"If we, as researchers, don't trust our data gatherers to correctly name our datapoints, we have two options. 1) educate the participants in our study, 2) laboriously correct the data ourselves or 3) get different workers. I prefer the first and find that most reporters are far better than they're given credit here."
I agree with you. I think changing the name is a wonderful way to educate our participants. I do not think that leaving the same name and putting up an announcement will prove as effective. My experience playing an online game over the past 11 years (ha! linked my two main hobbies at LAST! :p ) is that a) update notes are not read by everyone (EVERY update sees someone surprised to find something different, even though it was clearly announced in the notes), & b) some people may be away for long enough to have missed notes by the time they use the system again. It's much harder to miss a name that is consistently different than what it used to be, & everyone would become aware of the change as soon as they attempted to enter a record for either of the newly split species.
I also certainly don't intend to disparage any data reporters for not following discussions on nomenclature such as this, nor do I see advocating for common names which provide greater clarity as doing so in any way. I'm not faulting any reporters here, I'm disagreeing with the name & pointing out my reasoning.