Patrick Matthew
Patrick Matthew (20 October 1790 – 8 June 1874) was a Scottish grain merchant, fruit farmer, forester, and landowner, who contributed to the understanding of horticulture, silviculture, and agriculture in general, with a focus on maintaining the British navy and feeding new colonies. He published the basic concept of natural selection as a mechanism in evolutionary adaptation and speciation in 1831 (i.e. resulting from "positive" natural selection, in contrast to its already, widely known, "negative" role in removal of individuals in the Struggle for Survival), but did not further develop or publicize his ideas. Consequently, when Charles Darwin later  published "On the Origin of Species" in 1859, he and Alfred Russel Wallace were regarded by their scientific peers as having originated (independently of each other) the theory of evolution by natural selection; it has been suggested that Darwin and/or Wallace had encountered Matthew's earlier work, but there is no hard evidence of this. After the publication of "On the Origin of Species", Matthew contacted Darwin, who in subsequent editions of the book acknowledged that the principle of natural selection had been anticipated by Matthew's brief statement, mostly contained in the appendices and "addendum" of his 1831 book  On Naval Timber and Arboriculture. Life. Patrick Matthew was born 20 October 1790 at Rome, on a farm held by his father John Matthew near Scone Palace, in Perthshire. His mother was Agnes Duncan, a relative of Adam Duncan, 1st Viscount Duncan. He was educated at Perth Academy and the University of Edinburgh, but did not graduate, as on his father's death and while only seventeen, he had to take over the responsibilities of managing and running the affairs of a property estate at Gourdiehill near Errol, Perth and Kinross in the Carse of Gowrie, between Perth and Dundee . Over the years he successfully nurtured, cultivated, and transformed much of the estate's farmland and pastures into several large orchards of apple and pear trees, numbering over 10,000. He became an avid proponent as well as interested researcher of both silviculture and horticulture, both of which influenced his growing awareness of the forces of nature. This awareness, along with his own experiences acquired from years of working his own modest estate would later frame a strong base of reference to form his own opinions and theories. Between 1807 and 1831 (when "On Naval Timber and Arboriculture" was published) he  periodically travelled to Europe, sometimes on business, sometimes seeking scientific enlightenment or agricultural or economic advice: a trip to Paris in 1815 had to be cut short when Napoleon returned from Elba. Between 1840 and 1850, Matthew travelled extensively in what is now northern Germany; recognising the commercial potential of Hamburg he bought two farms in Schleswig-Holstein. Matthew married his maternal first cousin, Christian Nicol in 1817, and they had eight children: John (born 1818), Robert (1820), Alexander (1821), Charles (1824), Euphemia (1826), Agnes (1828), James Edward (1830), and Helen Amelia (1833). Robert farmed Gourdiehill in Patrick's old  age, Alexander took over the German interests; the other three sons emigrated, initially to America. Matthew became interested in the colonisation of New Zealand and was instrumental in setting up a "Scottish New Zealand Land Company". At his urging, James and Charles Matthew emigrated to New Zealand, where they set up one of the earliest commercial orchards in Australasia using seed and seedlings from Gourdiehill. John Matthew remained in America, sending botanical tree specimens back to his father; these included (in 1853) the first seedlings known to have been planted in Europe of both the Giant Redwood ("Sequoiadendron giganteum") and  the Coastal Redwood ("Sequoia sempervirens"). A group of trees of these species still thriving near Inchture in Perthshire comes from these seedlings. Matthew gave many more seedlings to friends, relatives and neighbours, and redwoods can be found throughout the Carse of Gowrie; these as well as some elsewhere in Scotland (e.g. at Gillies Hill near Stirling Castle) are thought to have been grown from the 1853 seedlings. His reputation as a local celebrity faded in the twentieth century, when he was remembered as a "character" who at the end of his life became convinced that "someone very dear to his  heart" had become a bird, and "that was the rizzen he wouldna allow the blackies to be shot in his orchard for fear they would shute her...although the blackies were sair on the fruit". Matthew's house, Gourdiehill, fell into disrepair in the 1970s and '80s, and was demolished in 1990 when the grounds became a small housing estate; some of the salvaged stone was incorporated in a rock garden. Work. In managing his orchards, Patrick Matthew became familiar with the problems related to the principles of husbandry in horticulture for food production (and hence, by extension silviculture). Charles  Darwin and natural selection. In 1860, Matthew read in the "Gardeners' Chronicle" for 3 March a review (by Huxley), republished from "The Times", of Charles Darwin's "On the Origin of Species", which said Darwin "professes to have discovered the existence and the "modus operandi" of natural selection, and described its principles". A letter by Matthew, published in the "Gardeners' Chronicle" on 7 April, said that this was