Patrick Matthews Law of Natural Selection

bs_bs_banner

Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2015, ••, ••–••.

Patrick Matthew’s law of natural selection

MICHAEL E. WEALE*

Department of Medical & Molecular Genetics, King’s College London, Guy’s Hospital, 8th Floor, Tower Wing, London SE1 9RT, UK

Received 10 December 2014; revised 4 February 2015; accepted for publication 4 February 2015

Patrick Matthew is the little-known ﬁrst originator of macroevolution by natural selection. I review his ideas, and introduce some previously unnoticed writings (catalogued at a new website: http://smarturl.it/patrickmatthew) that clarify how they differ from Darwin’s and Wallace’s. Matthew’s formulation emphasized natural selection as an axiomatic ‘law’ rather than a ‘theory’, a distinction that could still be of use to us today. © 2015 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2015, ••, ••–••.

ADDITIONAL KEYWORDS: Darwinism – history of evolution – history of natural selection.

In 1831, natural selection was a solution to a problem Matthew proves that the idea was accessible to few people thought they had. As Darwin (1861: xiii) someone from outside the usual naturalist circles. At remarked years later: ‘The great majority of natural- the same time, he is proof of how inaccessible that ists believe that species are immutable productions, idea was, for apparently no fourth person thought of and have been separately created’. Jean-Baptiste it in that 27-year period, or appreciated his version of Lamarck (1809) and some earlier transmutationists it, and even Matthew appeared not to understand all had argued for evolution, but convinced few. In par- of its implications. What little discussion there has allel, some writers – for example, Joseph Townsend been of Matthew has tended to revolve around the (1786: 44–45) and, later, Edward Blyth (1835) – had twin questions of whether he deserves intellectual described natural selection as a stabilizing force that priority and whether or not he influenced Darwin and weeded out the unfit and kept species to their Wallace (Eiseley, 1958, 1959; Wells, 1973; Dempster, intended form. A few – in particular, James Hutton 1996; Davies, 2008; Wainwright, 2008; Dawkins, (1794: 497–506) (see also Pearson, 2002), Joseph 2010; Sutton, 2014). I believe these questions have Adams (1814: 32–33) (see also Weiss, 2008), and overshadowed a potentially more fruitful point of William Charles Wells (1818) (although Wells view. It is not that Matthew unfairly lost out to described group selection) – had gone further and Darwin and Wallace – I think their intellectual con- speculated that natural selection could generate new tributions, especially Darwin’s, were much greater varieties or races, but this was ‘microevolution’ occur- and the evidence for Matthew’s influence is weak. ring within distinct species. Rather, we are the ones who are losing out by disre- The great conceptual leap was to see natural selec- garding Matthew’s work. It merits our interest pre- tion as a mechanism for the origin of species, or cisely because it is distinct from that of Darwin or ‘macroevolution’ (as defined here to include specia- Wallace. It is time for a reappraisal of Matthew’s tion). Famously, Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel version of macroevolution by natural selection. Wallace saw this, revealing it in their joint paper to Patrick Matthew (1790–1874) was a Scottish land- the Linnean Society (Darwin & Wallace, 1858). owner with a keen interest in politics and agronomy. However, the first person known to have made this He established extensive orchards of apples and pears leap, 27 years earlier, is also the least famous. Patrick on his estate at Gourdie Hill, Perthshire, and became adept in horticulture, silviculture, and agriculture. Relative to Darwin and Wallace, his outlook was both *E-mail: [email protected] more practical (he was an agriculturist, not a

