There is a fair bit of evidence that Tisdale is indeed the creator of the original image, outlined in the Martin article I cited. In contrast, there is nothing to back up the Stuart claim except repeated assertions of the fact. (To be fair, some of these are quite early.) I didn’t go into details because it’s tangential to the word’s origin.
But the earliest scholarly accounts of the word’s creation, some fifty years after the fact, credit Tisdale with the drawing. The original woodcuts survive and are in the Library of Congress, and they are consistent with Tisdale’s work. I’m not aware of Stuart doing any woodcuts, or if he did they were so few that they don’t get mentioned by most sources on his life. (But I’m no art historian and could be wrong on this last.)
Nor do I think my tone was “mocking.” The problem of unsubstantiated conventional wisdom being repeated by eminent scholars is well established. One checks a respectable source or two, finds what one thought to be the facts reflected there, and thinks no more of it. Nearly everyone does it from time to time. (Including me, although I make no claims of eminence.)