In his very recent review of Jerry Evensky's "Adam Smith's Moral 
Philosophy: A Historical and Contemporary Perspective on Markets, Law, 
Ethics, and Culture" Professor Fayazmanesh has some remarks that need to 
be reasessed. For example he simply says that Evensky's 'notion of 
"selection/evolution/limit" is, of course, the result of reading Adam 
Smith after Charles Darwin'. It is well known that Darwin benefited from 
Adam Smith, and it is also widely acknowledged that Smith together with 
other members of the Scottish Enlightenment, and even Turgot, did 
seminal progress with their fours stages theory, leading to Darwin.

Finally, and in my view more disturbing, is Professor Fayazmanesh's 
apparently dismissive (but of course legitimate) comment that 'What 
differentiates Evensky's work from previous ones? Generally speaking, 
interpretations of Adam Smith's writings'. My question is what do some 
historians of economic thought do, but interpreting, using Professor 
Fayazmanesh's own wording 'archaic theory (ies) of history'?

Leonidas Montes