what he had "published very fully and brought to apply practically to forestry" in "Naval Timber and Arboriculture" in 1831, as publicised in reviews. He quoted extracts from his book, firstly the  opening words of Note B from pages 364–365 of the Appendix, stopping before his discussion of hereditary nobility and entail. He then quoted in its entirety a section from pages 381 to 388 of the Appendix. This lacked a heading, but in the Contents appeared as "Accommodation of organized life to circumstance, by diverging ramifications". In it, he commented on the difficulty of distinguishing "between species and variety". The change of the fossil record between geological eras implied living organisms having "a power of change, under a change of circumstances", in the same way as the "derangements and changes in  organised existence, induced by a change of circumstance from the interference of man" gave "proof of the plastic quality of superior life" which he called "a circumstance-suiting power". Following past deluges, "an unoccupied field would be formed for new diverging ramifications of life" in "the course of time, moulding and accommodating their being anew to the change of circumstances". He proposed that "the progeny of the same parents, under great difference of circumstance, might, in several generations, even become distinct species, incapable of co-reproduction." He described this as a "circumstance-adaptive law, operating upon the slight but continued  natural disposition to sport in the progeny". Matthew then quoted the opening three paragraphs from Part III of his book, "Miscellaneous Matter Connected with Naval Timber: Nurseries", pages 106 to 108, on "the luxuriance and size of timber depending upon the particular variety of the species" and the need to select seed from the best individuals when growing trees. On reading this, Darwin commented in a letter to Charles Lyell: Darwin then wrote a letter of his own to the "Gardener's Chronicle", stating, As promised, Darwin included a statement about Matthew having anticipated "precisely the same view on the  origin of species" in the third and subsequent editions of "On the Origin of Species", referring to the correspondence, and quoting from a response by Matthew published in the "Gardener's Chronicle". Darwin wrote that. Matthew, Darwin and Wallace are the only three people considered to have independently discovered the principle of natural selection as a mechanism for speciation (macroevolution). Others prior to Matthew had proposed natural selection as a mechanism for the generation of varieties or races within a species: James Hutton suggested the mechanism in 1794 as leading to improvement of varieties, and an 1813 paper by William  Charles Wells proposed that it would form new varieties. In 1835, after Matthew's book, Edward Blyth published a description of the process as a mechanism preserving the unchanging essence of stable species. Matthew's legacy in evolutionary studies. Misconceived claims are made on behalf of Victorian evolutionists, with all the tedious inevitability that was predicted by Stephen Jay Gould in his piece on "Natural Selection as a Creative Force", The equally inevitable rebuttal of these claims tends to require an inordinately disproportionate investment of effort (see Earp 2016 for an explanation), sometimes only concluding after years of counterarguments ("e.g. , Roy Davies' The Darwin Conspiracy: Origins of a Scientific Crime"). Unfortunately, the media coverage that accompanies these revisionist campaigns is the version most likely to be seen and remembered by the public, not the peer-reviewed paper appearing in the scientific literature a year later. The damage is therefore multifarious and insidious, from time lost to the individual, to misinforming the public "en masse". Contrary to the stated intention, the unfortunate outcome of the latest claims made in Matthew's name might very well do more damage than good. Modern claims for Matthew's priority. Although Darwin insisted he had  been unaware of Matthew's work, some modern commentators have held that he and Wallace were likely to have known of it, or could have been influenced indirectly by other naturalists who read and cited Matthew's book. However, there is no direct evidence that Darwin had read the book, and his letter to Charles Lyell stating that he had ordered the book clearly indicates that he did not have a copy in his extensive library or access to it elsewhere. The particular claim that Robert Chambers had read and transmitted Matthew's ideas that are relevant to natural selection  is also not supported by the facts. The article in the "Chambers's Edinburgh Journal" (1832, vol. 1, no. 8, 24 March, p. 63) is not a review but only an abridged excerpt from pp. 8–14 of "On Naval Timber" that amounts to no more than a recipe for pruning and contains nothing of relevance to natural selection. It is headed "ON THE TRAINING OF PLANK TIMBER" and ends with ".