Biographical Portrait PATRICK MATTHEW— FOREST GENETICIST (1790–1874) BY JOHN E. BARKER uring the 1600s and 1700s, degraded best possibly suited to its condition ..... Dforests around many European As Nature, in all her modifications of towns had led to localized wood shortages life, has a power of increase far beyond and development of widespread concern what is needed……those individuals regarding the poor forest conditions. who possess not the requisite strength, Strong pressure arose for the development swiftness, hardihood, or cunning, fall of ways in which to improve management prematurely without reproducing ... of such forests. This led to the develop- ment during the 1700s and 1800s of what The same principle was put forth by Darwin is today, the science of forestry. While and Wallace twenty-seven years later. forestry had its roots in the practical skills W. J. Dempster has published an inter- of the earlier forest artisans, something esting book which gives us insight into some more was required. Foresters of the day of the details of Matthew’s life and charac- were characteristically empiricists who ter.3 Patrick Matthew was born in 1790 in based their activities on recipe-like forest Scotland near Dundee. His parents were practices. A different approach was taken relatively well-to-do farmers and as a result, by the cameralists who attempted to gen- he was able to obtain a good education, eralize practices based on scientific analy- apparently attending Edinburgh University sis. It was a period of lively debate ....the knowledge of the art and the although he did not receive a degree. Instead between these two groups as foresters power of communicating that knowl- he returned to the family estate at Gourdie everywhere took up the challenge of edge, are of so different a character ...... Hill in 1807 to manage the large family improving forest management. that those write who cannot act and apple and pear orchards where he no doubt, Much of the credit for developing a sci- those who can are incompetent to became aware of the influence of heredity entific basis for forestry is attributed to write.—a sentiment directly attrib- and variation during his cross breeding and early German foresters of that period such utable to Heinrich Cotta.2 selection activities there. as von Zanthier, Pfeil, Cotta, Hartig. There Matthew had difficulty in reconciling were many others whose contributions Matthew also pointed out the deleterious the Linnaean concept of immutable species were significant and received recognition. effects of dysgenic selection (high-grad- with his observation that species differences In one case, however, a truly remarkable ing) on the inherent quality of the forests. are often difficult to define or as he stated contribution was made which has gone He outlined, very clearly, the principles of “which certainly under culture, soften into virtually unnoticed. natural selection and further, applied this one another.” This observation led him to Patrick Matthew, a Scottish forester theory to practices influencing the genet- speculate on the origin of species. By inter- from Errol, on the Firth of Tay, published ic qualities of forests. Interestingly, his preting the geological record as giving evi- a book, Naval Timber and Arboriculture,1 in book was published eleven months before dence for environmental changes, and by 1831, presenting his views on a range of Darwin sailed on the Beagle. applying his direct observations that species forestry practices of the day. His book, in The most interesting and unique parts under domestication could change under general, was a summary of the forestry of the book dealt with what Matthew artificial selection, Matthew stated: practices of the early 1800s, practices called: which Matthew found to be ‘imperfect Is the inference then unphilosophic, that and inaccurate”. His view of why this was ... a law universal in Nature, tending to living things which are proved to have a so was, in his words, render every reproductive being as the circumstance-suiting power—a very 64 FOREST HISTORY TODAY | SPRING/FALL 2001 slight change of circumstance by culture With regard to one of these papers on nience with which their seed could be inducing a corresponding change of what is termed Darwin’s Theory of procured; ... May we, then, wonder that character—may have gradually accom- Natural Selection, but which theory was our plantations are occupied by a sick- modated themselves to the variations of published by me about 30 years before ly short-lived puny race, incapable of the elements surrounding them … The Darwin (honourably acknowledged in supporting existence in situations progeny of the same parents, under great his last edition by Darwin) at a time where their own kind had formerly difference of circumstance, might in sev- when man was scarcely