Mammal Names for Mammals?

Prior to doing a little research for the species fact profile, I had no idea who the "Francois" of Francois's langur was.  That's the case for many of the mammals named after people, though some I've picked up some clue over the years.  Which got me thinking - with all of the to-do about renaming birds that are named after people, why isn't there a similar outcry about mammals?

Part of it has to do with the fact that there are far fewer such names to worry about - there being more than twice as many species of birds compared to mammals, and with far more mammal species (at least from my impressions) have unique names than birds.  How many mammal species can you think of that have names that are a single word - lion, tiger, jaguar, etc - compared to birds?  Also, the call for change of bird names was driven in part by birdwatchers (many local, North American birds are named after people, unlike mammals), as there isn't a similarly-active mammal-watching community.

There are still a reasonable handful of mammal species named after people, spread unevenly across the family tree.  Very few carnivores, for example, have "human" names - and really none of the commonly kept zoo species.  Few primates do either, though more, I feel, than carnivores.  You start seeing it a lot more when you get into the hoofstock (the gazelles, man... Speke's gazelle, Grant's gazelle, Thompson's gazelle), and then the small fry, like the rodents and bats.

Baird's tapir - or should I say Central American tapir? - named after Spencer Fullerton Baird, a former Secretary of the Smithsonian Institute.  Also, if we do change the name to Central AMERICAN tapir, then aren't we, in fact, indirectly naming the species are Amerigo Vespucci?

Sometimes there's a fun quirky story behind a name, like how the largest species of zebra was named after the President of the French Republic, Jules Grevy, after one was presented to him as a gift from Abyssinia.  Other times, it's seemingly meaningless - attributed to a patron or colleague of the person responsible for the discovery.  Ideally, all species would have names of some significance - either a local name by which the species is known (as in the okapi), a descriptive name (i.e., yellow-backed duiker), or a geographic name (Amazon river dolphin).  Though even these can have inaccuracies - the American black bear, for instance, isn't always black, while the Sumatran rhinoceros was historically found throughout Southeast Asia.

So, naming animals is a science, but it isn't a perfect science.   Many species have multiple common names, which makes the Latin name all that much more important.  Common names also have a tendency of changing over time, so it's just as well not to get too attached to any of them.