© 2015 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2015, ••, ••–•• 1 2 MATTHEW’S LAW OF NATURAL SELECTION naturalist) and more ideological (he saw his work as modifications of life, has a power of increase far beyond what directly serving higher socio-political goals). On naval is needed to supply the place of what falls by Time’s decay, timber and arboriculture; with critical notes on those individuals who possess not the requisite strength, authors who have recently treated the subject of swiftness, hardihood, or cunning, fall prematurely without planting (Matthew, 1831) addressed best practices reproducing – either a prey to their natural devourers, or for the cultivation of trees for ship building. For sinking under disease, generally induced by want of nourish- Matthew, this was essential to ensure Britain’s right- ment, their place being occupied by the more perfect of their ful place as ruler of the waves and civilizer of the own kind, who are pressing on the means of subsistence. (Matthew, 1831: 364) world. Matthew was a man of conviction, and much of his book is a forthright criticism of previous writers Table 1 summarizes some of the conceptual simi- on the subject. Part of this criticism rested on his larities and differences between Darwin, Wallace, and natural ‘circumstance-adaptive law’ (his preferred Matthew, with an emphasis on those treated by term for natural selection, although he also referred Matthew. The first three address the preconditions to ‘this natural process of selection’, ‘a principle of required for natural selection to act. The first of these selection’, and ‘selection by the law of nature’). While – over-reproduction leading to a struggle for existence nature always selected the fittest to perpetuate the – is well described both in the passage above and species, he argued that certain tree-cultivating prac- elsewhere in the book. tices selected the less fit and therefore led to long- The second – the need for variation as the raw term deterioration of economically important tree ingredient for natural selection – is described, for species. example, in a section called ‘Infinite variety in what is In parts of the book’s appendix, in amongst opin- called species’ in the book’s contents, which starts: ions on politics, human behaviour, race, and geology, Matthew expanded on his concept of natural selection. The very brevity of Matthew’s exposition is note- The consequences are now being developed of our deplorable worthy. The study of natural selection can be a ignorance of, or inattention to, one of the most evident traits of natural history, that vegetables as well as animals are lifetime’s work, yet the central idea is so simple it can generally liable to an almost unlimited diversification, regu- be written down in a few sentences. So, one thing that lated by climate, soil, nourishment, and new commixture of Matthew’s work gives us is a striking summary of the already formed varieties. (Matthew, 1831, 106) principle of natural selection – arguably more accessible than any equivalent passage from Darwin or The third – heritability – is briefly addressed in the Wallace: book’s appendix when Matthew lists ‘the tendency THERE is a law universal in nature, tending to render every which the progeny have to take the more particular reproductive being the best possibly suited to its condition qualities of the parents’ as an important ingredient that its kind, or that organized matter, is susceptible of, which for natural selection to work. Matthew’s combination appears intended to model the physical and mental or instinc- of environmentally induced variation and heritability tive powers, to their highest perfection, and to continue them is Lamarckian and ultimately flawed, but a proper so. This law sustains the lion in his strength, the hare in her understanding of heredity would come only much swiftness, and the fox in his wiles. As Nature, in all her later with the rediscovery of Mendel’s work.

Table 1. Darwin, Wallace, and Matthew: some conceptual similarities and differences

Item no. Concept Darwin Wallace Matthew

1 Over-reproduction leads to competition ✓✓✓(364, 384) 2 Variation within species ✓✓✓(106, 385) 3 Heritability of traits ✓✓✓(385) 4 Macroevolution by natural selection ✓✓✓(381) 5 Mass extinctions ✗✓✓(383) 6 Spontaneous generation ✗✗✓(383) 7 Single tree of life ✓✓✗ 8 Inheritance of acquired characteristics ✓✗ ✓(385) 9 Progressive evolution ✗✓✓ 10 Designed universal laws ? ✓✓ 11 Intelligent intervention in evolution ✗✓✗

Numbers in parentheses refer to page numbers in Matthew (1831).

