Oh yes. Nelson's Carcinosinum, as described in the article, is a "combination" remedy in the exact same way that Natrum Muriaticum is a combination remedy.

Or Calcarea carbonica.

Or Kali bromatum.

Or ...well I'm sure you get it by now.

Mel cum Sale.

Nelson's is not required to name donors, that information is irrelevant.
You can always check out all the information available about this remedy, and notice--like many homeopaths have already done--that the differences between the various provings are negligible.

As Sankaran noticed with Lac Humanum...the difference between the proving outcomes of Lac Humanum from a single source, and the Lac Maternum (made from the combined milks of several women) is negligible.

A lot of people don't share Han's opinion about the "provings" and which are legitimate or not--each of us is in the position to determine whether the information is useful to us on with our own abilities. I personally happen to think that many provings are done well, and are useful: even after the ones done by Hahnemann (as many have pointed out, were often done with too few provers, and were often compromised by the fact that the provers knew what they were taking).

I noticed yet another slam against me in the above post--but I guess, Hans, you gotta do what you gotta do.

__________________
...and deliverance has many faces<br />but grace<br />is an aquaintance of mine