It is not only insects. Fungi is another huge group for which there is just not enough words in Latin to make the names descriptive. Compare the number of birds worldwide and the number of fungi or insects. I think, that many people here who complain about human names for organisms have in mind comparatively small (and well known) organism groups. Another thing is difference between common names and scientific names. In fact, all birds and mammals have common names, but most of fungi and invertebrates don’t and probably will never have, so this is not an issue at all. See, e.g. this thread: https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/the-right-of-a-fly-to-a-common-name/14842/61
In the end, there is no necessity to use human name in the common name if it is possible to use a descriptive one. Another thing is about people after whom the species are named. The rule should be that species are named solely after the researchers in that particular field, but there is no such rule. Not so very long ago there was an uproar in lichenological community when a new species was named Caloplaca obamae. Most of lichenologists protested, but this was not against the rules, so it stayed. Personally, I am very firmly against such practice. As to the older names, yes, there are controversial figures or downright history monsters after which species are named. However, I would be careful condemning early nature researchers as nature killers. It was only comparatively recently that we started to understand damage to nature and nature conservation. And started to understand with the help of that condemned early research, too. Just think of the great conservationalist Gerald Durrell, who started his career by doing damage to nature (from the present point of view). However, withoutthe knowledge which he gathered during his animal catching trips he would never have understood the scope of of the conservation necessity.
4 Likes