In books from 100 years or so ago, stitch pattern names were used to help with writing the instructions. For instance, I have a pattern book that will have a pattern in it called “Brigham Baby Blanket” (just a fictitious example). In the front of the book, you would find the “Brigham Stitch Pattern”. It was used solely for writing the pattern. So, if they also had a “Brigham Carriage Cover” and a “Brigham Baby Cardigan”, then all of these patterns would be relatively short because the stitch pattern would be in one place.
Fast forward to more current publications and you will find that there are a lot of patterns which use stitch names, also for brevity in publication. For instance, a publisher may pull out every instance of “dc, ch 1, dc, ch 1, dc, ch 1, dc” in a pattern to call it a “fan” in the stitch notes section of the pattern.
In another book, this same sequence could be used and called something entirely different because they are used solely to aid in writing the pattern and in keeping the pattern short. What abbreviations they use is entirely irrelevant.
In one of my patterns, I did a modified treble crochet. I used the abbreviation mod-tr. There is nothing wrong with that. The publisher changed it to tr-sc because the rest of the stitches were all single crochet. It led to less mistakes in the next row when the publisher could now say “sc into each sc” without worry whether one of them was a treble crochet.
Then, of course, we have the stitch dictionaries which tend to get some complaints every once in awhile when the stitch patterns don’t have names but, instead, they have numbers. This has led to authors of stitch dictionaries naming the stitch patterns like they would their children. Because they can’t look in every single stitch dictionary to determine what it may have been called in the last 100 years (if it even was published in the last 100 years), you are likely to find the same stitch pattern with 5 or even 10 different names (more as time goes on).
When I wrote my stitch dictionary, I used numbers for each different stitch pattern. Most of them were out of my head (not copied from other stitch dictionaries) and I didn’t want to take on the daunting task of naming 65 children. And, really, since the names are going to be different in every stitch dictionary or pattern ever written post-book publication, I didn’t really see any sense in it.