Full Idea
According to 'sortal essentialism', an object could not have been of a radically different kind than it in fact is.
Gist of Idea
'Sortal essentialism' says being a particular kind is what is essential
Source
Adolph Rami (Essential vs Accidental Properties [2008], §4)
Book Reference
'Stanford Online Encyclopaedia of Philosophy', ed/tr. Stanford University [plato.stanford.edu], p.9
A Reaction
This strikes me as thoroughly wrong. Things belong in kinds because of their properties. Could you remove all the contingent features of a tiger, leaving it as merely 'a tiger', despite being totally unrecognisable?