I think I'm in a different situation to the OP. I was already aware of the naming convention through FredClarkeara and others. I wasn't aware of the genus naming process but had dealt with the RHS registrars by email before ( when registering hybrids ) - they are very helpful and friendly. I sent an email enquiry before sending in the forms. I asked whether the naming convention had been changed to last name only or was it still first and last name, or both....or what.....and if my cross was still "new". Some new genus' are last name only. I had a prompt answer and was thus able to complete the forms accurately. The OP points out that his only "hiccup" was the reclassification...or not...of encyc.
Whether I named the genus or whether RHS prompted my name, or my last name only or some combination after the above explanation would be pedantic. Especially when it's so rare for a new genus to be created. In fact the OP is only the second person I have come across and I get around.

It is not an offense to try to fully understand the OP's original remark of RHS naming an orchid after the member. Many advances in science and technology (and also avoiding issues due to ambiguity or miscommunications) have come from being thorough - very thorough. The word 'pedantic' does not correctly describe the situation here.

To be clear - did you mean the OP is only the second person (apart from yourself) you have encountered who has a genus linked to their name? Eg. him and Fred?

You have astutely focused on the scientific accuracy part of my post and rather than directly answering your question I would refer you to the in plain sight clues I mentioned in my last post, unrelated to the Fibonacci sequence or the fuzziness of plant whorls.
As a bonus add : the RHS are the resource of origin and I'm sure will be able to delve into the minutiae of the process should you require more raw data.

Geez!

Wow!

While many here are happy to provide info when asked, as often as it may be repeated, in an effort to make things clear for folks, you're not inclined to do so?

Has putting people down become a new strategy to help?

I see this current interchange simply as a clash between those who appreciate false modesty and those who do not. And of course the other guys are bad people, so why not put them down?