Perfectly elaborated Fernando, and you have hit the chord pitch perfect. While the linguistics are fascinating, complexity notwithstanding, the point of all this reflects the suggestion placed in the paper of the original post.
This is that a term derived from developmental linguistic engineering, whether intentional or not in the course of evolution to describe a certain object etc. in present and known definition. should be removed.
It is rather like removal of a cornerstone from a structure because the component material is incongruent with the rest of the materials in place. Perhaps not a sufficient analogy and probably arguable if there are architects out there, but I think the point is clear.
We have lived with these misnomers and linguistic misteakes this long, so I agree, leave them in situ (Latin term, impressive yes?)