The key fourth item – macroevolution by natural this did not arise in a scheme where new life was selection – is covered in an extraordinary section at constantly being generated from inanimate matter the end of the appendix, which is filled with remark- (items 6 and 7 of Table 1). Instead, Matthew presents able speculation and deduction. Matthew perhaps us with a grand unifying theme of a dynamic and added it as an afterthought because, unlike the other energetic universe, constantly creating and evolving sections in the appendix, it neither refers to nor is new life. Even if he did not have all the details referred from any part of the main book – the book’s correct, Matthew’s prose still resonates today: preface remarks simply: ‘The very great interest of the question regarding species, variety, habit, has Does organized existence, and perhaps all material existence, perhaps led him a little too wide’. The necessary consist of one Proteus principle of life capable of gradual preconditions for natural selection to occur are here circumstance-suited modifications and aggregations, without restated and applied to the fossil record as it was bound under the solvent or motion-giving principle, heat or known at the time: light? There is more beauty and unity of design in this continual balancing of life to circumstance, and greater con- . . . in such immense waste of primary and youthful life, those formity to those dispositions of nature which are manifest to only come forward to maturity from the strict ordeal by which us, than in total destruction and new creation. (Matthew, Nature tests their adaptation to her standard of perfection 1831, 384) and fitness to continue their kind by reproduction (Matthew, There is little hard evidence that Matthew’s writings 1831, 385). on evolution influenced others at the time. His book is Matthew argues that his circumstance-adaptive cited by Loudon (1838), Selby (1842), and others for its law would mostly work to keep species in stasis practical advice on timber and arboriculture, but there during periods of environmental constancy (presumed is only one known critique of its evolutionary content, to hold within geological epochs). However, during and the reviewer professed himself unsure of whether periods of change (presumed to occur especially anything original was being said (Loudon, 1832). By between epochs), the same law would act on small 1860, one reviewer remarked that the book ‘is so little isolated groups to effect rapid evolution, thus gener- known that we were not aware of its existence till quite ating the large-scale transformations in fauna and lately’ (Anonymous, 1860). Perhaps not surprisingly flora observed in the fossil record. He concludes: then, only Matthew (1860a) wrote to point out the parallels with his previous work, several months after . . . the progeny of the same parents, under great difference of the publication of On the origin of species. It seems that circumstance, might, in several generations, even become dis- he is an object lesson in the perils of low-impact tinct species, incapable of co-reproduction (Matthew, 1831, publishing. 384). Both then and now, some have questioned whether Matthew was both helped and hindered by writing Matthew originated a version of macroevolution by a quarter-century before Darwin and Wallace. At that natural selection at all (Butler, 1879; Norman, 2013). time, before Lyell’s Principles of geology had gained However, Darwin and Wallace were in no doubt. widespread acceptance, catastrophism prevailed and Darwin publically wrote ‘I freely acknowledge that the transitions between geological epochs were Mr. Matthew has anticipated by many years the assumed to be marked by tumultuous environmental explanation which I have offered of the origin of changes (Cuvier, 1812). Later uniformitarians, includ- species’ (Darwin, 1860a), and also that Matthew ing Darwin, rejected the idea that these transitions ‘clearly saw ... the full force of the principle of natural were real, but our modern view has embraced once selection’ (Darwin, 1861). Wallace (1879) wrote again the notion of real and geologically rapid tran- publically of ‘how fully and clearly Mr. Matthew sitions, accompanied by mass extinction events and apprehended the theory of natural selection, as well large-scale changes in fauna and flora (item 5 of as the existence of more obscure laws of evolution, Table 1, see also Rampino, (2011)). By 1876, Wallace many years in advance of Mr. Darwin and myself’, (1876: 150–151) had also accepted this possibility. and further declared Matthew to be ‘one of the most Matthew’s earlier view is, in some respects, prescient, original thinkers of the first half of the 19th century’. but it also reveals how his version of evolution was However, both asserted that their formulations were very much tied to the physical environment, rather independent of Matthew’s, either by directly denying than to biological co-evolution. previous knowledge of his book (Darwin, 1860a) or by Matthew also espoused spontaneous generation, an describing an independent ‘eureka’ moment (Wallace, idea that had waned by the mid-19th century. There- 1905, 361–363). fore, on the question of a single evolutionary tree of Even if Matthew did not influence Darwin and life, which Darwin cautiously admitted as possible, Wallace, his writings provide a valuable third although not certain, Matthew was silent because point of reference for assessing the impact that

