Thread by @MatthewHalley

My latest paper about the scientific misdeeds of John James Audubon (#fraudubon) was published today in the Proceedings @AcadNatSci — welcome to the summary thread! @AmOrnith @AudubonSociety @SeattleAudubon. Peer-reviewed paper @ the following link. 1/n doi.org/10.1635/053.16…

If you’re just catching up — John James Audubon (1785–1851) was a painter & ornithologist who published *The Birds of America* (1828–38), a famous ($$$) collection of 435 life-sized, hand-colored prints of American birds. 🦅🦆🦢🦜🦃 2/n audubon.org/birds-of-ameri…

Audubon was also a con-artist, which societies named after him (@AudubonSociety) have been slow to acknowledge. For years, I've been exposing his fraud & showing how invested parties (often unwittingly) perpetuated his lies for profit. 3/n doi.org/10.25226/bboc.…

In my new paper, I take us back to Philadelphia in the summer of 1824, four years before Audubon began publishing *TBOA*. That summer was a major turning point in his career, which prompted him to go to Europe to (fraudulently) secure funding for his forthcoming work. 4/n

That summer, Audubon was infamously rejected for @AcadNatSci membership by a vote of its resident members! #OhSnap What happened?! Most historians have stated or implied that George Ord (1781–1866) sunk Audubon’s nomination out of jealousy. 5/n

George Ord was VP of the @AcadNatSci in 1824, and sat “in the chair” on the night of the vote. At that time, he was also (1) invested in publishing a 2nd edition of Wilson’s *American Ornithology*, and (2) peer reviewing Bonaparte’s manuscripts revising Wilson’s nomenclature. 6/n

E. Coues (@AmOrnith founder) thought this was “probably enough to account for his attitude toward Audubon”. However, when they first met, according to A’s diary, Ord “objected strongly to the birds and plants being drawn together, but spoke well of [the drawings] otherwise”. 7/n

A. apparently did something to offend O., and also R. Haines (one of his nominators). A. wrote to their mutual friend, two weeks before the vote: “Should you see honest Quaker Haines, beg him to believe me his friend; should you see Mr. Ord, tell him I never was his enemy” 8/n

One hypothesis is that (1) Ord heard that, when A. showed his portfolio to Alexander Lawson, Wilson’s engraver, Lawson caught A. red-handed in an act of plagiarism. Audubon’s drawing of Great Horned Owl “proved to be a copy from Wilson’s, reversed and magnified”. #fraudubon 9/n

Or (2) maybe Audubon was rejected after it was discovered that some of the plants in the backgrounds of his paintings were done by Joseph Mason, without attribution. #fraudubon 10/n

Or (3) maybe Ord was just being petty because he was jealous of Audubon’s artistic talent (which, let’s be honest, was on 🔥) and Ord saw him as a threat to his own (and Wilson’s) legacy, and the economic success of his extended editions of American Ornithology? 11/n

Or, a “dark horse” hypothesis, brushed aside by historians, is that (4) A. was rejected “on the strength of Alexander Wilson’s personal diary”. Herrick (1917) discounted it as “utterly incredible”, insinuating that people got their stories mixed up. #pleaseexplain 12/n

A decade later, Audubon (1839) accused Wilson of plagiarizing a bird called the “Small-headed Flycatcher” (as yet unidentified) in *Ornithological Biography*, which prompted Ord to produce Wilson’s diary at an @AmPhilSociety meeting in 1840, to debunk Audubon’s false claims. 13/n

Holt (2004: 13, *Cassinia*) emphasized this point: “What must be remembered is that these events did not occur until after the 1839 publication of Volume 5 of Audubon’s Ornithological Biography, and [they were] a direct response to the accusations contained therein.” 14/n

However, 5 yrs earlier, Waterton (1834) wrote: “I myself, with mine own eyes, have seen Wilson’s original diary…and I have just now on the table before me the account of the [@AcadNatSci] indignantly rejecting Mr. Audubon as a member, on that diary having been produced...” 15/n

If A’s accusations against W. weren’t levied until 1839, then what about Waterton’s (1834) comments? In my new paper, I expose the unpublished “account” mentioned by Waterton, a personal testimony written by Ord in 1831, explaining the reasons for Audubon’s rejection. 16/n

“The members of the [@AcadNatSci] would have had no objection to Mr. Audubon provided they had thought him to be an honest man. But when they were informed that he had barely traduced the character of [Wilson] … they indignantly rejected the candidate” (@AmPhilSociety Lib). 17/n

(1) A. verbally levied his accusation against W. in 1824; (2) O. produced W.’s diary for the *1st* time at the @AcadNatSci in 1824, which led to A.’s rejection; (3) A. published the same accusation in 1839; (4) O. produced W.’s diary for the *2nd* time at @AmPhilSociety. 18/n

Historians misinterpreted the timeline for more than a century, and used the false timeline to justify and defend A.’s unethical actions! There are also doubts about the date of A.’s painting, which prove the falsity of his accusation against W. 19/n

In 1831, when O.’s influence at the @AcadNatSci was waning, Audubon convinced a group of members to purchase a joint subscription to his expensive works. Then, A. was again nominated for membership again, and success!—*Elected by a quorum of ANSP members who owed him money*. 20/n

In summary, O. was not merely jealous of A., or being petty, or reacting against A.’s "absurd" artwork ... the REAL reason A. was rejected by the @AcadNatSci was that he impugned W. with false, easily disproven accusations. And he did it first in *1824*, not 1839. 21/n

Indeed, early 1825, A. was still pushing his false, arrogant claims: “Our good friend Willson [sic] was short of the mark I assure you when he called his book the American Ornithology, [because] I have begun long before him …” 22/n commonplace.online/article/the-he…

So here is the situation in a nutshell: Audubon's dishonesty threatened to destabilize the scientific enterprise of American ornithology itself (and it did!), which was still in its formative stages, and Ord was motivated to take defensive action. 23/n

Two centuries later, the struggle continues as historians and scientists attempt to separate fact from fiction in Audubon's works, and to come to terms with his deceptive legacy of scientific fraud and deceit. Many folks are still in denial (looking at you, @audubonsociety). 24/n

If you made it this far, I'm impressed! Again, kudos to
@SeattleAudubon for taking steps to rebrand (ahem, @audubonsociety). Audubon was a fraud and pseudo-scientist—a poor namesake for any organization who values science and truth. And, FFS, #birdnamesforbirds 25/25. Fin.

@SeattleAudubon @audubonsociety PS, if you don't have access to the paper via BioOne, you can find it here: researchgate.net/publication/36…