew, appendix to Naval Timber and Arboriculture (1831). VICTORIAN STUDIES This content downloaded from 150.135.165.110 on Mon, 13 Aug 2018 12:42:05 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms HUXLEY AND THE "ORIGIN" 77 land of 1859 was calm on the surface, on the level of ideology she was deeply apprehensive. The European revolutions from 1789 on were not forgotten; it was not many years since England had suffered widespread riots and arson; there had recently been the Eureka Stockade revolt in Australia and the Mutiny in India; Napoleon III was at war in Italy. In 1845 Newman had seceded to Rome and given the national church a severe fright; in 1846 the English translation of Strauss's Leben Jesu had brought a shock from another direction; soon the Christian Social- ists were actively spreading novel views; in 1850 came the "Papal Ag- gression"; in 1853 F. D. Maurice's Theological Essays, which led to his ejection from his Chair at London's King's College, gave yet another jolt; in 1858 H. L. Mansel produced his defence of orthodoxy, The Limits of Religious Thought, one effect of which was to remind Huxley of the man in Hogarth's election scene, sawing away his opponent's inn sign without noticing that he himself was sitting on it. There was much to indicate the need for closing the ranks of conventional thought against subversive ideas. This may explain the virulence of some of the opposition to Darwin, but it does not explain all the opposition. To many scientists, including some very eminent ones, the evidence in favour of the trans- mutation of species appeared inadequate to overturn the traditional (and still scientific) view of independent creation. And today, when one usually thinks of evolution in biological terms, it is well to remem- ber that the very word "biology" was coined only in 1813 and that in this context "scientists" must very largely mean "naturalists." For geolo- gists, in particular, the succession of strata in the rocks, each with its characteristic fossil content, was not implausibly explained as the result of a succession of cataclysms and subsequent creations, a view held even by the master-geologist, Cuvier himself. The Pentateuchal myth, arising among a people influenced by the culture of the recurrently flooded valleys of Tigris and Euphrates, could be presented quite credibly as a record (or folk-memory) of the most recent cataclysm. And, when someone as intelligent as Newman could assert that the value of Revela- tion was shown by the fact that without it we should never have been able to discover that Noah had preserved the animals in his ark, it is not surprising that the common view of creation was still that versed by Milton a couple of centuries earlier: The earth obey'd, and straight, Op'ning her fertile womb, teem'd at a birth Innumerous living creatures, perfect forms, Limb'd and full grown. SEPTEMBER 1959 This content downloaded from 150.135.165.110 on Mon, 13 Aug 2018 12:42:05 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 78 Cyril Bibby To the average believer, Darwin appeared to be not simply promul- gating a new scientific theory, but destroying the foundations of belief; and, when a great comparative anatomist like Richard Owen asserted the theory to be untrue, it is not surprising that he and his like were greeted with open arms as scientific advisers to the Establishment. It was fortunate for the Darwinians that Owen was a man too vain to think that he might be mistaken. Instead of admitting that Hux- ley was right and he was wrong in the debate about the degree of similarity between man and ape, Owen lost the opportunity to give way gracefully, and so made his position increasingly untenable by a stub- born refusal to face facts. When the fall came, it was in consequence the more resounding, and the Punch-reading public was treated to a series of cartoons and squibs reflecting the controversy. One, headed "The Gorilla's Dilemma," had this touching first stanza: Say am I a man and a brother, Or only an anthropoid ape? Your judgment, be't one way or t'other, Do put into positive shape. Must I humbly take rank as quadruman As OWEN maintains that I ought: Or rise into brotherhood human, As HUXLEY has flatt'ringly taught? (XLIII [18 Oct. 1862], 164) Owen's defeat was reflected in another set of verses, headed "Monkeyana" and addressed from the Zoological Gardens over the sig- nature of "Gorilla": Then HUXLEY and OWEN, With rivalry glowing, With pen and ink rush to the scratch; 'Tis Brain versus Brain, Till one of them's slain; By Jove! it will be a good match! ... Next HUXLEY replies That OWEN he lies And garbles his Latin quotation; That his facts are not new, His mistakes not a few, Detrimental to his reputation. To twice slay the slain By dint of the Brain (Thus HUXLEY concludes his review), Is but labour in vain Unproductive of gain, And so I shall bid you "Adieu!" (XL [i8 May 1861], 2o6) VICTORIAN STUDIES This content downloaded from 150.135.165.110 on Mon, 13 Aug 2018 12:42:05 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms HUXLEY AND THE "ORIGIN" 79 For the lower orders, less likely to smile over Punch than to chortle over the vigorous