— Matthew on Naval Timber." Even if it had been penned by Robert Chambers, this does not mean that he had read or understood, leave alone transmitted, the other passages of  Matthew's book that do contain anything relevant to natural selection. Further, "The Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation" contain nothing of relevance about natural selection. Combining these facts, Robert Chambers had probably not read or received the message about natural selection in Matthew's book, but has surely not promulgated it in the Vestiges, and probably neither in conversations. In subsequent editions of "The Origin of Species", Darwin acknowledged Matthew's earlier work, stating that Matthew "clearly saw...the full force of the principle of natural selection". In a letter to Hooker (22 and 28 October 1865), Darwin  commented that Wells, in an essay "read in 1813 to Royal Soc. but not printed", had applied "most distinctly the principle of N. Selection to the races of man.— So poor old Patrick Matthew, is not the first, & he cannot or ought not any longer put on his Title pages 'Discoverer of the principle of Natural Selection'!." The title page of an 1864 political pamphlet by Matthew stated his claim to be "Solver of the species problem". There is no foundation for assertions that Matthew even had calling cards printed with "Discoverer of the Principle of Natural Selection", which  may have come from Loren Eiseley (1958. Darwin's Century). Rebuttal of claims. Challenges to Matthew's claim to priority, or those made since he died, have essentially made reference to the same issues, that his description of natural selection was not accessible and it lacked lengthier development. Other criticisms have focussed on the differences between Darwin's and Matthew's versions of natural selection, and sometimes Wallace's too ("e.g.", Weale 2015). If Matthew's ideas had made the impact on subsequent evolutionary thinking, as claimed, the signals ought to be there, either during Matthew's lifetime, or Darwin 's. Yet, modern claims for Matthew's priority have been unable to provide evidence for this, that has withstood fact checking. Accessibility and development. Historian of science, Peter Bowler succinctly summarised some of those main reasons given for why Matthew does not deserve priority for natural selection over Darwin and Wallace, Ernst Mayr's opinion was even more clear-cut: Richard Dawkins also grants that Matthew had grasped the general concept of natural selection, but failed to appreciate the significance, nor develop it further, In response to Sutton's e-book, Darwin biographer James Moore said many people came towards  a similar perception during the 19th century, but Darwin was the only one who fully developed the idea: In response to Sutton (2015) Darwin and Wallace scholar, John van Wyhe commented, To coincide with Sutton's presentation to the Carse of Gowrie Sustainability Group, Darwin author, Julian F. Derry sent an open letter, saying, Biological concepts. The History of Science website "Natural Histories" has compiled a comprehensive series of blog posts on Patrick Matthew that have made a close study of his writings, while importantly ensuring an appropriate historical context. The resulting pieces of evidence largely contradict Sutton's claims . This is especially so from a biological context, one that compares and evaluates core differences between Matthew's and Darwin's concepts, especially that relating to relative adaptation (Matthew's "power of occupancy"), and diversification as an adaptive process (Darwin's "principle of divergence"), This exculpates Darwin for the time from his return from the Beagle voyage till 1844. Hence, the period for which there is no evidence that Matthew's ideas are present in Darwin's work, the records of his development of ideas, and expression of those concepts in his writing can be shown to extend from the  time he was leaving for the Beagle voyage, up until the coalescence of his ideas into his cohesive system of evolution by natural selection in 1858. Niles Eldredge, points out the very valid point that seeing Matthew's descriptions at any point during that extended period, would likely have resulted in an integral, preformed model being described by Darwin from the outset, whereas what we actually have in his notes is realisation of the full picture from development of incremental sketches, Analysis of comparative speciation concepts. Sutton's claim that Darwin and Wallace plagiarised evolution by natural selection from Matthew  also has been refuted by Joachim Dagg, Matthew's contemporaries. Accepting these irreconcilable differences in theory, a remaining route has been proposed, by which Darwin may have got to gain knowledge of Matthew's evolutionary ideas, that is, by knowledge being passed along a network of associates, by word of mouth, or an equally indirect pathway, such as via the influence of an editor. Evidence that such a network existed could be found if there was documentation of anyone having discussed Matthew's ideas on evolution. However, there is no single contemporary record of anyone having even recognised any value  in Matthew's concept. Of the three sources to mention the existence of evolutionary content in "On Naval Timber", two were rejections. Darwin's contemporaries. While completing a doctoral thesis on "Disputes of Plagiarism in Darwin's Theory of Evolution" at the University of Zielona Gora, where the journal "Filozoficzne Aspekty Genezy (F.A.G.)" (Philosophical Aspects of Genesis) is based, Grzegorz Malec published a critical review of Sutton (2015), in which the main difficulty of valid identification of communication pathways was discussed, along with observations on Sutton's alternative approach, "Natural Histories" analysed the set of pathways that Sutton claims could  have conveyed information on evolution from Matthew to Darwin