Patrick Matthew (1790–1874) regarded natural selection as a force of conformity. Competition between species kept them from dysmorphic chaos. Catastrophes exterminated many species that would otherwise compete. The absence of this competitive natural selection allowed the remnants to ramify (their lineages to split). Matthew thus united elements of catastrophism and transformism in a way opposite to Lyell combining uniformitarianism with species fixity. Matthew's mechanism of lineage splitting differed from Darwin's or Wallace's. Wallace's lineages split in the presence of competing species. Darwin saw competition within species as the disruptive force splitting lineages. How, then, did the majority come to regard Matthew's and Darwin's mechanism as equal, a view shared by the mainstream and the fringe? The roots of this misconception lie in publications by Thomas Huxley, Patrick Matthew and Charles Darwin, each of whom had fragmentary knowledge of the others' ideas. Later writers elaborated the divergent presentism rolling from split narratives.

帕特里克·马修（Patrick Matthew，1790-1874）认为自然选择是一种从众的力量。物种之间的竞争使它们免于畸形混乱。灾难消灭了许多本来可以竞争的物种。由于缺乏这种竞争性自然选择，残余分子得以分支（他们的谱系分裂）。因此，马修以与莱尔将均变论与物种固定性相结合的方式相反的方式将灾难论和变革论的元素结合起来。马修的谱系分裂机制与达尔文或华莱士的不同。华莱士的血统因竞争物种的存在而分裂。达尔文将物种内部的竞争视为分裂谱系的破坏性力量。那么，为什么大多数人会认为马修的机制和达尔文的机制是平等的，是主流和边缘人都认同的观点呢？这种误解的根源在于托马斯·赫胥黎、帕特里克·马修和查尔斯·达尔文的出版物，他们每个人都对其他人的想法有片断的了解。后来的作家阐述了从分裂的叙述中产生的不同的存在主义。