ready for such flourished ... eral generations, even become distinct thoughts, surely I had the best right to species, incapable of co-reproduction. be heard on this subject. Yet others were He even went so far as to suggest that allowed to speak upon it, and its par- some form of seed certification might be His book was received with quite mixed ent denied to do so.9 desirable by advocating: feelings judging from the published reviews. One of these disclaimed any par- For whatever reasons, the scientific estab- That nurserymen should attest the vari- ticipation in his laws of nature4, another lishment of the period ignored Matthew’s ety of their timber plants, sowing no dismissed them as pert nonsense5, while a contribution. seeds but those gathered from the largest, third received them as original contribu- It is curious that Matthew did not pur- most healthy, and luxuriant growing tions.6 Perhaps the most accurate indica- sue his ideas on natural selection further. trees.... tion of the book’s reception is found in one After publishing Naval Timbers & Arbori- of Matthew’s letters.7 He mentions a uni- culture, he apparently lost interest in the Matthew was a forester who both wrote versity professor who said that if he were topic. Perhaps it was because of the intel- and practiced, in accordance with the to bring such ideas before his class he would lectual climate of the time but he believed Cotta dictum, but his ideas have not been be likely to be placed in the pillory. that no direct proof was possible in one widely recognized or acknowledged. It is His work generally appears to have had man’s lifetime and was content to accept perhaps timely to restate the values of his little impact within the scientific commu- his theory as an axiom10 from which prop- contribution to forestry and science in nity of the day. When Darwin and Wallace er forestry procedures could be derived, general. ■ proposed their ideas on the origin of species rather than emphasize it’s evolutionary in 1858, Matthew claimed priority for the aspects. In the years following 1831, he idea.8 Darwin freely acknowledged this moved on to other interests and in 1839, John Barker is F.R.B.C. Chair in Silviculture claim (I freely acknowledge that Mr. Matthew published a second book, Emigration at the University of British Columbia, has anticipated by many years the explanation Fields,11 which emphasized the benefits of Vancouver, B.C. which I have offered of the origin of species...) emigration to countries similar to Great but denied any prior knowledge of the book Britain (particularly New Zealand) as a NOTES either by him or by any other naturalist with means of spreading British influence whom he was acquainted. This may have around the globe. 1. Matthew, Patrick. 1831. On Naval Timber and been because much of the material was pre- Matthew used his ideas to formulate a Arboriculture—with critical notes on authors sented in an appendix of Matthew’s book number of recommendations for improve- who have recently treated the subject of planting. or because the title Naval Timbers held little ment of silvicultural practices. He espoused Edinburgh : Adam Black. 391 pps. 2. Forest History Today, Fall 2000. Forest History attraction for a naturalist and he had sim- principles that are still valid and form a Society. p.27–28. ply not bothered to read it. central theme in the forest genetics and 3. Dempster, W.J. 1983. Patrick Matthew and In addition to the evolutionary aspects silviculture we practice today. The poor- Natural Selection. Paul Harris Publishing, of his ideas, Matthew had extended his ness of the practices of his time may have Edinburgh.156 pps. arguments on natural selection to include been recognized earlier by others but his 4. United Services Journal, No. 33, August, 1831, what might be called a “social survival of arguments against such practices, a direct p.457 the fittest” and violently attacked the laws out-growth of his precocious Darwinian 5. Quarterly Review, Vol. 49, 1833, p.126 of entail and hereditary nobility, arguing concepts, were certainly original. The fol- 6. Louden’s Gardener’s Magazine, Vol 8, 1832, that the laws of inheritance were stran- lowing quote illustrates this point. p.702 gling the abilities of highly capable peo- 7. The Gardener’s Chronicle and Agricultural ple who happened to be in the wrong ... man is influential in preventing dete- Gazette, April 21, 1860, p.368 social class. Since most influential natu- rioration, by careful selection of the 8. The Gardener’s Chronicle and Agricultural ralists of the period were likely members largest or most valuable as breeders; but Gazette, April 7, 1860, p. 312 of the social class that he was attacking, in timber trees the opposite course has 9. Dempster, W.J. 1983. Patrick Matthew and such content would hardly have encour- been pursued.