↓ Skip to main content

Alfred Russel Wallace (1823–1913): the forgotten co-founder of the Neo-Darwinian theory of biological evolution

Overview of attention for article published in Theory in Biosciences, August 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#16 of 194)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
60 Mendeley
Title
Alfred Russel Wallace (1823–1913): the forgotten co-founder of the Neo-Darwinian theory of biological evolution
Published in
Theory in Biosciences, August 2013
DOI 10.1007/s12064-013-0187-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ulrich Kutschera, Uwe Hossfeld

Abstract

The British naturalist Alfred Russel Wallace (1823-1913), who had to leave school aged 14 and never attended university, did extensive fieldwork, first in the Amazon River basin (1848-1852) and then in Southeast Asia (1854-1862). Based on this experience, and after reading the corresponding scientific literature, Wallace postulated that species were not created, but are modified descendants of pre-existing varieties (Sarawak Law paper, 1855). Evolution is brought about by a struggle for existence via natural selection, which results in the adaptation of those individuals in variable populations who survive and reproduce (Ternate essay, 1858). In his monograph Darwinism (1889), and in subsequent publications, Wallace extended the contents of Darwin's Origin of Species (1859) into the Neo-Darwinian theory of biological evolution, with reference to the work of August Weismann (1834-1914). Wallace also became the (co)-founder of biogeography, biodiversity research, astrobiology and evolutionary anthropology. Moreover, he envisioned what was later called the anthropocene (i.e., the age of human environmental destructiveness). However, since Wallace believed in atheistic spiritualism and mixed up scientific facts and supernatural speculations in some of his writings, he remains a controversial figure in the history of biology.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 60 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Colombia 2 3%
Portugal 1 2%
Hungary 1 2%
Germany 1 2%
France 1 2%
Canada 1 2%
Mexico 1 2%
Argentina 1 2%
Unknown 51 85%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 15 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 23%
Student > Bachelor 12 20%
Student > Master 5 8%
Student > Postgraduate 3 5%
Other 6 10%
Unknown 5 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 32 53%
Environmental Science 5 8%
Philosophy 2 3%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 2 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Other 9 15%
Unknown 8 13%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 June 2020.
All research outputs
#2,126,356
of 22,729,647 outputs
Outputs from Theory in Biosciences
#16
of 194 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,699
of 200,144 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Theory in Biosciences
#1
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,729,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 194 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 200,144 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them