Interesting, i know the Knight/Zebra compound as 'Gazelle' also, but doing a search i couldn't find anything, Jorg, where does the name 'Okapi' come from. Always interested in alternate names, but i do like the name 'gazelle' for this piece though.

Now Charles, you say 'One useful feature to add would be to distinguish usage in actual variants from problematist names largely ignored by varint designers.'
 
Well, i don't know, sounds a bit melodramatic to me, 'Quick, Joe Joyce has been hit by a pie in the face down by the old school road, curse those problematist's!!'.

I mean, piece names listed by problematists have many names accepted and used by game designers. And, even pieces that began their life as problem pieces like 'grasshopper' and 'nightrider' have been embraced by game designers (flamingo, locust?). 

Also, game designers don't just 'largely ignore' problematist names, i would say they largely ignore everyone, other game designers also. Game designers are like 'maverick's', they do as they please, nameing pieces as they wish.

Just look at the history of the rook/knight and bishop/knight compounds, and also the 'prince' piece you mention, 1 square all directions.
 
Possible first appearance in the 17th Century game 'Carrera's Chess', they were called 'Champion' and Centaur'. Then in 1874, 'Bird's Chess' they were called  'Guard' and 'Equerry'. Later, in 'Capablanca Chess' they appeared under the names 'Chancellor' and 'Archbishop'. Then a string of similar games followed ..

grotesque - guard equerry
gothic - chancellor archbishop
aberg's - chancellor archbishop
optimized - chancellor archbishop
embassy - marshall cardinal
ladorean - marshall cardinal
univers - marshal paladin
schoolbook - marshal archbishop
janus - 'janus' (archbishop) - no chancellor
new chancellor - chancellor - no archbishop
flanking archbishops - archbishop - no chancellor.

And then recently, Seirawan Chess amazingly calls these pieces 'Elephant' and 'Hawk' ... yep 'Elephant' name was used, could you throw a bigger spanner in the works, hardly, lol.

Now, a piece that moves 1 square in all directions, appears to me to first appeared in the 1000 year old game 'Shatranj Kamil', where it was called a 'War Machine' or 'Dabbaba'!!. Note in another variant of this game, the Dabbaba {0,2} appears under the name 'Camel'. And later, around the 12th century, in 'Courier Chess', this piece is called a 'Man'. Was it Jean-Louis Cazaux who first called this piece a 'Prince'?  Piececlopedia  lists under 'Man' and 'Commoner'. Joe Joyce calls it 'General'.

So it is clear to see, game designers not only ignore problematist names, but they ignore everyone, true mavericks, like mad scientists they put their games together and name the pieces as they see fit, ('fool's, i'll destroy them all'), and the chess variant community accepts this, game designers can do as they please, and most people don't mind.

Sure, certain names over time become accepted as the norm, but as we see, even big pieces (rook/knight and bishop/knight compounds) still go under multi-names. Sorry for long post. 

Hey, i saw a site listing old shatranj pieces and it gives the knight/bishop compound the name 'Karkaddan', saying it is an old piece in a game called 'Shatrank al-Kabir'. Piece is at bottom of page, and the game link is in piece description. Any thoughts?
http://filer.case.edu/org/cwrums/games/shat-pieces.html#shah

main page link for other info on games is here
http://filer.case.edu/org/cwrums/games/