Monday, 17 August 2020

An Open Letter to the Royal Society and Linnean Society on Priority in Science and the Arago Rule


Do You Really Believe You Can Magically Change the Rules on Scientific Priority?

Charles Darwin (FRS), Alfred Russel Wallace, and Richard Dawkins (FRS) and many others, deceased or alive, amongst whom I include myself, such as Samuel Butler, Raphael Zon, James Dempster, Brian J. Ford, Michael Rampino, Milton Wainwright, Hugh Dower, Loren Eiseley, Ton Munnich, and the Royal Society Darwin Medal Winners Sir Gavin de Beer and Ernst Mayr, have published our full acknowledgement, and the independently verifiable evidence to support it, that Patrick Matthew (1831) - in his book On Naval Timber and Arboriculture - published the full theory of natural selection many years before Darwin and Wallace put pen to private notepaper on the topic and 28 years before Darwin and Wallace (1858) had their papers read before the Linnean Society.

Matthew uniquely coined his discovery the 'natural process of selection' and 29 years later Darwin uniquely shuffled Matthew's term into his own unique re-coinage the 'process of natural selection'. Darwin and Wallace each claimed to have arrived at the same theory, used the same terminology and the same unique explanatory examples, independently of Matthew and independently of one another.

The purpose of my open letter, therefore, is to request the Royal Society publish an official statement to explain whether the Royal Society will affirm that Patrick Matthew, by dint of his achievement at publishing first one of the greatest discoveries in science, should be officially awarded full priority over both Darwin and Wallace for his great unique breakthrough?

In this regard, I presume the Royal Society has not unofficially changed its views on the rules of priority? Perhaps it is necessary to remind the Royal Society of the Arago Effect to which it has adhered in all other disputes over priority for discovery in science - which is that being first into published print with a discovery is everything.

Maybe you have uniquely re-written the rules on priority for scientific discovery, but are keeping that a secret whilst facilitating plagiarism? If so, does that explain why the Royal Society has now plagiarised the unique scientific discoveries of Brian J. Ford? Here are the fully evidenced and independently verifiable toe-curlingly guilty facts on that new debacle. It is called “Watching Integrity Die” and the Royal Society plays a shameless leading role in doing just that:

Ignoring the convention of priority - specifically ignoring the Arago Effect - Richard Dawkins and others have created a new, unique in the history of scientific discovery - "Dawkins' Demand" that Matthew should not have priority over Darwin and Wallace because it was previously their 'knowledge belief' that Matthew's unique views went unnoticed. However, newly available Big Data research techniques reveal that Matthew's (1831) book was in fact (all pre 1858) cited by other naturalists known to Darwin/Wallace - including Loudon (who edited and published two of Blyth's influential papers), Robert Chambers (who wrote the highly influential book on evolution - the Vestiges of Creation) and Prideaux John Selby (who edited and published Wallace's Sarawak paper). (see: my peer reviewed papers for this new evidence: and

As for Brian J. Ford, he has published hundreds of articles on the research the Royal Society plagiarised!

So, please explain, what is your excuse in his case? Surely the Royal Society is not plagiarising Brian J. Ford because he has acknowledged (here) your precious plagiarist Charles Darwin plagiarised Patrick Matthew are you? No, surely not!

In sum, would the Royal Society please make an official statement regarding whether it has abandoned its former acceptance of the Arago Ruling? Here is a reminder, just in case you have forgotten it:

If the Royal Society is making an exception to the rule of priority in the cases of Patrick Matthew and Brian J. Ford could it be so good to please explain why and make an official statement to the effect that this is not simply a biased Darwinist 'made for Matthew' and Royal Society ‘Made for Ford’ rule?

Now, perhaps also because I have published new bombshell research on the fully evidenced heresy that Darwin and Wallace knowingly plagiarised Matthew's theory, the Biological Journal of the Linnean Society is repeat victimising me by multiply plagiarising my original research and, whilst using it to fraudulently mislead its readership, refusing to do anything about that. The fully evidenced verifiable facts on that disgraceful nonscience behaviour, with proof that plagiarism is malicious, can be found here:

Yours sincerely

Dr Mike Sutton (Author of Nullius in Verba: Darwin’s greatest secret)



  1. Mike, you wrote an open letter to the Royal Society and the Linnean Society. It seems part of their duties to mediate when scientists are locked in a conflict. Both Societies have history, tradition, reputation. But it should not be only history, tradition and reputation. I guess they can show the dexterity and diplomacy to solve a topical matter like this.
    What would I do if I were the Fellow of the Royal Society entrusted with solving this matter? First I would invite you for lunch in a nice restaurant. While you talk I would get an impression what kind of guy Sutton is. I would invite you for a second lunch, if needed a third. By then I, intelligent member of the Royal Society, would have found out that Sutton is quite ok and has a good sense of humour. Pity that he is retired, he would make a perfect teacher. After that I would contact his opponents, to get an impression of them too. Then I would report to my organization. And then, well, then the Royal Society’s wisdom, piled up in centuries of mediating between conflicting scientists, would show what it is capable of in the way of conflict-solving.
    The end of the story would be that, on the micro-level, your Selby discovery gets due recognition. And on the macro-level your general demythologizing the sanctified Darwin would prove a refreshing shower for the whole of Biology and Science History. It would even have political and moral implications. After all, Darwin’s skewed view of life as the ‘war-of-nature’, the ’battle-of-life’ and ‘competition’ could then be replaced by the more cooperative and symbiotic view of life that matches our global culture.
    Kind regards, Ton Munnich

    1. I agree Ton. Sadly, much of the so called "scientific establishment" comprises people who are more interested in what senior people in that establishment merely believe in, than in what is actually newly discovered to be true. Even though what they choose to ignore is true because it is independently verifiable. Clearly, we are living in a post-truth age.