© 2015 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2015, ••, ••–•• 4 MATTHEW’S LAW OF NATURAL SELECTION macroevolution by natural selection might have on He also speculated that natural variation sprung one’s world view. This impact is perhaps best judged from a ‘constructive power’ that was ‘the great attrib- by considering their viewpoints later on in their lives, ute of the Deity’ (quoted in Hallier, 1866). allowing time for reflection and response to their Far from seeing evolution by natural selection as co-originators’ ideas and those of others. All three disproving intelligent design, Matthew saw it as proof originators differed on the big questions of how exclu- surpassing even the renowned Bridgewater Treatises sively did natural selection dictate evolution and on Natural Theology: what role there might be for purposeful design (items 8–11 of Table 1). Both Darwin and Matthew admitted I challenge anything of Bridgwater prize origin, or of any some form of inheritance of acquired characteristics other higher origin, as showing grandeur of design – means to in addition to natural selection (Wallace did not). end – display of infinite wisdom equal, or to be compared to the great self-modifying-adaptive scheme of Nature which I None saw natural selection as the exclusive means of many years ago pointed out in ‘Naval Timber and adaptive evolution, and previously unnoticed writ- Arboriculture’, and which Mr. Darwin has in his recent work ings, mostly found in agricultural journals, help to so ably brought forward. (Matthew, 1860c) clarify Matthew’s views (catalogued for the first time at http://smarturl.it/patrickmatthew). Matthew saw However, there was no place for supernatural inter- natural selection as universal in the sense that it ference in the laws of nature. Those laws were acted everywhere: designed, but their inviolability provided instruction:

The great law of nature in organic life is competition, with a The laws of nature are necessarily inflexible and unchange- variation-power in accommodation to circumstances: a law not able. Wisdom and provision in man depend entirely upon fitted to earth alone, but I have no doubt extended to the Nature’s truth – upon the unalterable security of these laws. whole of the orbs of space that are in a condition to support (Matthew, 1860c) material life. (Matthew, 1860c) However, it was not an exclusive mechanism – he Furthermore, a competitive spirit had been did not think it capable of evolving complex organs: ‘implanted in our nature for wise ends’ (Matthew, 1849). This explains why Matthew adopted views The members of locomotion in the higher vertebrates are akin to Social Darwinism before Darwinism even strikingly similar. Under the law of competitive selection, fins existed, using natural selection to justify his belief in can change to feet, feet to arms, and arms to wings, and vice free-market economics, the rightful superiority of versa, but not this without a preordained capacity. This law some races over others, and the wrongful quashing of guides the organs to improvement, and alters them in accom- competition implied by land tenure, hereditary nobil- modation to circumstances should circumstances change, but ity, and primogeniture. Indeed, Matthew’s concise cannot originate new organs. No modification of this law could passage describing his universal natural law (the first originate the hollow fang of the serpent, so formed as in the quoted passage of this Comment) was simply a pre- forcible insertion to press upon the venom-bag at its root, and amble to illustrate how unnatural and unfit were the so squirt the poison into the bottom of the wound; nor could it plant the rattle of warning on the tail of the most dangerous human laws of entail (inheritance to the first-born snake. (Matthew, 1861) male, regardless of ability) (Matthew, 1831: 364). Wallace shared many views with Matthew. Both Likewise, natural beauty was governed by other believed in a designed, anthropocentric universe, and laws and timing: consequently shared a wonder of its natural beauty and held environmentalist and reformist sensibilities. Competitive selection embraces the line of utility, not of Matthew may have delivered the first-ever warning beauty. This law cannot account for the beauty of nature, on man-induced global mass extinctions, both past especially for flowery vegetable nature (it would seem only and future: begun to be flowery when man, the only organism that we know of, having an extended sense of the beautiful, came to As far back as history reaches, man had already had consid- exist). (Matthew, 1861) erable influence, and had made encroachments upon his fellow Matthew also thought that a vital force emanated denizens, probably occasioning the destruction of many from the sun and drove the progressive evolution of species . . . He has now acquired a dominion over the material higher organisms: world, and a consequent power of increase, so as to render it probable that the whole surface of the earth may soon be Supposing this orb [Earth] to have gradually cooled, a dense overrun by this engrossing anomaly, to the annihilation of cloud of aqueous and other vapour must have existed after life every wonderful and beautiful variety of animated existence, had come to exist, the gradual clearing away of which by which does not administer to his wants principally as labora- condensation and increase of light may account for the pro- tories of preparation to befit cruder elemental matter for gression of being. (Matthew, 1861) assimilation by his organs. (Matthew, 1831, 387–388)

