Some apparently think so:
Now, in the 200th anniversary of Darwin’s birth, a growing number of academics and amateur historians are rediscovering [Alfred Russell] Wallace. Their efforts are raising debate over exactly what Wallace contributed to the theory of evolution, and what role, if any, the spiritual world plays in certain aspects of natural selection.
Beccaloni, a 41-year-old British evolutionary biologist with London’s Natural History Museum, is on a quest to return Wallace to what he sees as his rightful place in history. He and Fred Langford Edwards, a British artist making an audiovisual project about Wallace, are retracing the scientist’s eight-year trip around Southeast Asia.
[...]
“The Darwin industry is what has distorted the whole of history,” Beccaloni said.
Does Wallace deserve greater attention?
The Linnean Society of London awards the prestigious Darwin-Wallace Medal to individuals who make significant contributions to the biological sciences and Wallace is a well-known figure in both science and philosophy of science circles. So, professionally, Wallace receives his due attention.
However, in the eyes of the common man, Alfred Russel Wallace remains relatively unknown, but for good reason. Wallace’s work lacks the force and verve with which Darwin’s is replete. Darwin was an indefatigable defender and researcher; Wallace, not so much.
I agree, Wallace’s work never had the impact that Darwin’s had, hence why we see Darwin as such an important historical figure. We only praise Darwin’s success more than Wallace’s because it was so better reseached and worded.