Patrick Matthew

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Patrick Matthew

Patrick Matthew (20 October 1790 – 8 June 1874) was a Scottish landowner and fruit farmer, who contributed to 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 of evolution in an appendix to his 1831 book On Naval Timber and Arboriculture, but failed to develop or publicise his ideas concerning natural selection. Consequently, when Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species, 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 firm 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 in the appendix of his 1831 work.


Patrick Matthew was born 20 October 1790 at Rome, 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 somewhat modest but significant property estate at Gourdiehill 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.[1]

Between 1807 and 1831 ( when he published "On Naval Timber and Arboriculture" ) 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.[1]

Matthew married Christian Nicol in 1817,[1] 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.[citation needed] 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.[2] 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 semperiverens). A group of trees of these species still thriving near Inchtures in Perthshire come 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.[citation needed]


Naval Timber and Arboriculture[edit]

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).

In 1831 he published his book, On Naval Timber and Arboriculture: With Critical Notes on Authors who Have Recently Treated the Subject of Planting.[3] The book discussed at length how best to grow suitable trees for the construction of the Royal Navy's warships. He considered the task to be of great importance, as the navy permitted the British race to advance. Matthew noted the long-term deleterious effect that culling only the trees of highest timber quality from forests had on the quality of timber.

The topic changed to "Concerning our Marine, &c." for pages 130 to 137 of the book.[4] Here Matthews promoted "a system of universal free trade", with the "absolute necessity of abolishing every monopoly and restriction of trade in Britain", particularly the "insane duty on the importation of naval timber and hemp." In Part IV of the book, pages 138 to 359, he wrote critical reviews assessing what other authors had published on tree cultivation.[5]


In an Appendix, pages 363 to 391 of the book, Matthew discussed assorted topics: Note A was about the nautical basis of the British Empire: "It is only on the Ocean that Universal Empire is practicable – only by means of Navigation that all of the world can be subdued or retained under one dominion."[6]

In "Note B. On hereditary nobility and entail,"[7] he objected to feudal privilege perpetuated by entail under Scots law. Like other Radicals of the time and educational background, he drew on a concept of self-transforming ascent from below in transmutation of species to justify his political opposition to aristocratic control of society:[8]

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. As Nature, in all her modifications of life, has a power of increase far beyond what is needed to supply the place of what falls by Time's decay, those individuals who possess not the requisite strength, swiftness, hardihood, or cunning, fall prematurely without reproducing—either a prey to their natural devourers, or sinking under disease, generally induced by want of nourishment, their place being occupied by the more perfect of their own kind, who are pressing on the means of subsistence. The law of entail, necessary to hereditary nobility, is an outrage on this law of nature which she will not pass unavenged ....[9]

In the appendix he elaborated on comments in the main text on how artificial selection—the elimination of trees of poor timber quality from the breeding stock—could be used to improve timber quality, and even create new varieties of trees. He extrapolated from this to what is today recognised as a description of natural selection. Although his book was reviewed in several periodical publications of the time, most notably by John Louden in 1832, the significance of Matthew's insight was apparently lost upon his readers, as it languished in obscurity for nearly three decades.[10]


The United Service Journal and Naval and Military Magazine published an extended review in the 1831 Part II and 1831 Part III numbers of the magazine; it praised Matthew's book in around 13,000 words, highlighting that "The British Navy has such urgent claims on the vigilance of every person as the bulwark of his independence and happiness, that any effort for supporting and improving its strength, lustre, and dignity, must meet with unqualified attention." The review did not mention the appendix to the book.[11]

The Edinburgh Literary Journal of 2 July 1831 wrote "This is a publication of such great promise, and paltry performance, as ever came under our critical inspection. From its title.... it will probably attract readers, but the intelligent among them will suffer considerable disappointment in the perusal, as we must say that there are not ten pages of really new matter in the volume....".[11]