Wallace stands apart for believing that intervention On the origin of species, Wallace (1870: 302) neatly by superior intelligences (the spirit world) was tabulates it, but Matthew encapsulates it by describ- required to explain the inception of life, animal con- ing it as a ‘law’ (Darwin and Wallace preferred sciousness, and the human intellect (Wallace, 1889: ‘theory’). The axioms required for natural selection to 474–478). Neither Darwin nor Matthew advocated be true are themselves observable properties of living special intervention, and privately Darwin was agnos- things: they reproduce, they vary and pass on traits, tic on whether an intelligence had designed the laws they compete for limited resources, and some of their of the universe, deeming it beyond our ken (Darwin, traits influence their ability to do so. This arrange- 1860b, 1863). ment contrasts with, say, special relativity, in which Matthew thought himself rather superior to aca- the key axiom (the universal constancy of the speed of demic scientists – a doer rather than a navel-gazer: light in a vacuum, under all inertial conditions) is neither directly observable nor entailed by observable I have shown that we [farmers] can go ahead of college-bred, phenomena, but rather affirmed by successful tests of closet-taught naturalists, and leave them to follow in our the hypotheses generated by special relativity. wake at the distance of thirty years. This is nothing remark- Natural selection is therefore a certainty, whereas able, as most of them are mere bundles of old-world preju- special relativity is not. It is truly an inescapable law dices. (Matthew, 1861) and this is a valuable starting point for teaching the An excellent example of Matthew’s adversarial atti- concept today. One can question whether natural tude can be seen in his public spat with Baron Justus selection is powerful enough to drive all adaptive von Liebig, one of the pioneers of organic chemistry, evolution (and in different ways, all three originators over the merits of natural vs. artificial fertilizers did just that) but one cannot question natural selec- for maintaining the ‘vegetable mould’ (fertile soil) in tion itself. agriculture (newly discovered details at http:// The ‘Matthew Effect’ describes how discoveries are smarturl.it/patrickmatthew). This sense of superiority disproportionately accredited to the more renowned can even be found in certain back-handed comments scientist (Merton, 1968). The name derives from St from his occasional private correspondence with Matthew’s gospel (‘For unto every one that hath shall Darwin. Matthew wrote that ‘there existed in scientific be given, . . . from him that hath not shall be taken men a strong vis inertiæ & retiring inclination which I away . . .’) but the coincidence is striking. Matthew had no right to disturb’ (Matthew, 1862), and ‘I also was an outsider, but this does not mean that we fear that I am not sufficiently a restricted Naturalist as should keep him out in the cold. His version is brief to be able to enter into the minutiæ of the science’ and incomplete, but we could still benefit from recog- (Matthew, 1871). Perhaps the ultimate back-hander nizing his vision of natural selection as a self-evident was in one of Matthew’s public letters, which contrasts and inescapable principle, as a ‘law’ rather than a his own mercurial top-down approach to Darwin’s ‘theory’. Scientifically, both terms are valid, but in plodding bottom-up one. It seems this connotation was public perception laws are concrete and certain, and lost on Darwin, who approvingly quoted the passage theories less so. We should use the differences in verbatim in his Historical Sketch included in the third Matthew’s vision to our advantage, rather than to edition of On the origin of species (Darwin, 1861: xv): dismiss him. Darwin, the epitome of the cautious and methodical scientific thinker, amassed volumes of cor- To me the conception of this law of Nature came intuitively as roborating evidence, delved deeper into evolutionary a self-evident fact, almost without an effort of concentrated mechanisms, convinced the world of evolution by thought. Mr. Darwin here seems to have more merit in the natural selection, and rightly deserves his primacy. discovery than I have had – to me it did not appear a Wallace, the more unconventional thinker, was a discovery. He seems to have worked it out by inductive reason, great naturalist and also deserves recognition for his slowly and with due caution to have made his way syntheti- contributions. Matthew, the outsider and ideologue cally from fact to fact onwards; while with me it was by a who deduced his idea as part of a grand scheme of a general glance at the scheme of Nature that I estimated this purposeful universe, is the overlooked third man in select production of species as an a priori recognisable fact – the story. We ignore him to our detriment. Despite its an axiom, requiring only to be pointed out to be admitted by brevity, and to some extent because of it, Matthew’s unprejudiced minds of sufficient grasp. (Matthew, 1860b) work merits our renewed attention. Matthew proves that macroevolution by natural selection was, at least in principle, an idea open to ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS anyone who could join the dots. Natural selection is uniquely amenable to being deduced in this way. Ruse I would like to thank Gene Waddell and four anony- (1979) has called this the ‘deductive core’ of natural mous reviewers for their insightful comments and selection. Darwin slowly unfolds it in chapters 2–4 of suggestions, and John Allen for his kind editorial

