Does the unseen-species problem really have two independent origins — Fisher & Corbet's 1943 ecology and Good & Turing's Bletchley cryptanalysis?

claim-unseen-species-problem-has-dual-origin-ecology-and-cryptanalysis rests on a Wikipedia (Tier 4) pointer, which the capture itself flagged as a pointer. The load-bearing, surprising element is the cryptanalytic root — Turing and Good estimating never-seen Enigma settings at Bletchley Park — and the claim that this arose independently of the ecological line.

What would answer it:

• Fisher, Corbet & Williams (1943), "The relation between the number of species and the number of individuals in a random sample of an animal population," J. Animal Ecology 12: 42–58 — confirm the Malayan-butterfly / unseen-species framing.
• I. J. Good (1953), "The population frequencies of species and the estimation of population parameters," Biometrika 40: 237–264 — confirm the Turing attribution and the wartime origin (Good repeatedly credited Turing).
• Ideally a secondary that documents the two lines as independent (e.g. a survey of Good-Turing estimation) rather than one field borrowing from the other.

Why it matters: the whole cross-domain-bridge value of the note is that the same estimator was reached from unrelated directions. If one line actually descended from the other, this collapses from a Merton-style multiple (claim-merton-multiple-discovery-is-sciences-dominant-pattern) into ordinary transmission. Until read, the note stays seedling.