The question of whether to reconsider and change species names that honor historically odious people is a complex and subjective matter. It involves considerations of scientific tradition, historical context, cultural sensitivity, and the potential impact on scientific communication. While there are arguments both for and against such changes, it is worth exploring the different perspectives to gain a comprehensive understanding of the issue.

Arguments for reconsideration and change:

1. Ethical concerns: Many argue that it is inappropriate to honor individuals who have committed heinous acts or held morally repugnant beliefs. By retaining species names associated with such individuals, we may inadvertently perpetuate their legacy and indirectly endorse their actions.

- Example: The "Hitler beetle" (Anophthalmus hitleri) was named in the 1930s to honor Adolf Hitler. This name has been criticized for acknowledging a dictator responsible for immense human suffering.

2. Cultural sensitivity: As societal values evolve, it is important to be mindful of the cultural implications and sensitivities associated with species names. Some names may be offensive or hurtful to certain communities, perpetuating discrimination or causing unnecessary distress.

- Example: The "Gook owl" (Ninox squamipila) was named using a derogatory term for Asians, which is now considered offensive and inappropriate.

3. Scientific integrity: The use of species names honoring odious individuals may raise concerns about the objectivity and credibility of scientific research. Some argue that it is essential to maintain scientific integrity by distancing the field from individuals with controversial backgrounds.

- Example: The "Cuvier's beaked whale" (Ziphius cavirostris) is named after Georges Cuvier, a prominent biologist who held racist views and supported scientific racism in the 18th and 19th centuries.

Arguments against reconsideration and change:

1. Historical context: Species names often reflect the historical circumstances and intellectual environment in which they were coined. Changing these names could erase important historical connections and distort our understanding of the scientific and cultural context in which they were named.

- Example: The "Darwin's finches" (Geospizinae) were named after Charles Darwin, who made significant contributions to evolutionary biology. Despite some criticisms of Darwin's views on race and gender, his contributions to science are widely recognized.

2. Scientific tradition: Species names are deeply ingrained in the scientific community and changing them can be disruptive. Taxonomy relies on consistent and stable nomenclature to ensure effective communication among scientists across different disciplines and languages.

- Example: The "Einstein's brain coral" (Tubastraea einsteini) was named after Albert Einstein, acknowledging his contributions to physics. Changing this name could lead to confusion and hinder scientific collaboration.

3. Selective revisionism: Critics argue that selectively changing species names based on contemporary moral judgments may lead to a slippery slope, where different individuals or cultural groups demand revisions based on their own subjective interpretations of history or morality.

- Example: The "Linnaeus's frog" (Rana temporaria) is named after Carl Linnaeus, the father of modern taxonomy. Linnaeus held views now considered racially biased, but his contributions to science are widely acknowledged.

In conclusion, the question of whether to reconsider and change species names honoring historically odious people is a complex one. It requires balancing ethical concerns, cultural sensitivity, scientific integrity, historical context, and the need for consistent scientific communication. Any decision should be made through careful consideration, involving diverse perspectives and engaging relevant stakeholders, including scientists, historians, and affected communities.