© 2015 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2015, ••, ••–•• 6 MATTHEW’S LAW OF NATURAL SELECTION assistance. I would also like to thank Mike Sutton Hutton J. 1794. An investigation of the principles of knowl- and Joachim Dagg, two people at opposite ends of the edge and of the progress of reason, from sense to science and ‘plagiarism’ debate, for stimulating discussions and philosophy, Vol. 2. Edinburgh: Strahan & Cadell. useful suggestions. Lamarck J-B. 1809. Philosophie zoologique; ou exposition des considérations relatives à l’histoire naturelle des REFERENCES animaux. Paris: Museum d’Histoire Naturelle (Jardin des Plantes). Adams J. 1814. A treatise on the supposed hereditary prop- Loudon JC. 1832. (attributed) Matthew, Patrick: on naval erties of diseases. London: J. Callow. timber and arboriculture, etc. Gardener’s Magazine and Anonymous. 1860. Notices to correspondents: books. Garden- Register of Rural & Domestic Improvement 8: 702–703. ers’ Chronicle and Agricultural Gazette 1860: 604. Loudon JC. 1838. Arboretum et fruticetum Britannicum; or, Blyth E. 1835. An attempt to classify the ‘varieties’ of the trees and shrubs of Britain. London: Longman & Co. animals, with observations on the marked seasonal and Matthew P. 1831. On naval timber and arboriculture; with other changes which naturally take place in various British critical notes on authors who have recently treated the species, and which do not constitute varieties. The Magazine subject of planting. Edinburgh: Adam Black. of Natural History 8: 40–53. Matthew P. 1849. Improved management of landed property. Butler S. 1879. Evolution, old and new; or, the theories of Gardeners’ Chronicle and Agricultural Gazette 1849: 604. Buffon, Dr. Erasmus Darwin and Lamarck, as compared Matthew P. 1860a. Nature’s law of selection. Gardeners’ with that of Charles Darwin (Op. 4). London: Hardwicke Chronicle and Agricultural Gazette 1860: 312–313. and Bogue. Matthew P. 1860b. The origin of species. Gardeners’ Chroni- Cuvier G. 1812. Recherches sur les ossemens fossiles de cle and Agricultural Gazette 1860: 433. quadrupèdes, où l’on rétablit les caractères de plusieurs Matthew P. 1860c. Origin of species. Farmer’s Magazine, espèces d’animaux que les révolutions du globe paraissent Series 3 18: 30–32. avoir détruites. Paris: Deterville. Matthew P. 1861. Utility of change of place in seed, and still Darwin CR. 1860a. Natural selection. Gardeners’ Chronicle more in life continued by tubers or cuttings. Farmer’s Maga- and Agricultural Gazette 1860: 362–363. zine, Series 3 19: 283–285. Darwin CR. 1860b. Letter to Asa Gray, 22 May 1860. Matthew P. 1862. Letter to Charles Darwin, 3 December Darwin Correspondence Database. Available at: http:// 1862 Darwin correspondence database. Available at: www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/entry-2814 (accessed 29 Nov http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-3843 (accessed 19 Oct 2014). 2014). Darwin CR. 1861. An historical sketch of the recent progress Matthew P. 1871. Letter to Charles Darwin, 12 March 1871 of opinion on the origin of species. On the origin of species, Darwin correspondence database. Available at: http:// 3rd edn. London: John Murray, xiii–xxix. www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-7576 (accessed 19 Oct Darwin CR. 1863. Letter to Joseph Hooker, 29 March 1863 2014). Darwin correspondence database. Available at: http:// Merton RK. 1968. The Matthew Effect in science. Science www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/entry-4065 (accessed 29 Nov 159: 56–63. 