"Wallace's reputation is less than his scientific achievements merit. What arguments can be used to support or contest this theory?" By the turn of the century Alfred Russel Wallace was very probably Britain's most known naturalist. By the end of his life, moreover, He may well have owned; based on evidence gleaned from contemporary sources, one of the world's most recognised names. But the question remains, is it Wallace's status as a noted scientist or …showed first 75 words of 1108 total…

…showed last 75 words of 1108 total…effect on the world of science, and indeed a place in history, his reputation far supersedes his scientific achievements. His beliefs were beyond his time, the Victorian age simply wasn't ready for such novel and controversial ideas, and his placid nature enabled others to take advantage of him easily, this being the case, Wallace could never truly be taken seriously and this is likely to be the reason that his reputation surpasses his scientific merits.