Bachman's Warbler, Audubon, and the Complicated History of Bird Names

The scientific legacy of two influential naturalists, their connections to slavery, and the continuing discussion about whose names birds should bear.

The story of Bachman's Warbler is closely connected to two prominent figures in American natural history: John James Audubon and the Reverend John Bachman. Both made important contributions to our understanding of North American wildlife. Both also participated in and benefited from slavery, leaving legacies that deserve thoughtful examination.

Today, as the birding community reconsiders the practice of naming birds after people, Bachman's Warbler offers an especially interesting example of how scientific history, human history, and conservation intersect.

How Bachman's Warbler Got Its Name

In 1833, the Reverend John Bachman, a Lutheran minister and accomplished naturalist living in Charleston, South Carolina, collected specimens of an unfamiliar warbler near Parker's Ferry. He sent specimens and information about the bird to his friend and scientific collaborator, John James Audubon.

Audubon described the species and named it in Bachman's honor. Its scientific name, Vermivora bachmanii, also commemorates Bachman.

The two men had developed a close working relationship. Bachman contributed specimens, observations, and scientific knowledge to Audubon's monumental Birds of America. They later collaborated on The Viviparous Quadrupeds of North America, an important illustrated study of North American mammals.

Audubon and Bachman: Scientific Achievement and Slavery

John James Audubon (1785–1851) transformed wildlife illustration. His extraordinary paintings combined artistic beauty with close attention to birds' appearance, behavior, and habitats. The Birds of America, published between 1827 and 1838, remains among the most celebrated achievements in natural history illustration.

Yet Audubon's life also included deeply troubling conduct. He enslaved Black people, benefited from their labor, expressed racist views, and opposed abolitionist efforts. These facts have received increasing attention from historians and from the National Audubon Society itself.

John Bachman (1790–1874) presents a similarly complicated legacy.

As a naturalist, Bachman made significant contributions to ornithology and mammalogy. He also argued against the then-influential theory that different human races represented separate species, maintaining instead that all humanity belonged to one species.

That position, however, did not make him an opponent of slavery. Bachman enslaved people and defended the institution. His household's scientific work also benefited from enslaved labor, including that of a man named Thomas, who learned to prepare bird specimens.

These histories resist simple characterization. Recognizing the scientific accomplishments of Audubon and Bachman does not require overlooking their participation in slavery. Nor does acknowledging their moral failings erase their contributions to natural history.

Both parts of their stories belong in an accurate historical account.

The Continuing Debate Over Bird Names

In November 2023, the American Ornithological Society (AOS), which establishes standardized English names for North American birds, announced a commitment to replacing English bird names that honor individuals, known as eponyms. The initiative would also address other names considered offensive or exclusionary.

Supporters argue that bird names should describe the birds themselves rather than commemorate historical individuals, especially when those individuals have troubling associations with slavery, racism, or colonialism. Descriptive names, they suggest, can also be more informative and welcoming to new generations of birders.

Critics have raised concerns about disrupting long-established names, losing connections to ornithological history, and the practical costs of making widespread changes. Some favor evaluating names individually rather than replacing all eponyms.

The AOS has proposed a pilot process to explore new naming procedures, but implementation remains an ongoing discussion. The initiative concerns English common names, not scientific names.

The debate raises a larger question: What should a bird's name communicate—its appearance, its ecology, its history, or the people associated with its discovery?

Why the Name Appears in The Last Warbler

My historical novel, The Last Warbler, takes place in 1978–79, when Bachman's Warbler was still considered one of North America's rarest and most elusive birds. Its possible survival provides the central mystery of the story.

I use the name Bachman's Warbler because it was the established name during the period in which the novel takes place. The characters would have known the bird by that name. Its use should not be interpreted as an endorsement of John Bachman's views or conduct, nor as opposition to contemporary discussions about bird names.

Ultimately, the novel is concerned less with the individual whose name the bird bears than with the bird itself, the people who searched for it, and the decisions that contributed to its disappearance.

Whatever name we use, the loss of this remarkable species remains the more enduring tragedy.