In 1832 a review in the horticultural Gardener's Magazine, published by John Claudius Loudon, noted Matthew's argument "that the best interests of Britain consist in the extension of her dominion on the ocean; and that, as a means to this end, naval architecture is a subject of primary importance; and, by consequence, the culture and production of naval timber is also very important. He explains, by description and by figures, the forms and qualities of planks and timbers most in request in the construction of ships; and then describes those means of cultivating trees, which he considers most effectively conducive to the production of these required planks and timbers." The review noted that Matthew listed suitable forest trees, described the relative merits of each, and also devoted 222 pages to critical reviews of other publications about timber. It said that "An appendix of 29 pages concludes the book, and receives some parenthetical evolutions of various extraneous points which the author struck upon in prosecuting the thesis of his book. This may be truly termed, in a double sense, an extraordinary part of the book. One of the subjects discussed in the appendix is the puzzling one of the origin of species and varieties; and if the author has herein originated no original views (and of this we are far from certain), he has certainly exhibited his own in an original manner."[12][13]

The Quarterly Review of April–July 1833 focussed on the book's coverage of timber decay and the failure of the Navy Board to do "something efficacious" about rot, proposing "that a rot-prevention-officer wood physician should be appointed to each vessel of war". It said the book was "on the whole, not a bad one". According to Matthew, there was also a review in The Metropolitan Magazine.[14]

Charles Darwin and natural selection[edit]

In 1860, Matthew read in the Gardeners' Chronicle for 3 March a review (by Huxley[15]), 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.[16]

He then quoted in its entirety a section from pages 381 to 388 of the Appendix.[17] This lacked a heading, but in the "Contents" appeared as "Accommodation of organized life to circumstance, by diverging ramifications".[7] 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."[16]

"The self-regulating adaptive disposition of organised life, may, in part, be traced to the extreme fecundity of Nature, who, as before stated, has, in all the varieties of her offspring, a prolific power much beyond (in many cases a thousandfold) what is necessary to fill up the vacancies caused by senile decay. As the field of existence is limited and pre-occupied, it is only the hardier, more robust, better suited to circumstance individuals, who are able to struggle forward to maturity, these inhabiting only the situations to which they have superior adaptation and greater power of occupancy than any other kind; the weaker, less circumstance-suited, being prematurely destroyed.[16]

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.[16][18]

On reading this, Darwin commented in a letter to Charles Lyell:

Now for a curious thing about my Book, & then I have done. In last Saturday Gardeners' Chronicle, a Mr Patrick Matthews [sic] publishes long extract from his work on "Naval Timber & Arboriculture" published in 1831, in which he briefly but completely anticipates the theory of Nat. Selection. I have ordered the Book, as some few passages are rather obscure but it, is certainly, I think, a complete but not developed anticipation! Erasmus always said that surely this would be shown to be the case someday. Anyhow one may be excused in not having discovered the fact in a work on "Naval Timber".[19]

Darwin then wrote a letter of his own to the Gardener's Chronicle, stating,

I have been much interested by Mr. Patrick Matthew's communication in the Number of your Paper, dated April 7th. I freely acknowledge that Mr. Matthew has anticipated by many years the explanation which I have offered of the origin of species, under the name of natural selection. I think that no one will feel surprised that neither I, nor apparently any other naturalist, had heard of Mr. Matthew's views, considering how briefly they are given, and that they appeared in the appendix to a work on Naval Timber and Arboriculture. I can do no more than offer my apologies to Mr. Matthew for my entire ignorance of his publication. If another edition of my work is called for, I will insert a notice to the foregoing effect.[20]

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.

Unfortunately the view was given by Mr. Matthew very briefly in scattered passages in an Appendix to a work on a different subject, so that it remained unnoticed until Mr. Matthew himself drew attention to it in the 'Gardener's Chronicle,' on April 7th, 1860. The differences of Mr. Matthew's view from mine are not of much importance: he seems to consider that the world was nearly depopulated at successive periods, and then re-stocked; and he gives, as an alternative, that new forms may be generated "without the presence of any mould or germ of former aggregates." I am not sure that I understand some passages; but it seems that he attributes much influence to the direct action of the conditions of life. He clearly saw, however, the full force of the principle of natural selection. In answer to a letter of mine (published in Gard. Chron., April 13th), fully acknowledging that Mr. Matthew had anticipated me, he with generous candour wrote a letter (Gard. Chron. May 12th) containing the following passage:—"To me the conception of this law of Nature came intuitively as a self-evident fact, almost without an effort of concentrated thought. Mr. Darwin here seems to have more merit in the discovery than I have had; to me it did not appear a discovery. He seems to have worked it out by inductive reason, slowly and with due caution to have made his way synthetically from fact to fact onwards; while with me it was by a general glance at the scheme of Nature that I estimated this select production of species as an à priori recognisable fact—an axiom requiring only to be pointed out to be admitted by unprejudiced minds of sufficient grasp."[21]

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.[22]

Later assessments of Matthew's claim to priority[edit]

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.

