if the knot in my pictures truly has a Single Carrick configuration then it would seem reasonable to call it a Single Carrick Loop. Derek seems certain that it's not a Single Carrick, ...
Rather, Derek said (unqualified) "carrick", and must mean the usual one popularized
by that name--Ashley's #1439, "Full Carrick Bend".
As others have noted/confirmed, the knot structure matches #1445, *A* Single
Carrick--emphasis for "one of several". So naming the knot after that similarity
begs the question Which S.C.?
Yes, there are a great many bogus "bowline" names; but, here, we have grounds IMHO
for using it: the loopknot has a binding/nipping loop--what I regard as the Bowline's
essence, it's determining characteristic (as such a simple knot, what else is there?!).
"Quick Bowline" comes to mind. To Google, this is a
method for tying the Bwl.
Maybe "Bightless Bwl" (which could no doubt be heard and reiterated as "Toothless
Bwl"
).
This knot seems less stable than the "Bollard Loop" shown in km83:33 (which
is this same knot but the end's reentry to the knot being where this knot's end
exits & vice versa). I regard that other loopknot as an "anti-bowline" in that it
has the nipping turn but the end reenters from the opposite side.
(And which would equally lay claim to "Double Cross...".)
--dl*
====