burlesque pamphlets of the time, there was "A report of a SAD CASE Recently tried before the Lord Mayor, OWEN versus HUXLEY, In which will be found fully given the Merits of the great Recent BONE CASE" (1863), with page after page of this sort of thing: Policeman X- "Well, your Worship, Huxley called Owen a lying Orthognathous Brachycephalic Bimanous Pithecus; and Owen told him he was nothing but a thorough Archencephalic Primate." Lord Mayor - "Are you sure you heard this awful language?" It is difficult today to understand the enormous interest taken by the public of the 186o's in science, when scholars and streetsweepers alike knew that Huxley had proved right and Owen wrong. As Huxley won battle after battle, he rapidly became science personified and the most influential scientist there has ever been in public affairs; his own immense personal prestige seemed like a guarantee that Darwin's theory was correct. Yet, when powerful and varied ideological interests are defeated so quickly and so completely as in this case, there are likely to be con- tributory causes deep down below the surface appearance of things. It is true that Darwin's patient accumulation of evidence provided a much more powerful brief than any predecessor had prepared. (Huxley noted, "Mr. Darwin abhors mere speculation as nature abhors a vacuum. He is as greedy of cases and precedents as any constitutional lawyer."2), but not even the scientific world would have been so quickly convinced had it not been already in a sense awaiting conviction. Below the public surface of geological orthodoxy, firmly based on catastrophism, there had never ceased to flow many private rivulets of doubt.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Presidential Address Commemorating Darwin
    Presidential Address Commemorating Darwin The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation Browne, Janet. 2005. Presidential address commemorating Darwin. The British Journal for the History of Science 38, no. 3: 251-274. Published Version 10.1017/S0007087405006977 Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:3345924 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#LAA BJHS 38(3): 251–274, September 2005. f British Society for the History of Science doi:10.1017/S0007087405006977 Presidential address Commemorating Darwin JANET BROWNE* Abstract. This text draws attention to former ideologies of the scientific hero in order to explore the leading features of Charles Darwin’s fame, both during his lifetime and beyond. Emphasis is laid on the material record of celebrity, including popular mementoes, statues and visual images. Darwin’s funeral in Westminster Abbey and the main commemorations and centenary celebrations, as well as the opening of Down House as a museum in 1929, are discussed and the changing agendas behind each event outlined. It is proposed that common- place assumptions about Darwin’s commitment to evidence, his impartiality and hard work contributed substantially to his rise to celebrity in the emerging domain of professional science in Britain. During the last decade a growing number of historians have begun to look again at the phenomena of scientific commemoration and the cultural processes that may be involved when scientists are transformed into international icons.
    [Show full text]
  • Did Darwin Plagiarize His Evolution Theory? — Bergman
    Countering the critics Did Darwin plagiarize his evolution theory? — Bergman this book de Maillet Did Darwin suggested that fish were the precursors of birds, mammals, plagiarize his and men.7 Yet an- other pre-Darwin evolution theory? scientist was Pierre- Louis Maupertuis Jerry Bergman (1698–1759) who in 1751 concluded in his Some historians believe that all of the major contri- book that new species butions with which Darwin is credited in regard to may result from the Courtesy TFE Graphics Courtesy evolution theory, including natural selection, actually fortuitous recombin- were plagiarized from other scientists. Many, if not ing of different parts most, of Darwin’s major ideas are found in earlier of living animals. works, especially those by his grandfather Erasmus At about this Darwin. Charles Darwin rarely (if ever) gave due same time the French credit to the many persons from whom he liberally encyclopedist, Denis Erasmus Darwin (1731–1802) ‘borrowed’. This review looks at the evidence for Diderot (1713–1784), this position, concluding that much evidence exists taught that all animals evolved from one primeval organ- to support this controversial view. ism. This prototype organism was fashioned into all those types of animals alive today via natural selection. George Louis Buffon (1707–1788) even expounded the idea at length that ‘the ape and man had a common ancestry’ and, A common (but erroneous) conclusion is that Charles further, that all animals had a common ancestor.8 Macrone Darwin conceived modern biological evolution, including concluded that, although Darwin put evolution on a firmer natural selection.1 An example of statements commonly scientific basis found in the scientific literature indicating this would be the ‘ … he was hardly the first to propose it.