  • Ronald W. Clark, in his 1984 biography of Darwin, commented that "Only the transparent honesty of Darwin's character... makes it possible to believe that by the 1850s he had no recollection of Matthew's work".[23] This begs the question, for it assumes he did read Matthew's book. Clark continues by suggesting: "If Darwin had any previous knowledge of Arboriculture, it had slipped down into the unconscious".[24][25]
  • In 2014 criminologist Mike Sutton published research in a paper presented to a British Society of Criminology conference proposing that both Darwin and Wallace had "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 no prior knowledge of it."[26] On 28 May 2014 The Daily Telegraph science correspondent reported Sutton's views, and also the opinion of Darwin biographer James Moore that this was a non-issue.[27] Sutton published a 2014 e-book Nullius in Verba: Darwin's Greatest Secret reiterating his argument, and alleging that "the orthodox Darwinist account" is wrong as "Darwin/Wallace corresponded with, were editorially assisted by, admitted to being influenced by and met with other naturalists who - it is newly discovered - had read and cited Matthew's book long before 1858".[28] Sutton included as one of these "naturalists" the publisher Robert Chambers, and said it was significant that the book by Matthew had been cited in the weekly magazine Chambers's Edinburgh Journal on 24 March 1832,[29] then in 1844 Chambers had published anonymously the best selling Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation which, according to Sutton, had influenced Darwin and Wallace.[28] In 2015 Sutton further amplified his assertion of "knowledge contamination" in the Polish journal Philosophical Aspects of Origin.[30]

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. 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". From 1860 onward, Matthew would claim credit for natural selection and even had calling cards printed with "Discoverer of the Principle of Natural Selection".

Such efforts to denigrate Darwin misunderstand the whole point of the history of science: Matthew did suggest a basic idea of selection, but he did nothing to develop it; and he published it in the appendix to a book on the raising of trees for shipbuilding. No one took him seriously, and he played no role in the emergence of Darwinism. Simple priority is not enough to earn a thinker a place in the history of science: one has to develop the idea and convince others of its value to make a real contribution. Darwin's notebooks confirm that he drew no inspiration from Matthew or any of the other alleged precursors.[31]

Ernst Mayr's opinion was even more clear-cut:

Patrick Matthew undoubtedly had the right idea, just like Darwin did on September 28, 1838, but he did not devote the next twenty years to converting it into a cogent theory of evolution. As a result it had no impact whatsoever.[32]

In response to Sutton's analysis, 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:

Patrick Matthew has always struck me as a non-issue. Many people understood the issue of natural selection but it was only Darwin who applied it to everything on the planet, as an entire vision of life. That was his legacy. I would be extremely surprised if there was any new evidence had not been already seen and interpreted in the opposite way.[27]

Natural theology[edit]

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.[33] 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[edit]

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[edit]

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.[34] 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".[34]

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;[35] it would prevent navigation upstream of it;[36] 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.[37]

Matthew's objections were not heeded,[38] 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,[39] 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.

See also[edit]


