Few figures in 20th century ornithology stand out like Erwin Friedrich Theodor Stresemann (1889–1972), the famed German ornithologist who authored dozens of taxonomic descriptions (36 names noted on WikiSpecies, link). He is the namesake of Stresemann’s bristlefront (Merulaxis stresemanni), Stresemann’s Bush-Crow (Zavattariornis stresemanni) and several other species (e.g., Bar-bellied woodcreeper, Hylexetastes stresemanni, and White-cheeked Cotinga, Zaratornis stresemanni). The number of subspecies named for Stresemann is large enough that, frankly, compiling a complete list is not worth my time.
In addition to his extensive ornithological work, Stresemann was a historian and author of Entwicklung der Ornithologie von Aristoteles bis zur Gegenwart (1951), which, after his death, was translated to English under the name, Ornithology from Aristotle to the Present (1975). This work was a major influence on his Ph.D. student, Ernst Mayr (1904–2005), who would eventually surpass Stresemann in fame. Mayr’s own historical studies culminated in The Growth of Biological Thought (1982), which many consider to be a foundational work on the historical development of evolutionary theory. This was, in many ways, an extension of Stresemann’s work. In 1972, Mayr eulogized his late mentor as “one of [ornithology’s] great leaders” who was known for his “high intelligence” (link).
That comment about “high intelligence” gets under my skin. Stresemann apparently had a dark side, which everyone (including Mayr) seems to have conveniently forgotten or omitted. According to a newspaper article published in Philadelphia in 1936, he espoused white (Aryan) supremacist and Nazi views, that Germans were intellectually and culturally superior to the rest of humanity, and was apparently sympathetic to the Third Reich’s goal of achieving a “pure Aryan race” by any means necessary. Mayr notably avoided any mention of Stresemann’s views about race and German nationalism in the obituary of his mentor (link). Accordingly, Stresemann’s page on Wikipedia fails to even mention this critical part of his biography (link, accessed 19 Oct 2022).
In January 1936, when Stresemann visited the bird collection at the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia (ANSP), in the United States, he was confronted by a newspaper reporter. At this time, the world was witnessing a dramatic escalation of Hitler’s imperialist agenda. In the interview, Stresemann was brazenly open about his support for the Hitler government, and specifically its vision of Aryan supremacy:
“There is a pure Aryan race politically—if not anthropologically … The Hitler Government preaches the idea of the emergence of a race of tall, fair, blue-eyed men and women which we shall believe to be superior, racially, economically and artistically … I do not believe Germany can be great if the German strain is mixed with the blood of alien races.”
Stresemann was also asked: “Does the Hitler government believe that the logical way to prove the economic and artistic superiority of the so-called Aryans over the other races — notably the Jews — is to pass laws forbidding the Jews from competing with the Aryans in those fields?” Stresemann responded:
“Well, the Government is trying to work out a plan—a solution. I believe in time it will be found.”
We now know what the Nazis had in mind, a “Final Solution to the Jewish Question” — the extermination of all Jews — a campaign that escalated into the Holocaust. During the war, while millions of Jews were systematically murdered across German-occupied Europe, Stresemann was in Germany working on his Nazi-funded bird research, presumably hoping for the Nazis to prevail.
[The following paragraphs were edited on 18 September 2023—thanks to Kristin Johnson (University of Puget Sound) for the constructive feedback and Nowack reference]:
Were Stresemann’s views more complicated? A biography written by Polish writer E. Nowak certainly suggests so (link), and Stresemann reportedly stated that “scientists who [lectured] on the problem of human races [were] not allowed to speak publicly unless their views conform with the views of the Government”. Was he merely compelled to give testimony to racist views that he did not personally hold?
If so, how does this reflect on his character? Does the ethical ambiguity of Stresemann’s behavior change how we view his ornithology, or whether he is deserving of all the eponyms? Stresemann is remembered in the names of Stresemann’s Bristlefront and Stresemann’s Bush-crow, but the fact that he was literally a Nazi scientist seems to have been conveniently forgotten (i.e., selectively omitted).
However we choose to view Stresemann, we are confronted with the same critical question:. Must we continue to honor individuals like Stresemann in the names of birds and other animals? For me, this is not a hard choice.
#birdnamesforbirds, FFS!
Matthew R. Halley 
Once again, I appreciate your shining a light on a obscured (sic) moment in ornithological history.
I would love to know more about what Stresemann did during the lead-up to WWII and the war years themselves. For example, what was his relationship with the Nazi party & government and did he participate in any way with the machinery of mass murder? Did he ever denounce his prior views, or just try to hide his past as others did (Günther Grass & Kurt Waldheim come to mind) ?