2014). Norman A. 2013. Charles Darwin: destroyer of myths. Darwin CR, Wallace AR. 1858. On the tendency of Barnsley: Pen & Sword Books Ltd. species to form varieties; and on the perpetuation of Pearson PN. 2002. In retrospect (review of Hutton 1794). varieties and species by natural means of selection. Nature 425: 665. Journal of the Proceedings of the Linnean Society: Zoology 3: Rampino MR. 2011. Darwin’s error? Patrick Matthew and 45–62. the catastrophic nature of the geologic record. Historical Davies R. 2008. The Darwin conspiracy: origins of a scientiﬁc Biology 23: 227–230. crime. London: Golden Square Books Ltd.. Ruse M. 1979. The Darwinian revolution: science red in tooth Dawkins R. 2010. Darwin’s ﬁve bridges: the way to natural and claw. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. selection. In: Bryson B, ed. Seeing further: the story of Selby PJ. 1842. A history of British forest-trees: indigenous science and the Royal Society. London: Harper Collins, 106– and introduced. London: John van Voorst. 118. Sutton M. 2014. The hi-tech detection of Darwin’s and Wal- Dempster WJ. 1996. Natural selection and Patrick Matthew: lace’s possible science fraud: big data criminology re-writes evolutionary concepts in the nineteenth century. Bishop the history of contested discovery. Papers from the British Auckland, Durham: Pentland Press. Criminology Conference 14: 49–64. Eiseley LC. 1958. Darwin’s century: evolution and the men Townsend J. 1786. A dissertation on the poor laws, by a who discovered it. Garden City, New York: Doubleday. well-wisher to mankind. London: Ridgways. Eiseley LC. 1959. Charles Darwin, Edward Blyth, and the Wainwright M. 2008. Natural selection: it’s not Darwin’s (or theory of natural selection. Proceedings of the American Wallace’s) theory. Saudi Journal of Biological Sciences 15: Philosophical Society 103: 94–158. 1–8. Hallier E. 1866. Die sogenannte Darwin’sche Lehre und die Wallace AR. 1870. Contributions to the theory of natural Botanik. Botanische Zeitung 24: 381–383. selection. London and New York: Macmillan and Co.

Wallace AR. 1876. The geographical distribution of animals; Weiss KM. 2008. Joseph Adams in the judgment of Paris. with a study of the relations of living and extinct faunas as Evolutionary Anthropology 17: 245–249. elucidating the past changes of the earth’s surface, Vol 1. Wells KD. 1973. The historical context of natural selection: London: Macmillan and Co. the case of Patrick Matthew. Journal of the History of Wallace AR. 1879. Review of ‘Evolution, old and new’. Nature Biology. 6: 225–258. 20: 141–144. Wells WC. 1818. An account of a female of the white race of Wallace AR. 1889. Darwinism; an exposition of the theory of mankind, part of whose skin resembles that of a negro, with natural selection. London and New York: Macmillan and some observations on the cause of the differences in colour Co. and form between the white and negro races of men. Two Wallace AR. 1905. My life: a record of events and opinions, essays: one upon single vision with two eyes, the other on Vol 2. London: Chapman & Hall. dew, etc. London: S. Constable & Co., 425–439.