I suppose that's why it's hard to sort out in retrospect. People worry so much about "firsts." And, so often, it's nothing more than who had something named for them, happened to write the first paper, or as on Everest, just happened to be taking one's turn in the lead when the next ridge turned out to be the peak. And it does take some work to try to warm up to a lot of Victorian figures. When you combine the general neurotic rigidity, the lack of the sort of automatic time-marking that today tends to settle issues of precedence, the first existence of a science-aware, significant, and competitive press to air controversy, and the feeling that scientific discovery was now terribly important to the common man who would eventually benefit in practical ways, you get an environment just made for wrangling.antonroland wrote: Slightly O/T but relevant methinks...who was REALLY first to reach the summit of Everest? The great explorer, Sir Edmund Hillary or the lowly guide, Tensing Norkay?
It might be interesting to compile a list of named places, processes, and things named not for the person who discovered them but for whoever brought them to attention. Very often, the person whose name attached never claimed credit or even disavowed credit but was stuck it.