Well, I don't see that as a big issue. Wallace is recognized as the father of biogeography and a grand contributor to the evolutionary theory, as far as I'm aware. Furthermore, he called himself a "darwinist", if I'm not mistaken, to give credit to Darwin for his work. This, to me, suggests that the credit is well placed.

Yes, he was a quite modest man, but nowadays, based on oficial scientific pre requirements for a publication, I'm sure both had to be considered the authors of the famous theory, and almost nobody knows about Wallace, only abou Darwin, even many scientists, biology students, etc., imgine people in general. I think it's a very unfair thing that should be repaired as soon as possible. Amazingly, when you go after an enciclopedy it's said: "Wallace, the co-author of the evolution theory together with Darwin". Though, in fact he is one of the authors without any doubt but weakly recognized; it's really a very strange funny thing.

I confess that I have deeper issues regarding public understanding of evolution, but if discussing Wallace place in the evolutionary theory furthers the knowledge on the issue, I have no problem with that. In fact, introducing Wallace could be a gateway to introduce other important, but neglected figures, such as Fisher. Kuddos to that.

Yes, Fabio, furthermore, the fact he called himself a darwinist only means that he agrees with the evolucionary theory they had stated at first and that was developed after by Darwin alone. By the way, I"ve never understood why Darwin didn't called Wallace to write his famous book together with him. Today, this would be a very strange thing and, unless they had a big fight, that couldn't never occur. I think Darwin's friends had a lot to do with this, for they were ambitious and very religious or atheists and Wallace was a very odd spiritualist man and, for sure, we have to consider that they lived in the 19 th century in England.

Well, if memory serves, most of Darwin's book was already written by then. Nevertheless, he did co-authored a paper with Wallace, the paper that actually introduced the concept of evolution through natural selection formally.

Yes, that's the point. Nowadays thais certainly would turn out both the authors of the famous theory and that's why things must be revewed. I have a coleague here at EEL-USP that have the same opinion as me and we're now writing in "research gate" to get more opinions and, of course, to have an open debate about this. We feel that many things were imposed at that time and we're almost sure that Darwin only could conclude many aspects after receiving Wallace manuscript as the last was also a criterious and highly experienced man who had passed a long time here in Brazil collecting and writting about speciments and was so clever in evolution subject as Darwin, who may even have learned after Wallace conclusions. Here, two big questions must be stated that for me summerizes everething: if there is no Wallace, would the famous theory even exist??? Would the famous theory even be published???

It's very well known that Darwin took more than 20 years to make up his mind. 20 years it's not 2 or 3 years, a normal time for a scientist even at that time. So, at least, Wallace was the main catalyzer that made the theory exists and, for sure, he is one of the authors of it.

I think the breadth of topics covered in the Origins partially explains why it took so long for Darwin to publish his book. He gathered arguments from phylogeography, domestication, geology, embryology, experiments by him and others, observations by him and others... The wealth of information in this book is astounding (and bear in mind this is an abridged version, he wanted to write a bigger book!). I think this explains why Darwin is credited more often than Wallace for the theory, and I also think that's why Darwin is "more important" than Wallace for evolutionary biology. Because of the huge amount of great ideas present in the origin and subsequent books, on topics ranging from carnivorous plants to sexual selection, he has set up a research program for thousands of biologists after him. I believe Wallace has been less prolific than Darwin in his writings, and therefore has had less influence on the field. Now if Wallace had been born in a rich family as Darwin was, maybe the story would have been different... Altogether I am of the opinion that both Darwin and Wallace independently came up with the same idea, but Darwin was in a better position to benefit from it and had time to think of all the ramifications of the theory. Wallace was busy with his expeditions, and could not possibly amass the same amount of information as Darwin.

Dear Bastien, thanks for join us. First, I agree partially with you. For me, it's a big coincidance that Darwin only decided to publish the theory just after receaving Wallace manuscritp, and then they made a lecture in academy and, today, this would be very sufficient to make both the authors of the theory. Second, for me Wallace was so big in his animals and plants collections from South America as Darwin, with the advantage of knowing even more about soil and geology. And here I have to propose the main question I haven't posed before and that I bet you will not know how to answer me: why Darwin didn't invite Wallace to write his famous book about origin of species soon after their first publication and lecture together in the academy???

For sure, he had a big pressure from his influent colleagues, the same he had when receiving Wallace's manuscript to publish it. But now he, most probably, was desencouraged to write the famous book with the very strange or odd Wallace for many reasons we can now well imagine. Today, this would be completely inimaginable, unconceivally, almost a nonsense thing and, this book was the motor or the theory, the rest beeing forgotten with Wallace's mame.

I would think that the main reason why he did not invite Wallace to be a coauthor was that he had already written hundreds of pages on the subject. My understanding is that the writing of the first version of the Origin was for a big part going through these hundreds of pages, and selecting the ones that would end up in the book (and a quick look at Wikipedia seems to agree with my memories). If this is indeed the case , then I think we do not need to invoke pressures from his peers to explain why he did not invite Wallace: he had already done all the work alone. In such a situation I think many scientists would do the same: when you've done all the work by yourself, you are reluctant to invite a colleague to be a coauthor.

I believe there is a very good record of Darwin's correspondence, so if you want to argue that Darwin was kept from inviting Wallace to be a coauthor on the Origin by his friends, I think you should be able to find the evidence in these documents.

Well, I really hope you're right. But I cannot agree with you when you say he took so long to published the first manuscrit with Wallace because of the breadth of topics covered in the Origins, this explaining everything. Nobody, no scientist, would stay more than 20 years without publishing it if this was the cause and, mainly, if he had consistent ideas about it.

In the contrary, he probably had to have many douts about the subject evolution that he could only conclude with Wallace's opinions and, only this fact had to be enough for Darwin to invite Wallace to write with him the principal book he wrote afterwards. Try to transport these facts for nowadays and you'll realize how absurd it seems.

At last, I ask: imagining if one day we could prove I'm right, do you think there would be any way to repair these crazy unfairs?

I'm not saying the mere breadth of the book is enough to explain 20 years of work, but it is one factor. Worries about the reception of the book in Victorian England is another, the fact that other books about similar topics had been ridiculed by the scientific community a few years before (Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation) is another, the fact that Darwin wrote other books during these 20 years, notably to prove himself as a decent biologist (he trained as a geologist)... I don't think Darwin had much doubts that his main ideas were right (again, looking at his notes and correspondence could tell you if you're right), but he wanted to make his case extremely convincing, and went deep into many details. I read a couple of works about the Origin a couple of years ago, so all this is based on memories, but there are entire chapters of several books that try to explain why it took Darwin so long to get it published (books by Quammen, Costa for instance.). At least I think we can be grateful to Wallace for pushing Darwin to write an "abstract" of his theory, otherwise the Origin would have been unpalatable.

OK, I'm glad to have found someone who knows a lot about all this story, but it all still seems to me to be a little amazing not to say unbelievable. 5 years would be already a very long time for a scientist to decide to write something he knows a lot, but more than 20 years, for me, seems he would never write it unless Wallace hadn't sent him his manuscrit, and only this fact, I'm sure, today, would made Wallace coauthor of the theory. For me, the Origin would not only have been unpalatable if there was no Wallace, for me, most probably, the Origin would never exit, cause Darwin concluded at last the details he was so doubtful upon Wallace's ideas and that's the major point - the few details that can clear all a theory.

But you didn't answer my last question: if we could someday prove all this to be a tremendous injustice, how could we manage to repair it? Do you know if there would be any way to do that or things would simply have to be sealed by time?