    [Show full text]
  • On Knowledge Contamination: New Data Challenges Claims of Darwin’S and Wallace’S Independent Conceptions of Matthew’S Prior-Published Hypothesis
    Filozoficzne Aspekty Genezy — 2015, t. 12 Philosophical Aspects of Origin s. 1-39 http://www.nauka-a-religia.uz.zgora.pl/images/FAG/2015.t.12/art.05.pdf Mike Sutton On Knowledge Contamination: New Data Challenges Claims of Darwin’s and Wallace’s Independent Conceptions of Matthew’s Prior-Published Hypothesis Introduction “Of all crimes, the worst is the theft of glory”, wrote the poet Robert Frost. 1 Since life is short but science-fame immortal, such victimisation is hardly trivial, which means “glory theft” in science is a strangely unexplored topic. 2 To seek to begin to address the issue, this article focuses upon one such “plagiarism problem”, which has for the past 155 years dogged Charles Darwin’s claim to independent discovery of the theory of macroevolution by natural selection. Par- ticular attention is paid in this article to revealing and explaining the reaction of the scientific community to various claims made that Darwin relied heavily on the work and ideas of other naturalists, but concealed, or else played-down, the significance of their influence on what he referred to proprietarily as “my the- ory” on 43 pages of the Origin of Species. 3 1 See Robert FROST, “Kitty Hawk: Christmas Poem”, Atlantic Monthly November 1957. 2 See Mike SUTTON, “The Hi-Tech Detection of Darwin’s and Wallace’s Possible Science Fraud: Big Data Criminology Re-Writes the History of Contested Discovery”, Papers from the British Criminology Conference 2014, vol. 14, http://britsoccrim.org/new/volume14/pbcc_2014_ sutton.pdf (07.03.2016). 3 See Charles R.
    [Show full text]
  • There Is No Darwin's Greatest Secret
    Filozoficzne Aspekty Genezy — 2015, t. 12 Philosophical Aspects of Origin s. 325-331 http://www.nauka-a-religia.uz.zgora.pl/images/FAG/2015.t.12/art.10.pdf Grzegorz Malec There Is No Darwin’s Greatest Secret Mike SUTTON, Nullius in Verba: Darwin’s Greatest Secret, Thinker Media [First Digital Edition], Kindle Edition 2014. Mike Sutton is an English criminologist. In 2001, he became Reader in Criminology at Nottingham Trent University. He is also a co-founder of the In- ternet Journal of Criminology and a laureate of the British Journal of Criminol- ogy Prize for his research on hackers. Sutton is the author of the book entitled Nullius in Verba: Darwin’s Great- est Secret. His book was published in 2014 by Thinker Media, an independent digital publisher, and was intended for the Kindle reader device. Sutton under- lines that his book was “rejected by all the major science publishers” not be- cause of its substantive value, 1 but because it shows that Charles Darwin (1809- 1882) does not deserve to be called “the greatest Revolutionist in natural history of this century, if not of all centuries”. 2 Nullius in Verba contains twenty long chapters, but the most important is the fourth chapter entitled “Nullius in Verba Charles Darwin. Because Many Naturalists Did Read”. The main aim of Sutton’s book is to convince his readers that Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace (1823-1913) independently plagiarized Patrick Matthew’s (1790-1874) prior-published idea of evolution by natural selection from his 1 See Mike SUTTON, Nullius in Verba: Darwin’s Greatest Secret, Thinker Media [First Digi- tal Edition], Kindle Edition 2014, loc.