and Wallace, also noting the same arbitrary determinism detected by Malec ("above"), they explain that, Natural theology. Writing to Darwin in 1871, Matthew enclosed an article he had written for "The Scotsman" and, as well as wishing that he had time to write a critique of "The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex", expressed the belief that there is evidence of design and benevolence in nature, and that beauty cannot be accounted for by natural selection. Such a belief is mainstream natural theology, and reveals how far  Matthew was from Darwin in realising the potential of evolutionary explanations: for him as well as others, man was the sticking-point. There is little or no evidence that Matthew held these views as a younger man: there is no discussion of a religious nature in "Arboriculture". Socio-political views. Matthew's idea on society were radical for their times. Although he was a landowner, he was involved with the Chartist movement, and argued that institutions of "hereditary nobility" were detrimental to society. It has been suggested that these views worked against acceptance of his theory of natural selection, being  politically incorrect at the time (see Barker, 2001). The more likely reason is that the obscurity of the location hid the ideas from many who would have been interested. Only "after" Darwin's "Origin" did Matthew come forward in a popular journal, the "Gardeners' Chronicle". Matthew also published a book in 1839, "Emigration Fields" (Black, Edinburgh), suggesting that overpopulation, as predicted by Malthus, could be solved by mass migration to North America and the Dominions. Matthew supported the invasion of Schleswig-Holstein by Bismarck in 1864: his pamphlet on the event was denounced by the "Dundee Advertiser". He also supported  the Germans against the French in the Franco-Prussian War (1870–71), a war which marked the final unification of the German Empire and the end of the Second French Empire. In 1870 Matthew became aware of the terrible housing conditions of the workers in Dundee. In a letter to the "Dundee Advertiser" he told readers that the death rate of children under five in the town was 40%, and outlined a blueprint for the redevelopment of the city. The Tay bridge. When the Edinburgh and Northern Railway (E&N) and the Dundee and Perth Railway (D&P) were seeking Parliamentary approval in  1845, it was proposed by their engineers that from Perth both should share a line running along the south bank of the Tay as far as Newburgh, where the D&P would cross to the north bank, and the E&N leave the Tay and head south to a ferry crossing of the Forth. Matthew had been in a very small minority supporting this, and the D&P as built crossed the Tay at Perth. In 1864, when a bridge crossing the Tay at Dundee was proposed, Matthew urged that a bridge at Newburgh was preferable to a bridge at Dundee, a Newburgh  bridge giving much the same reduction in the rail distance between Dundee and the Forth ferry-ports from which passengers could cross to Edinburgh as a bridge at Dundee but doing so by a shorter (and therefore cheaper) crossing of the Tay. He argued the costs of a Dundee bridge were being grossly under-estimated: "To erect a substantial bridge, not a flimsy spectral thing, which might or not vanish as a phantom the first storm, or break down under the vibration caused by a heavy, rapid, moving train, would, in my opinion cost nearly double, and probably much more  than double, the sum the Engineer states; upon this I stake my judgement against that of the Engineer", noting in passing, "from the geological indices, I would expect the foundation to be more regular at Newburgh than at Dundee, consequently better". The financial crisis of 1866 put an end to the 1864 Tay Bridge proposal, but it was revived in 1869. Matthew responded with a series of letters to the Dundee papers arguing for a Newburgh bridge, and advancing all manner of additional arguments against a Dundee bridge; it would have a deleterious effect on silting and tidal scour in  the Firth; it would prevent navigation upstream of it; it would be torn apart by the centrifugal force from heavy trains rapidly descending the curve at its northern end; it was vulnerable to earthquake, a ship colliding with a pier, or to high wind. Matthew's objections were not heeded, and were not persisted in once Parliament had passed the Bill authorising construction of the Tay Bridge. During construction of the bridge some of Matthew's criticisms were borne out: it became apparent that bedrock could not be found at a depth allowing the use of brick piers; the design  had to be modified to use lattice-work iron piers of reduced width, and there was considerable cost overrun. The bridge opened in June 1878 and was destroyed in a storm in December 1879: the lattice work piers supporting the centre section of the bridge ("the high girders") failed catastrophically as a train was crossing the bridge. The high girders and the train fell into the Tay and about seventy-five lives were lost. Whilst it was recalled in the immediate aftermath of the disaster that Matthew had predicted collapse in a high wind as one of the horrible ends  to which a bridge at Dundee could come, the disaster is generally ascribed to defects in the design and manufacture of the lattice work piers introduced into the design well after Matthew's campaign against the bridge. Notes. Notes Citations