I think the name should be changed if repeated taxonomic analyses show that it is correct. The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature it is stated that taxonomical stability is a goal and therefore name changes should not be applied without thorough evidence. However as an entomologist I'm not sure that we need to write Stegomyia aegypti in every publication targeted towards non entomologists. A good compromise could be to use Aedes (Stegomyia) aegypti. I also believe that there are more problematic species name changes, fx Aedes albopictus changes to Stegomyia albopicta. When both the genus and species name change it makes it hard to search for the species in literature data bases.

I agree with Anders. This changing can result in confusion for non-specialists.

The other problem issue associated with name changes is that entomologists and public authorities on opposite sides of the Atlantic often disagree about whether these name changes should be accepted. So it is commonplace for the same organism to be known by two names according to the geographic region, e.g. Lucilia sericata or Phaenicia sericata? Heliothis armigera or Helicoverpa armigera? The list goes on!

Yes, as a scientist I think analyses should be repeated and results corroborated using best practices before acceptance. Especially when changing genera and species names may lead to confusion I think immediate adoption of taxonomic revisions is not warranted. Dr. Reinert's analysis based solely on morphological characters has spurred confusion especially since his successive publications have contradicted each other and the characters are hard to discern. This controversy has highlighted the importance of supporting and funding good taxonomy. I am still sticking with Aedes.

When conducting literature searches for studies like mine, which use occurrence records for different disease vectors, changing the name can really throw things off. If I am set to search for papers with Aedes aegypti, while newer papers have relevant data but under a different name, I can potentially lose out on those data which could have added greatly to my own work. I also agree with Dr. Lindstrom. The compromise seems best. In this case, at least, "aegypti" is still retained. It would be worse if both the genus and species names were changed. Since I am only just becoming familiar with this kind of science, I would probably only get confused with a full name change.