    [Show full text]
  • The Flamingo's Smile
    The Flamingo’s Smile TFS 1. The Flamingo’s Smile ............................................................................................ 1 TFS 2. Only His Wings Remained ..................................................................................... 3 TFS 3. Sex and Size ........................................................................................................... 6 TFS 4. Living with Connections ........................................................................................ 7 TFS 5. A Most Ingenious Paradox ..................................................................................... 8 TFS 6. Adam’s Navel ........................................................................................................ 9 TFS 7. The Freezing of Noah .......................................................................................... 11 TFS 8. False Premise, Good Science ............................................................................... 12 TFS 9. For Want of a Metaphor ....................................................................................... 14 TFS 10. Of Wasps and WASPs ....................................................................................... 16 TFS 11. Opus 100 ............................................................................................................ 17 TFS 12. Human Equality is a Contingent Fact of History ............................................... 20 TFS 13. The Rule of Five ...............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • On Knowledge Contamination: New Data Challenges Claims of Darwin’S and Wallace’S Independent Conceptions of Matthew’S Prior-Published Hypothesis
    Filozoficzne Aspekty Genezy — 2015, t. 12 Philosophical Aspects of Origin s. 167-205 http://www.nauka-a-religia.uz.zgora.pl/images/FAG/2015.t.12/art.05.pdf Mike Sutton On Knowledge Contamination: New Data Challenges Claims of Darwin’s and Wallace’s Independent Conceptions of Matthew’s Prior-Published Hypothesis Introduction “Of all crimes, the worst is the theft of glory”, wrote the poet Robert Frost. 1 Since life is short but science-fame immortal, such victimisation is hardly trivial, which means “glory theft” in science is a strangely unexplored topic. 2 To seek to begin to address the issue, this article focuses upon one such “plagiarism problem”, which has for the past 155 years dogged Charles Darwin’s claim to independent discovery of the theory of macroevolution by natural selection. Par- ticular attention is paid in this article to revealing and explaining the reaction of the scientific community to various claims made that Darwin relied heavily on the work and ideas of other naturalists, but concealed, or else played-down, the significance of their influence on what he referred to proprietarily as “my the- ory” on 43 pages of the Origin of Species. 3 1 See Robert FROST, “Kitty Hawk: Christmas Poem”, Atlantic Monthly November 1957. 2 See Mike SUTTON, “The Hi-Tech Detection of Darwin’s and Wallace’s Possible Science Fraud: Big Data Criminology Re-Writes the History of Contested Discovery”, Papers from the British Criminology Conference 2014, vol. 14, http://britsoccrim.org/new/volume14/pbcc_2014_ sutton.pdf (07.03.2016). 3 See Charles R.
    [Show full text]
  • Darwin's Greatest Secret Exposed
    Filozoficzne Aspekty Genezy — 2016, t. 13 Philosophical Aspects of Origin s. 1-10 ISSN 2299-0356 http://www.nauka-a-religia.uz.zgora.pl/images/FAG/2016.t.13/art.01.pdf Mike Sutton Darwin’s Greatest Secret Exposed: Response to Grzegorz Malec’s De Facto Fact Denying Review of My Book This is a response to Grzegorz Malec’s “There Is No Darwin’s Greatest Secret”, 1 a review of my book Nullius in Verba: Darwin’s Greatest Secret. 2 Veracity regarding the data of how great discoveries are made is important. The history of scientific discovery informs us of how scientists conduct their re- search. It teaches us how to avoid errors, when not to give up, and how informa- tion of all kinds can be capitalised upon to make further quantum leaps in great thinking. In that regard, it is obvious that we need a veracious history of the dis- covery of natural selection, which is, arguably, the unifying theory of biology. This response to Malec’s grossly misleading review of my book is written in the interests of veracity about the history of discovery of the unifying theory of biology. The title of my book serves well as a guide against Malec’s misleading re- view of the book itself. The Latin phrase essentially means that we should not just take someone’s word alone for it that something is true. This philosophy is MIKE SUTTON, PH.D. — Nottingham Trent University, e-mail: [email protected]. © Copyright by Mike Sutton & Filozoficzne Aspekty Genezy. 1 See Grzegorz MALEC, “There Is No Darwin’s Greatest Secret”, Filozoficzne Aspekty Genezy 2015, vol.
