The name reflects only that the two parks were initially formed separately. They were merged into one park in 1943.
Link?* The park service pages STILL refer to two parks, joint administration doesn't mean merged, in fact were they truly merged the resulting entity would simply be "administered" and not "jointly administered". And the map locator on the NPS website displays two parks, one labeled Kings Canyon and the other Sequoia.
Were there only one park, "Sequoia & Kings Canyon National Park", it would be so labeled on the park service's own locater map as one solid, single, united entity and it is not. Also when they have the opportunity to do so they decline as here on the descirp[tion of the mt. Whitney approaches and the High Sierra Trail: "There are other routes besides Whitney Portal from which to reach Mt. Whitney. These leave from less heavily-used trailheads, but require a longer hike to reach the summit. The High Sierra Trail leaves from Giant Forest on the west side of Sequoia National Park, and takes a minimum of 6 days (shuttle trip) or 10 days (round trip) to complete." The "west side of Sequoia National Park", not as would be the case if there was only one merged entity, "the west side of Sequoia & Kings Canyon National Park". commemorative "s" or no.
* I expect there'd be an Act of Congress lying around somewhere, a national park gets formed through that route as I understand it.
It's called evidence. You need a life.
Do you need a dictionary to look up a definition for the word "evidence"?
I like Mojave, since Apple has largely deserted prosumer-level apps.
They were formed separately but after they were merged into one administrative unit in 1943, they became known collectively as "Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks." You could look that up yourself if you are interested, but I can tell you nowhere will you find them described officially as separate parks, because except for historically, they aren't separate. I already knew this (obscure) fact because we are regular visitors to the park(s) and the rangers can be quick to correct you if you make that mistake. Not that it really matters very much.
OS X Mojave
OS X Napa
OS X Redwood
OS X Ventura
Napa and Redwood are OK.
Since we have Dr. Dre and Beats how, about OS X Compton.
OS X Epicenter?
I agree that "Epicenter" strongly suggests an earthquake-related name, and it's hard to imagine what that could be other than San Andreas.
I suspect that Apple does not want to pick a particular city or town (like Malibu or Ventura) for various reasons (including political reasons, being associated with some unknown potential future scandal or event), or alienating people that don't live there), and the names they've chosen so far support that. My suggestions would be:
OS X Mammoth
OS X Sequoia
Mt. Shasta and Mt. Whitney are excellent, but the names don't flow.
Seriously? Cool as in Snoop Dog or the dozens of other gangster hip-hop artists? Ah, No! Long Beach is place I would avoid if at all possible. Apologies to anyone who lives there.
I was born in Long Beach. No apology necessary. There's no way Apple would name it after Long Beach.
Likewise Alcatraz would be a poor choice, when right next to it is the much better choice of Angel Island.
Going with the island theme would be:
But please... not OS X Ventura.
OS X Ventura - Pet Detective!