page. One suggestion is that the book structure as is, was intended all along, because Matthew had wished to subtly pass its heretical content into society, secreted into an inconspicuous, and easily excisable portion of the book, However, this proposal, for a preconceived structure, also needs to explain why Matthew would think it necessary to hide ideas on theistic evolution, when prominent challenges to natural theology already stretched back over half a century, to Hume and Maupertuis, and were current at his alma mater, the University of Edinburgh, because of Robert Edmond Grant, Robert Jameson, Henry Hulme Cheek and the Plinians. Other anomalies as noted previously, that also require harmonisation with this proposal of preconception, include, the Contents page alignment, Matthew's post production references to printed content, and the disjointed, erratic flow of material, that deals with at least four main topics: arboriculture, empire, entail, and evolution. More realistically, perhaps contradicting the multiple dates idea is that there are no breaks between the bound paper blocks that match the different sections. Each page is one part of eight, of a larger sheet folded. When bound, the pages originating from the same sheet can appear in quite different parts of a book, but always within the same block. The enigma here is that sections that seem like afterthoughts and added at later stages, do not appear as separate page bundles that were printed independent of earlier sections. If that is the case, and Matthew had devised his book as it is, from the outset, it is hard to see how he went to press before the July Revolution, as he states, with a book originally intended to be only on arboriculture, but then end up with a book quite different, if it had not been added to in the interim. Furthermore, the first part of the colophon ("In taking a retrospective glance at our pages ...". p. 388) refers to the book as already printed, and the few mistakes he could have improved, plus, there is an erratum on the final page. A final oddity can be observed in what appear to be "wet ink marks" visible in the scanned PDF copy of the book held at the University of Oxford's Bodleian Library. This might prove confusing to anyone unfamiliar with Victorian letterpress printing. However, it is questionable whether these are wet ink marks as, not only would the same side