    [Show full text]
  • Darwin. a Reader's Guide
    OCCASIONAL PAPERS OF THE CALIFORNIA ACADEMY OF SCIENCES No. 155 February 12, 2009 DARWIN A READER’S GUIDE Michael T. Ghiselin DARWIN: A READER’S GUIDE Michael T. Ghiselin California Academy of Sciences California Academy of Sciences San Francisco, California, USA 2009 SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS Alan E. Leviton, Ph.D., Editor Hallie Brignall, M.A., Managing Editor Gary C. Williams, Ph.D., Associate Editor Michael T. Ghiselin, Ph.D., Associate Editor Michele L. Aldrich, Ph.D., Consulting Editor Copyright © 2009 by the California Academy of Sciences, 55 Music Concourse Drive, San Francisco, California 94118 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. ISSN 0068-5461 Printed in the United States of America Allen Press, Lawrence, Kansas 66044 Table of Contents Preface and acknowledgments . .5 Introduction . .7 Darwin’s Life and Works . .9 Journal of Researches (1839) . .11 Geological Observations on South America (1846) . .13 The Structure and Distribution of Coral Reefs (1842) . .14 Geological Observations on the Volcanic Islands…. (1844) . .14 A Monograph on the Sub-Class Cirripedia, With Figures of All the Species…. (1852-1855) . .15 On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (1859) . .16 On the Various Contrivances by which British and Foreign Orchids are Fertilised by Insects, and on the Good Effects of Intercrossing (1863) . .23 The Different Forms of Flowers on Plants of the Same Species (1877) .
    [Show full text]
  • Zentrale Themas
    Biologie für Geologen Gerard Versteegh Karin Zonneveld Zentrale Themas • Leben • Evolution • Ökologie • Zusammenhänge • Fragen I Leben beinhaltet..... • Organisation • Fortpflanzung • Wachstum und Entwicklung • Energieverbrauch • Homeostase (Selbstinstandhaltung) • Evolutionäre Anpassung • Wechselwirkung mit Umwelt Ökologie studiert.... • Wechselwirkung von Lebewesen zwischen einander und mit der Umwelt Evolution ist.... • Genetische veränderung ? Evolutionstheorie • was ist eine wissenschaftliche Theorie ? Wissenschaftliche Methode Wahrnehmung Frage sehr oft Hypothese - Vorhersage Experiment + Wahrnehmung Evolutionstheorie • sehr oft bestätigte Hypothese • Wahrnehmungen: Vergleichende Anatomie • Morphologie • Embryologie Fossilien Biogeographie Taxonomie und Systematiek Co-evolution http://waynesword.palomar.edu/pljune99.htm#thicket http://waynesword.palomar.edu/pljune99.htm#thicket Style length in figs varies Female fig-wasps enter the fig with female flowers ripe through the ostiole They pollinate the female flowers They lay eggs in the short-style ovaries by putting the ovipositor through the style Ovipositor is too short for the long-style flowers to reach Fig and fig wasp-larvae develop simultaneously. Male emerges just before male flowers open Male fertilises female Male activity increases CO2 in fig Males eat themselves out CO2 level drops Females become active Male flowers are ripe Females collect pollen Females escape Female enters new fig flower with ripe female flowers Female flowers become pollinated..... Weiblen and Busch, 2002. Mol. Ecol. 11:1573-1578 Fig. 2 Evolutionary patterns of host association in pollinating mutualists and nonpollinating parasites of Ficus subgenus Sycomorus sensu lato. Species associations between pollinating Ceratosolen and Sycomorus are pairwise, in contrast to Apocryptophagus, where multiple unnamed parasite species may attack a single host species and some host species are not attacked at all. Cospeciating nodes inferred from reconciled trees are marked by dots.
