I agree with your points, but I think you missed what that quote is really saying.
It's not really about "naming" things per se, it's a comment about how a name or word can never truly capture the essence of the "thing" (in this case, a rose). The word we choose to assign to the concept (i.e. "class") of "rose" does not in any way change what it truly is, its scent does not change, its thorns do not become any less prickly. "Rose" is simply an arbitrary sequence of sounds we assigned to the flower and mostly everyone agreed that it was a good name, and now our mental models, when we hear the word "rose", form an appropriate picture in our heads (that's what words do). But the word itself? Could have been anything. Had we originally chosen to call a "rose" a "shoe", then we'd be giving out bouquets of shoes today. But it would in no way change the essence, the being, of what the flower truly is (something no words can ever truly, fully convey).
That isn't to say I don't agree with you fully...I do. Names are important and it's important that we choose good ones and agree upon them so that our mental models align, so we can communicate effectively.
Apologies for the screed, I seem to be feeling a bit Zen today.