Changing the name of a species means that the species is not traceable anymore on the bibliography. Not unless you memorize every single change first. This is

Changing the name of a species means that the species is not traceable anymore on the bibliography. Not unless you memorize every single change first. This is not a trivial task and the trend of AI to invent facts could made it an impossible one in a few decades so is not a trivial problem. Realizing that the species are the same can seem easy for popular well known species, but not all species are popular, and often several species share the same name for a while. Sometimes people forgets about a species that is depicted only in a particular article from 1800, but to know that your new species is really new you need to trace the original work. I can tell you by experience that untangle this lines can became a hell real quick. The burden that this move will put on the shoulders of overworking researchers will have an impact on the time available to new botanists to do science. This means a humongous number of lost hours of research work, when we need science focusing on rare species most. Anything that delay advances of science, or will made the life of scientists even more miserable, should be dismissed or done by universal consensus on the scientific world, and much better justified. Period Saying that "But this guy that studied this butterflies all this life, had slaves in 1810 so their name must be bleached from historical documents" will not harm slave owners. It will harm --me-- and other people like me, and will harm the conservative efforts done on the species, sometimes even leading that organism to extinction. There are known cases. Erasing parts of the history or bleaching names in a book is a road to totalitarian hell. Egyptians did it before. It just will block researchers in the future to know the truth or to understand the historical facts.