  1. ^ a b c Calman, WT (1912) “Patrick Matthew of Gourdiehill, Naturalist”, Handbook and Guide to Dundee and District, AW Paton and AH Millar (Eds), the British Association for the Advancement of Science, pp. 451-7 (see The Patrick Matthew Project » More On Matthew
  2. ^ Dempster W.J. 1983. Patrick Matthew and natural selection: nineteenth century gentleman-farmer, naturalist and writer. Harris. Edinburgh. with corrections/additions from review of Dempster By G J Tee in "Reviews" (PDF). New Zealand Journal of History: 66–67. 1984. Retrieved 23 January 2015. 
  3. ^ On Naval Timber and Arboriculture; with critical notes on authors who have recently treated the subject of planting Patrick Matthew, 1831. Black, Edinburgh & London.
  4. ^ Matthew 1831, pp. 130–137.
  5. ^ Norman 2013, pp. 171, 174.
  6. ^ Norman 2013, pp. 169, 175.
  7. ^ a b Matthew 1831, p. xvi.
  8. ^ Desmond 1989, pp. 4–7.
  9. ^ Matthew 1831, pp. 364–369
  10. ^ However, a library in Perth banned the book, having no doubt spotted its hidden heresy. Dempster W.J. 1983, Preface.
  11. ^ a b Norman 2013, p. 172.
  12. ^ Norman 2013, pp. 171–172.
  13. ^ J.C. Loudon, F.L.S. H.S. & C (1832). The Gardener's Magazine. pp. 702–703. 
  14. ^ Norman 2013, pp. 170–171.
  15. ^ [T. H. Huxley] (26 December 1859) "Darwin on the origin of species", The Times, pp. 8–9
  16. ^ a b c d Matthew, P. 1860. Nature's law of selection. Gardeners' Chronicle and Agricultural Gazette (7 April): 312-13
  17. ^ Matthew 1831, pp. 381–388.
  18. ^ Matthew 1831, pp. 106–108.
  19. ^ "Letter 2754 – Darwin, C. R. to Lyell, Charles, 10 Apr (1860)". Darwin Correspondence Project. Retrieved 4 February 2011. 
  20. ^ "Letter 2766 – Darwin, C. R. to Gardeners' Chronicle, (13 Apr 1860)". Darwin Correspondence Project. Retrieved 4 February 2011. 
  21. ^ Darwin, C.R. (1861) On the Origin of Species, 3rd Edition, John Murray, London, pp. xiv–xv
  22. ^ "More on James Hutton". The Dispersal of Darwin. 5 June 2007. Retrieved 12 August 2015. , John Wilkins (2003). "Darwin's precursors and influences: 4. Natural selection". TalkOrigins Archive. Retrieved 2015-08-12. 
  23. ^ Clark, Ronald W. 1984. The survival of Charles Darwin. p130-131 ISBN 0-380-69991-5
  24. ^ Clark, Survival of Charles Darwin, p131
  25. ^ If Darwin had read the book, it might have been an example of cryptomnesia.
  26. ^ "The hi-tech detection of Darwin’s and Wallace’s possible science fraud: Big data criminology re-writes the history of contested discovery"
  27. ^ a b Did Charles Darwin 'borrow' the theory of natural selection? The Daily Telegraph, 28 May 2014
  28. ^ a b "Nullius in Verba: Darwin's Greatest Secret"
  29. ^ "Chambers, W. and Chambers, R (1832). Chambers's Edinburgh Journal. William Orr. Saturday March 24th . p. 63"
  30. ^ Sutton, M. (2015) On Knowledge Contamination:New Data Challenges Claims of Darwin’s and Wallace’s Independent Conceptions of Matthew’s Prior-Published Hypothesis. Philosophical Aspects of Origin Volume 12.
  31. ^ Bowler, Peter J. 2003. Evolution: the history of an idea, 3rd. revised edn. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. p158
  32. ^ Mayr, Ernst 1982. The growth of biological thought. Harvard.
  33. ^ "Darwin Correspondence Project – Letter 7576 – Matthew, Patrick to Darwin, C. R., 12 Mar 1871". Retrieved 13 January 2008. 
  34. ^ a b Matthew, Patrick (31 October 1864). "Bridge over Tay Firth". Dundee Courier and Argus. 
  35. ^ Matthew, Patrick (8 December 1869). "Dundee Bridge". Dundee Courier and Argus. 
  36. ^ Matthew, Patrick (6 April 1870). "The Spanish Castles in the Air Defunct". Dundee Courier and Argus. 
  37. ^ Matthew's objections are summarised (and mocked) by one of Bouch's subordinates in Groethe, Albert (1878). The Tay Bridge, Its History and Construction. Dundee. Retrieved 22 January 2015. . A more sympathetic summary (apparently following closely an account in Dempster (1983)) can be found in McKean, Charles (2007). Battle for the North: The Tay and Forth Bridges and the 19th-Century Railway Wars. London: Granta. pp. 93–94. ISBN 978-1-86207-940-3. 
  38. ^ The Dundee-Perth line had fallen into the hands of the Caledonian Railway in 1865; after that the wish of Dundee and the North British Railway for an NBR line into Dundee not at the mercy of the Caledonian could only be met by crossing the Tay at Dundee
  39. ^ "The Disaster Predicted". Dundee Advertiser. 31 December 1879.  repeating an article with the same title in the Newcastle Chronicle


External links[edit]