@article{beddall1968wallace,
    author = "Beddall, Barbara G.",
    title = "Wallace, Darwin, and the theory of natural selection",
    year = "1968",
    journal = "Journal of the History of Biology",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00351923",
    doi = "10.1007/bf00351923",
    number = "2",
    pages = "261-323",
    volume = "1"
}

@article{beddall1968wallace1,
    author = "Beddall, B. G",
    title = "Wallace, Darwin, and the theory of natural selection",
    year = "1968",
    journal = "Journal of Historical Biology, v. 1, p. 261-323",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Beddall, B. G., 1968, Wallace, Darwin, and the theory of natural selection: Journal of Historical Biology, v. 1, p. 261-323.}"
}

@book{mckinney1972wallace5,
    author = "McKinney, H. L",
    title = "Wallace and Natural Selection",
    year = "1972",
    publisher = "New Haven, Connecticut, Yale University Press",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {McKinney, H. L., 1972, Wallace and Natural Selection: New Haven, Connecticut, Yale University Press.}"
}

@misc{brackman1980a3,
    author = "Brackman, A. C",
    title = "A Delicate Arrangement",
    year = "1980",
    howpublished = "The Strange Case of Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace: New York, Times Books",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Brackman, A. C., 1980, A Delicate Arrangement: The Strange Case of Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace: New York, Times Books.}"
}

@book{brooks1984just4,
    author = "Brooks, J. L",
    title = "Just Before the Origin",
    year = "1984",
    publisher = "Alfred Russel Wallace's Theory of Evolution: New York, Columbia University Press",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Brooks, J. L., 1984, Just Before the Origin: Alfred Russel Wallace's Theory of Evolution: New York, Columbia University Press.}"
}

@article{beddall1988darwin2,
    author = "Beddall, B. G",
    title = "Darwin and divergence",
    year = "1988",
    journal = "the Wallace connection: Journal of Historical Biology, v. 21, p. 1-68",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Beddall, B. G., 1988, Darwin and divergence: the Wallace connection: Journal of Historical Biology, v. 21, p. 1-68.}"
}

@incollection{beccaloni2008wallaces,
    author = "Beccaloni, George",
    title = "Wallace’s Annotated Copy of the Darwin-Wallace Paper on Natural Selection*",
    year = "2008",
    booktitle = "Natural Selection and Beyond",
    abstract = "These gentlemen having, independently and unknown to one another, conceived the very same ingenious theory to account for the appearance and perpetuation of varieties and specific forms on our planet, may both fairly claim the merit of being original thinkers in this important line of inquiry; but neither of them having published his views, though Mr. Darwin has for many years past been repeatedly urged by us to do so, and both authors having now unreservedly placed their papers in our hands, we think it would best promote the interests of science that a selection from them should be laid before the Linnean Society",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199239160.003.0005",
    doi = "10.1093/oso/9780199239160.003.0005",
    pages = "91-101"
}

@article{doi101002evl3199,
    author = "van der Bijl, Wouter and Zeuss, Dirk and Chazot, Nicolas and Tunström, Kalle and Wahlberg, Niklas and Wiklund, Christer and Fitzpatrick, John L and Wheat, Christopher W",
    title = "Butterfly dichromatism primarily evolved via Darwin's, not Wallace's, model.",
    year = "2020",
    journal = "Evolution letters",
    abstract = "Sexual dimorphism is typically thought to result from sexual selection for elaborated male traits, as proposed by Darwin. However, natural selection could reduce expression of elaborated traits in females, as proposed by Wallace. Darwin and Wallace debated the origins of dichromatism in birds and butterflies, and although evidence in birds is roughly equal, if not in favor of Wallace's model, butterflies lack a similar scale of study. Here, we present a large-scale comparative phylogenetic analysis of the evolution of butterfly coloration, using all European non-hesperiid butterfly species (n = 369). We modeled evolutionary changes in coloration for each species and sex along their phylogeny, thereby estimating the rate and direction of evolution in three-dimensional color space using a novel implementation of phylogenetic ridge regression. We show that male coloration evolved faster than female coloration, especially in strongly dichromatic clades, with male contribution to changes in dichromatism roughly twice that of females. These patterns are consistent with a classic Darwinian model of dichromatism via sexual selection on male coloration, suggesting this model was the dominant driver of dichromatism in European butterflies.",
    url = "https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7719551/",
    doi = "10.1002/evl3.199",
    pmcid = "PMC7719551",
    pmid = "33312689"
}

