When Species Names Are Offensive, Should They Be Changed?

They should revamp all the names, and only leave descriptive names in latin.

This is exactly what the American Ornithological Society did for English bird names.

You realize that there are millions of species (according to wiki about 8-8.7 million eukaryotes alone) out there and that in many fields, there is not a lot of information on how a species looks like etc? Additionally we already have a great chaos of names and terms and it is often not easy to sort out a name for a certain species (that's why there are tools like plantsoftheworldonline). I get the urge to just start from scratch and give them all descriptive names, but this would be a huge undertaking spanning many different areas of research interests. Maybe as a good example, just think of Coleoptera. There are about 400,000 described species with an estimate of "0.9 to 2.1 million total species". Many of these you can really only identify by their genitalia. So what would be descriptive names? Mostly related to genitalia I guess. But that wouldn't help a layman. You could also look at plants: orchids have about 27,000 described species. Often with very minor differences in flower morphology. Or you look at fungi, bacteria, archaea, protists and all the other more cryptic groups. And then you realize, names and the taxonomy of huge groups of taxa frequently change. As an example look at the APG where they massively changed the taxonomy of angiosperm plants. Maybe it would be a good idea if some researchers/taxonomists clean up a bit in their area of expertise. And as you can see, they already do. There won't be any unifying, overarching taxonomy of all taxa though. What's limited the people in the 1800's doesn't limit us today, true. But what limits us today is the sheer amount of information we already collected.

Here's a decent write up:

Lenin belonged to the generation of revolutionary romantics, while Stalin was a relentless, pragmatic empire builder, hard as nail in his Machiavellian understanding of politics.

Lenin pioneered concentration camps for his own non-combatant compatriots, but they were not a feature of his rule, and were not as deadly as Stalin’s Gulag. He had a liking for hostage taking and summary executions. But Lenin was disarmingly straightforward about it. Meanwhile, Stalin went to great lengths to make his giant people-mower of state as unobtrusive and undocumented as possible—yet the sheer scale of human death and suffering caused by him makes him very hard to defend even for extreme fans of radical justice.

Stalin turned on his own party comrades, killing them in their thousands. Lenin didn’t do that even to people who he considered traitors to the proletarian cause

Lenin allowed factions in the party. You could disagree with the man on some fundamental things, and still sit on the Central Committee. (Modern cappuccino Communists, who never seem to agree with each other on anything, greatly appreciate that). With Stalin, doing the same was suicidal.

Lenin’s secret police Cheká was a loose bunch of marauding, sadistic, homicidal predators in revolutionary garbs who were good for terrorizing population and showing everyone who is in charge, but rarely for much else. The Kremlin had very scant control over who they were and what they were doing outside the inner circles of most trusted Bolsheviks. Stalin’s GPU-NKVD-MGB-KGB was a huge, well-oiled, highly trained killing and spying machine kept by Stalin in good shape and on a very short leash—a beast rarely appreciated by revolutionary romantics.

Lenin was a challenger, an underdog, a figure many of us can relate to. Stalin is known to history as a half-god moving around armies and industrial plants from the safety and comfort of the Kremlin. He’s an object of study, hate, admiration, but hardly someone you can imagine enjoying a cup of cappuccino with.

So not great but much better than Stalin