How about Hagel’s embryos and the gray moths in England, quickly to add a couple?
Haeckel's drawings had some inaccuracies. These have been corrected. That is not an example of a fake. Source
The moths in England? What was fake about them? The photos may have been set up with moths on tree trunks for purposes of illustration, but what was illustrated was an accepted phenomenon. Source
A better question is what isn't fake science in Darwinism? We had Biometry, a fake science. Eugenics, a pseudo-science pushed by Darwinians through their eugenical societies (and the immense damage to society because of it.) Anti-Mendelism on the part of famous Darwinians. Fraudulent ape-man "restorations" by McGregor (and many others). The Rockefeller-funded Peking man BS. The same dog-eat-dog patently false Malthusian-Darwinian philosophy in textbooks from the 1900's to the 1960's to 2001 to today. And, one of the supposedly greatest work of Darwinian science - Fisher's Genetical Theory of Natural Selection - is a pile of nonsense - you should read it just to see for yourself. Especially amusing are the parts where Fisher tries to explain why genetically unfit bums have more kids than the genetically fit upperclass british twits. And, by no means least of all, we have their endless ravings about religion, the Bible, and philosophy permeating through so many of their books. Even Moody gets into it in his 1962 textbook on Evolution. Talk about retardation of science.
You can download a lot of that stuff here: Inbred Science
Oh yeah, concerning moths and mimicry and all that. Poulton did a lot of early work on that. He served as a vice president of the Eugenics Society along side another vice president, which you may know, Alfred Ploetz. Yes, Alfred Ploetz served on the board of the Eugenics Society when Leonard Darwin was president.