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