    [Show full text]
  • Review of Nonscience Returns
    Book review Nonscience Returns by Brian J. Ford Reviewed by Mike Sutton I love this book. It is brilliant. I own a copy of the original book and now proudly own the second edition. Nonscience is essentially a book about what is wrong with our universities, the anti-science incurious money grubbing managerialists running them and many of the incurious and conformist so-called “experts” who work in them. Many examples are given of bad science presented as good. Ford’s myth busting in that regard is so toe curlingly excruciating at times that I had to put the book down. Sometimes to laugh, other times to curse and most times just to sit and think. Astoundingly shocking facts that I was unaware of just keep coming at you from out of the pages like rat-a-tat-tat machine gun fire over the deep trenches of previous credulity. Whatever impression this book review gives you hereafter I whole heartedly recommend you buy Nonscience and read it carefully on mythbusting and general veracity seeking grounds. Prepare to be shocked! There will be few spoilers in this review. I am not giving out the very best of Ford’s myth busting examples for free. But I will let slip just a few others as a taster. In a world that is increasingly polluted by fake news, serial lying politicians and incompetent science “experts” and historians of science, Nonscience (Ford pronounces it rather like nonchalance) is a concept after my own brain. It has essentially the same meaning as ‘dysology’, another word we surely need to add to our rationally sceptical lexicon if we are to stand any chance of not joining the zombie horde of credulous fake-fact believing celebrity TV “expert” presenters with their beaming beatific grins and their incuriously faithful fan base.
    [Show full text]
  • The Overlooked Third Man 20 April 2015
    The overlooked third man 20 April 2015 book, published in 1831, addressed best practices for the cultivation of trees for shipbuilding, but also expanded on his concept of natural selection. "There is a law universal in nature, tending to render every reproductive being the best possibly suited to its condition that its kind, or that organized matter, is susceptible of, which appears intended to model the physical and mental or instinctive powers, to their highest perfection, and to continue them so. This law sustains the lion in his strength, the hare in her swiftness, and the fox in his wiles." (Matthew, 1831: 364) The horticulturist who came up with the concept of In 1860, Matthew wrote to point out the parallels 'evolution by natural selection' 27 years before with his prior work, several months after the Charles Darwin did should be more widely publication of On the origin of species. Darwin acknowledged for his contribution, states a new publically wrote in 1860 "I freely acknowledge that paper by a King's College London geneticist. Mr. Matthew has anticipated by many years the explanation which I have offered of the origin of The paper, published in the Biological Journal of species", while Wallace wrote publically in 1879 of the Linnean Society, argues that Patrick Matthew "how fully and clearly Mr. Matthew apprehended deserves to be considered alongside Charles the theory of natural selection, as well as the Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace as one of the existence of more obscure laws of evolution, many three originators of the idea of large-scale years in advance of Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • The Hi-Tech Detection of Darwin's and Wallace's Possible Science Fraud
    Papers from the British Criminology Conference © 2014 the authors and the British Society of Criminology www.britsoccrim.org ISSN 1759-0043; Vol. 14: 49-64 Panel Paper The hi-tech detection of Darwin’s and Wallace’s possible science fraud: Big data criminology re-writes the history of contested discovery Mike Sutton, Nottingham Trent University Abstract Priority for discoveries is awarded to those who are first to publish. If a scholar writes claiming to have discovered something or originated a theory that has been earlier published, or presented in public by another who got their first, then the peer review process, professional and public disapproval is relied upon to identify and correct the self-serving irregularity. Thereafter, the pretender to the throne of discovery is expected to retract and apologise. If there is evidence that such a counterfeit originator had prior knowledge of their supposedly independent discovery being first discovered by another, the professional repercussions are likely to be catastrophic. This article is about the devastating Big Data facilitated 2014 discovery that the world’s most celebrated and studied natural scientist Charles Darwin, and his lesser known associate Alfred Russel Wallace, more likely than not committed the world’s greatest science fraud by apparently plagiarising the entire theory of natural selection from a book written by Patrick Matthew and then claiming to have had no prior-knowledge of it. Key Words: science fraud; plagiarism; Darwin; Matthew Introduction Contested knowledge was a major theme of the 2014 British Society of Criminology Conference where this paper was first presented. Dealing with that topic as regards the discovery of the theory of natural selection, this paper reveals important new circumstantial evidence supporting the contention that it is now, arguably, more likely than not that both Charles Darwin (Darwin and Wallace, 1858; Darwin, 1859) and Alfred Wallace (Wallace, 1855; Darwin and Wallace, 1858) plagiarised the prior-published 49 Papers from the British Criminology Conference, Vol.
    [Show full text]