@article{doi103389fpsyg2022862385,
    author = "Davis, Adam C and Arnocky, Steven",
    title = "Darwin Versus Wallace: Esthetic Evolution and Preferential Mate Choice.",
    year = "2022",
    journal = "Frontiers in psychology",
    abstract = {Dominant theorizing and research surrounding the operation of intersexual selection in evolutionary psychology tends to be guided by an adaptationist framework and aligned with models of sexual selection involving direct benefits (e.g., parental care) and indirect "good gene" and condition-dependent benefits. In this way, evolutionary psychologists more often espouse Alfred Russel Wallaces' utilitarian viewpoint that traits become attractive because they honestly signal vigor and vitality, which gives priority to natural selection. In doing so, Darwin's esthetic perspective originally articulated in The Descent of Man and alternative models of sexual selection (e.g., Fisherian runaway), are given less consideration. This is despite some informative reviews on the topic in evolutionary psychology. In the current conceptual analysis, we discuss the potential of Prum's Lande-Kirkpatrick (LK) null model of sexual selection to help make sense of some of the mixed evidence regarding the links between attractive traits and purported markers of phenotypic and genetic condition. We then consider how the implications of the LK null model can help to shift theoretical assumptions and guide future work in evolutionary psychology on intersexual selection.},
    url = "https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9174777/",
    doi = "10.3389/fpsyg.2022.862385",
    pmcid = "PMC9174777",
    pmid = "35693523"
}

@article{doi101007s10739025098392,
    author = "Inkpen, S Andrew",
    title = "Why Darwin and Wallace Disagreed About Domestic Varieties.",
    year = "2025",
    journal = "Journal of the history of biology",
    abstract = "By the late 1850s, Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace had independently formulated similar theories of evolution by natural selection, yet they diverged notably in their treatment of artificial selection. This difference, evident in their 1858 joint presentation to the Linnean Society, has sparked scholarly debate over whether it reflects a deep, enduring divergence or a more superficial misunderstanding. I argue that this difference reflects substantial disagreement, but not for the reasons traditionally offered. I argue that while both Darwin and Wallace acknowledged that artificial selection could lead to (i) traits shaped by the aesthetic preferences, whims, or novelty-seeking tendencies of human breeders, and (ii) organisms highly dependent on the artificial environments in which they were cultivated, they disagreed about whether natural selection could produce comparable outcomes. Darwin thought natural selection could, under certain conditions, yield traits and dependencies analogous to those seen in domesticated varieties, whereas Wallace denied that such parallels could be drawn. This difference, I argue, makes sense in light of their wider respective projects and goals. Finally, turning to the vexed and related question of whether Wallace accepted Darwin's argument by analogy, I agree with previous scholarship that Wallace could have accepted the cogency of Darwin's analogy, both in 1858 and at the time he wrote Darwinism in 1889, since this was consistent with his other theoretical commitments. But he certainly questioned the desirability of drawing such an analogy.",
    url = "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41586977/",
    doi = "10.1007/s10739-025-09839-2",
    pmid = "41586977"
}

@article{doi10159016784685gmb20250179,
    author = "Prosdocimi, Francisco and Garbin, Marco and Dondero, Francesco",
    title = "From natural theology to the extended synthesis: Historical milestones and conceptual expansions in evolutionary biology.",
    year = "2026",
    journal = "Genetics and molecular biology",
    abstract = "This article explores the historical development of evolutionary biology-from Natural Theology to the Modern Synthesis (MS)-and the ongoing debate around the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (EES). Over the past 2,500 years, evolutionary thinking has emerged from the interplay between empirical discoveries and dominant philosophical paradigms. Beginning with Aristotle and Saint Augustine, we trace how Darwin and Wallace introduced a scientific framework grounded in natural mechanisms. In the early 20th century, the MS unified Mendelian genetics and Darwinian selection, forming a gene-centered model of evolution focused on mutations and population dynamics. In recent decades, discoveries in epigenetics, phenotypic plasticity, symbiosis, niche construction, and cultural inheritance have challenged the explanatory scope of MS. The EES seeks to incorporate these processes not by discarding Darwinian principles, but by reinterpreting them through a systems biology lens. This mostly represents a conceptual shift in focus: from linear, gene-driven causality to multilevel, reciprocal, and environmentally embedded dynamics. While gaining traction, the EES has been criticized for its lack of formal models and predictive frameworks, remaining a contested proposal. Ultimately, evolutionary biology continues to evolve as a powerful scientific tradition, driven by humanity's enduring quest to understand the origins and evolution of life on Earth.",
    url = "https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12961663/",
    doi = "10.1590/1678-4685-GMB-2025-0179",
    pmcid = "PMC12961663",
    pmid = "41740024"
}