I generally agree with colleagues here that it shouldn't be a problem. But, it would be prudent to point that this can often go wrong. It is often the case, for example, that the people who popularise a theorem are very different from the people who first describe it, or first put the most non-trivial building blocks that allowed others to popularize it in the first place. Sometimes what is an incremental and what is a fundamental contribution is not clear.
In your case it may be clear that these two, and only these two authors have worked on this problem; but in cases where it's not, particularly if the missing authors themselves (or often enough, their national bodies in posthumous situations) would consider them ignored pioneers of that work.
I can think of many examples of people/nations with grievances of this kind. This is especially true in medicine, where people (or often, their birthplaces) try to eponymize diseases all the time.
The most obvious example that first comes to mind to me (as a Greek person) is Behçet's disease, which as the wikipedia page calmly states, "is sometimes also known as Adamantiades-Behçet's disease".
What this calm statement hides behind it is that the two wikipedia entries have almost been a battleground of edits between people of Greek and Turkish origin, defending what the correct name to use is, etc. You can see some of this still remaining in the talk pages, but these typically get cleaned out of view, hiding such battlescars!
Tellingly, if you look for Adamantiades in the English wikipedia, you will be redirected to Behçet's disease; if you look for Behçet in the Greek wikipedia, you will be redirected to Adamantiades-Behçet's disease :)
Behçet's disease is particularly interesting, given the information in the article:
- It was "first formally first described by H. Planner and F. Remenovsky, who published their findings in 1922"
- Behçet, an eminent Turkish dermatologist and scientist, first (?) recognizes the three main symptoms of the syndrome in one of his patients in 1924 (but no publication is made at the time).
- Adamantiades presents independent (?) work at the Medical Society of Athens in 1930, identifying the three major signs of the disease, and insisting in their classification as a single clinical entity. This results in a publication in 1931 in Greek and French medical journals.
- Behçet subsequently reports his own research on the disease in the Journal of Skin and Venereal Diseases in 1936.
So the implication here is: the two people who first really discovered this, are not even contenders for the name here; Behçet's largest contribution here was presumably being among the pioneers who described this disease, ostensibly not the very first, but certainly the most eminent, and the one who published in the most impactful journal, the one whose contribution actually reached the most eyes and had the most impact, and thus (perhaps rightfully) the name most now associated with the disease.
So, yes. I think it's mostly ok, but just keep in mind there's always a small chance you might accidentally start World War 3 in a 'butterfly flapping its wings' kind of way if you're not too careful :p