I think you are entirely correct about the circumstances of the publication and Darwin's motives. Again, there was nothing wrong with Darwin turning to his friends to help to resolve the matter of Wallace. There was nothing wrong in the publishing. The point I'm emphasizing is merely that the men who made it happen were not impartial, anonymous referees. Nothing wrong with that at the time, either, but at the same time the publication cannot really be cited as an example of a "peer reviewed" publication in the modern sense.
Cordially,
Nothing wrong with that at the time, either, but at the same time the publication cannot really be cited as an example of a "peer reviewed" publication in the modern sense. As you pointed out, the question is somewhat moot.
TODAY, scientific findings must be published in recognzied scientific journals and peer-reviewed.
And the document being referenced was neither.