I don't think getting rid of the names completely would really help anything. I think more of the "issue" at hand is what people actually understand of the terms as they're used.
For example, let's take the word "fish".
If I say to you, I have an aqurium with fish in it, what does that tell you? Not much, right?
If I tell you I have saltwater fish, that's a little more specific, but still not quite enough to determine what I should buy to feed my fish.
If I say I have "clownfish", I think for most people, this is about as specific as it's going to get (unless they want to use a color descriptor as well). I have an "orange clownfish" (let's forget about "Nemo fish" for the time being!).
At least from here, you can make some good suggestions as to proper feeding, housing and care of the fish. Aside from maroons clowns, most others will eat about the same diet, all grow to the 3.5-5" range and are similar in behavior and character. That's really all 90% of the hobby cares about (that, and if they can put that "blue fish" in to set off the "orange clownfish").
Mike, Dennis...we've all worked retail in the hobby, we know that's the way it is.
I think if anyone is a "serious" hobbyist, they understand the different requirements that your general Acro and your general Monti will need. There are some differences in lighting requirements, feeding requirements, water flow etc., but I think to base an entire vocabulary on the basis of a few examples of exceptions to rules that have been shown to work time and time again is, at best, a pipe dream.
I'm not saying I disagree (Lord knows, I'd never give general "LPS" advice as there are way too many dfferences between species under that umbrella category), but I just don't see it gaining general acceptance.
