In Innocent Killers, a book Jane Goodall wrote with her then-husband, the nature photographer Hugo van Lawick, Jane engages in a little activism via grammar:
"It may seem strange, to some, that I write wildebeests, using the plural. Most people will talk about a herd of wildebeest, or zebra, a pride of lion, and so forth. But to us [meaning herself and Hugo], this use of the singular suggests that the individuality of each animal in the group is being ignored. It implies, to us, that every lion is just a lion. After all, who would dream of talking about a boatload of Italian, a classroom of German, or even a gathering of man?"
My brow crinkled up. I flipped back three pages. There I found a paragraph in which Jane discusses possible lifeways of early humans:
"Let us consider early man in the role of a scavenger. He may have been a reasonably fast runner, although, as he had not long adopted an upright posture, we cannot be sure. Undoubtedly he ... his ears were much sharper than those of man today, at least of ‘civilized’ man ... Early man ... If he ... he might have been able to ... his weapons ..."
Considering that I’ve never heard anyone say "pride of lion" Jane’s grammatical line in the sand must’ve stopped that particular travesty from crossing to my American ears. I haven’t read her most recent book, Reason for Hope -- do you know if she’s taken her own advice when referring to her home species?