Wallace scholar Charles Smith has just published a nice little article in the latest edition of The Linnean (vol. 30, no. 1) which convincingly refutes the unfounded assertions relating to Wallace's "fame and respect" made by Darwin historian John van Wyhe in the new Cambridge Encyclopedia of Darwin and Evolutionary Thought. van Wyhe states: “Some recent admirers [this sounds derogatory!] even describe him [i.e. Wallace] as among the most famous Victorian scientists during his lifetime or at his death. This is certainly incorrect [my emphasis] if we refer to the views of contemporary Victorians. While Wallace achieved considerable fame and reputation for his independent discovery of natural selection, and his scientific works, especially The Malay Archipelago, he never approached anything like the level of fame or respect attributed to Lyell, Richard Owen, William Whewell, Louis Agassiz, T. H. Huxley, Hooker, or Darwin.” Oh! van Wyhe really is the master of the unevidenced or very poorly evidenced, assertion. Presumably he simply expects his readers to 'religiously' believe what he says..
Also see my blog post "Just how famous was, and is, Wallace?"