Via PZ, the originators of the Darwin Fish sticker are running a contest in which entrants design their own new version of the icon, the winner to be added to the product lineup.

Here’s mine:

I think it’s a bit inside-jokey, though.

1. 
   Heraclitus (Jeff) 2007 04 06 at 2:11:08 pm

   George Wallace?  Mike Wallace?  Ben Wallace?  Wallace Shawn?

2. 
   Chris Clarke 2007 04 06 at 2:15:44 pm

   Nope.

3. 
   alice 2007 04 06 at 2:18:53 pm

   It’s on the tip of my tongue, but I can’t for the life of me remember his first name.

4. 
   Marilyn 2007 04 06 at 2:35:15 pm

   Alfred Wallace!  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Wallace

   Thoughts have been with you (from this blog “lurker”) re: Zeke.  And thank you for letting Thistle eat your garden; it makes a great read.

5. 
   biosparite 2007 04 06 at 4:49:01 pm

   And just when poor old Lamarck was getting some good press for stress-induced, heritable genetic change. This is really a Trifecta.

6. 
   Nan McIntyre 2007 04 06 at 10:04:16 pm

   <quote>I think it’s a bit inside-jokey, though.</quote>

   Oh I don’t know about that.
   Leaving Darwin in there makes it just an alternative religious sticker, and Darwin’s not merely a god if you know the subject enough to know Wallace’s contribution to understanding natural history.

   Nothing wrong with a little dose of clubby feelings when you’re dealing with effwits who make stupid hand gestures at unpredictable moments and expect you to understand that they are merely signing their faith.

7. 
   Mez 2007 04 06 at 10:44:22 pm

   I was going to say that Alfred Wallace was the Michael Collins of evolutionary theory, but then I thought your Irish readers might get confused, or object.

8. 
   chris y 2007 04 07 at 10:27:47 am

   Not Irish, but seriously confused. Different Michael Collins? Or was the late general a secret spiritualist who moonlighted as a biological specimen collector when he wasn’t fighting the British?

9. 
   Dave 2007 04 08 at 11:19:16 am

   If I had a car, I’d gladly put one of these stickers on it. Wallace deserves a lot more attention, as some the comments here testify. The fact that Darwin still gets the lion’s share of the credit shows the persistence of British class prejudice.

10. 
    Renee Perry 2007 04 08 at 6:30:04 pm

    I bet most people are going to have the Heraclitus reaction, which is all to the good. It’ll either send them off to do some research or their heads will explode with the idea of George Wallace and evolution.

    One of them many things I like about Charles D. is how gracious he was with Wallace.  He had the pull to completely hog the credit, but I think Wallace is co-author on the first public paper on natural selection.

11. 
    CCP 2007 04 08 at 7:42:21 pm

    Not a co-author, but single author of a paper presented and published at the same time as CD’s. AR Wallace gets plenty of credit among those who know (and/or have read The Song of the Dodo). Darwin’s notebooks show clearly that he had the idea first. He also had developed it much farther and backed it up with a boatload of evidence before he got the fateful letter from Wallace. Plus, Al kind of dropped the ball when it came to humans. It’s not class prejudice at all, Dave.

12. 
    gordo 2007 04 09 at 11:04:50 pm

    Here’s what I’d do. You know that annoying fundamentalist sticker, where a giant fish called “Truth” is swallowing the Darwin fish? I’d go with that.

    Except in my version, the big fish would be called “myth”, and the Darwin fish would have grown spines.

13. 
    DaveL 2007 04 10 at 10:45:13 am

    Do I recall correctly that Darwin and Wallace were pretty much in agreement on evolution, except that Wallace made an exception for human evolution; he believed humans had been divinely created or were otherwise “special.”

    Sorry if this is an inaccurate memory.