I feel pretty sure there is a growing general aversion to the appendage of author's name, except in cases where necessary.

Now at this moment I have seen specimens ticketed with a specific name and no reference--such are hopelessly inconvenient; but I declare I would rather (as saving time) have a reference to some second systematic work than to the original author, for I have cases of this which hardly help me at all, for I know not where to look amongst endless periodical foreign papers.

On the other hand, one can get hold of most systematic works and so follow up the scent, and a species does not long lie buried exclusively in a paper.
I thank you sincerely for your very kind offer of occasionally assisting me with your opinion, and I will not trespass much.

I have a case, but [it is one] about which I am almost sure; and so to save you writing, if I conclude rightly, pray do not answer, and I shall understand silence as assent.
Olfers in 1814 made Lepas aurita Linn.

into the genus Conchoderma; [Oken] in 1815 gave the name Branta to Lepas aurita and vittata, and by so doing he alters essentially Olfers' generic definition.