"Re :Becoming lazy in naming species" .....    A few points:

(1) Anyone who takes the time necessary to determine whether a species is new
(to science) does indeed work very hard at both the research and subsequent
publication...    hardly lazy, either physically or intellectually.  I think
that it does, however, take a little more work to come up with an appropriate
descriptive name.

(2) Naming a new species after a person (i.e., creating a "patronym") is
allowable under the rules of the International Code of Zoological
Nomenclature (ICZN).  Thus, it is an option to be used or not used, at the
discretion of the author. [i.e., if you don't like the rules, then change the
rules!  ...petitioning the ICZN for rule changes is a lot of work too!]

(3) Using descriptive nomenclatural terms, latinized or not, (consider the
"Map Cowry", Cypraea mappa) certainly assists other conchologists /
malacologists / enthusiasts to identify the subject shell, whereas a patronym
seldom (if ever?) will help with the identification process.  (and as another
person has stated, the descriptive name withstands the test of time...   it
remains useful, forever)

(4) The use of a patronym, while legally allowed, CAN be misused!  I don't
recall the whole story well, but I do believe that someone (Alexander
Agassiz?) named a small fish after someone he did not like....   simply
because the fish lived in the butthole of a holothurian (sea cucumber)!   [or
perhaps the fish was named after him by soneone else!]

(5) While it may be an honor to have your name used to name a new species,
how honorable is it if / when that name falls into synonymy later on?
...perhaps indicating that the author was rather too quick to do you a favor.

That said, I personally think patronyms should be avoided if possible.

Paul Mikkelsen

ps:  Agree or disagree with the use of patronyms, I also think that it's a
great topic for discussion!   ...and great use of Conch-L services.