Two humpback whales have been formally recognised on two breeding grounds separated by nearly 14,200 kilometres as the crow flies, one in Australia, the other in Brazil. It is the longest migration ever documented in this species, and the most surprising part is perhaps the way it was established.
A fingerprint beneath the tail
No tag was fitted to these animals. The identification rests on the underside of the tail fluke, whose pigmentation patterns and trailing-edge notches are specific to each individual and stable throughout life. It is the equivalent of a fingerprint, and a photograph at the right moment is enough, when the animal sounds and raises its tail.
For decades these photographs have fed catalogues compared between teams and between continents. It is this patient archiving work that makes it possible, years later, to recognise the same animal on the other side of the world. Our page on tracking technologies compares this method with electronic tags.
The journey
The first individual was photographed at Hervey Bay, in Queensland, in 2007, seen again at the same place in 2013, then identified off São Paulo in 2019. The second made the journey in the opposite direction. The minimum straight-line distance between these two breeding grounds is close to 14,200 kilometres, and the actual route is necessarily longer.
The figure far exceeds the species’ usual migration, itself considerable: a round trip between polar feeding grounds and tropical breeding grounds commonly amounts to 8,000 kilometres. Our migration comparison tools situate these distances across species.
What a journey like this costs
A point of physiology helps to gauge the feat. Humpback whales feed almost exclusively on their cold feeding grounds, then migrate and breed while fasting, drawing on their blubber reserves.
A standard 8,000 kilometre round trip is therefore paid for out of a capital built up over a few summer months. Doubling the distance does not only double the swimming effort: it lengthens the period without food intake, in an animal that must also see to its reproduction. Our page on energy and metabolism gives these orders of magnitude.
The limits of two sightings
One clarification is called for, because this kind of record is often badly told. Nobody followed these animals during their journey. What is available is two points and two dates, several years apart. The route taken, its duration, its stages and the number of round trips remain unknown.
What the observation firmly establishes is that one and the same individual used two breeding grounds believed to be served by distinct populations. It is a result about connectivity between populations, and it counts for more than the distance record itself: it suggests exchanges where separate groups were postulated.
Four possible explanations
None is demonstrated, and the authors of this kind of observation refrain from settling the question. Stating them shows what would need to be measured.
1. Exploration by young animals. In many migratory species, individuals that are not yet breeding stray further from established routes. Such a journey would then be a one-off with no sequel, unless the animal later returns to the area it discovered.
2. The shifting of prey. If the Antarctic feeding grounds are redistributed, an animal following its food may find itself, at the end of the season, closer to another breeding ground than to its own. This hypothesis is testable: it predicts an increase in such cases over time.
3. Recolonisation after whaling. The populations decimated in the twentieth century left empty areas that animals from elsewhere can reoccupy. An inter-ocean movement would then be the trace of a recovery under way rather than an anomaly.
4. A navigation error. The least satisfying hypothesis, because it explains nothing and lends itself poorly to testing. It remains possible for an isolated case, but two animals travelling in opposite directions make it less likely.
What “record” means here
The word deserves a clarification, because the figures circulating about marine migrations do not all measure the same thing.
| Point-to-point distance | straight-line separation between two places where the same individual has been identified, here about 14,200 km |
|---|---|
| Annual journey | distance actually covered over a year, outward and return included |
| Route followed by tag | track recorded continuously, the only direct measurement, but limited to the working life of the tag |
The value of 14,200 kilometres belongs to the first category. It describes a separation between two points, not a measured route. Records for annual migration belong to another family of figures: the grey whale, one individual of which, tracked by tag between Russia and Mexico, covered more than twenty thousand kilometres there and back, holds a benchmark of that kind. Our pages on cetacean records and the migration comparison tool distinguish these categories.
Comparing the two would amount to setting an as-the-crow-flies distance against an odometer reading. The record established here is remarkable for another reason: it links two ocean basins believed to be served by distinct populations, something no sum of kilometres measures.
The reach of photo-identification
The method has a structural limit that has to be kept in mind: it finds only what has been photographed at both ends. An animal making a comparable journey between two areas, one of which is not covered by a catalogue, would remain invisible.
Survey effort is very uneven across the globe. The Australian and Brazilian coasts are among the best documented in the world, which partly explains why it is between them that a record is found. It would be unwise to conclude that this corridor is the only one, or even the busiest.
In other words, this result measures the intensity of monitoring as much as the behaviour of the animals. It is the usual bias of occurrence data, which our hotspot maps also flag.
Why connectivity matters
Two populations that exchange individuals share genes, and possibly learned behaviours. They also rebuild differently after a disturbance, since one area can be recolonised from the other. Management measures, for their part, are most often defined by population, on the basis of boundaries that this kind of observation calls into question.
Our pages on cetacean records and sighting hotspots place these two areas on the world map.
Sources: photographic identification published in 2026 and relayed by the international science press; humpback whale photo-identification catalogues for eastern Australia and the South-West Atlantic.
Did you find this article useful?
Add L'info des Cétacés to your preferred sources on Google. Our stories will be suggested to you more often, and the choice can be undone as easily as it is done.
Follow us on GoogleThis preference is saved in your Google account and can be changed at any time. It is neither a certification nor a recommendation from Google.
Leave a review