Is a morphism between graphs that doesn't respect adjacency a homomorphism (but not a graph homomorphism)?
For example consider the morphisms $M$ on the complete binary rooted tree $T$ of dyadic rationals in the interval $(0,1)$:
$T=\{E,V\}$
$E=\{\{\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{4}\},\{\frac{1}{2},\frac{3}{4}\},\{\frac{1}{4},\frac{1}{8}\},\{\frac{1}{4},\frac{3}{8}\},\{\frac{3}{4},\frac{5}{8}\},\{\frac{3}{4},\frac{7}{8}\},\{\frac{1}{8},\frac{1}{16}\},\ldots\}$
Then there's a morphism $M_{gh}$ that exchanges $\{\frac{1}{4},\frac{3}{4}\}$ and all of their children. This preserves adjacency and is a graph homomorphism.
However there's also a morphism $M_h$ that exchanges $\{\frac{1}{8},\frac{3}{4}\}$. The resulting graph $M_h(T)$ continues to have exactly the same shape & structure, i.e. it's a complete, infinite, binary rooted tree. Only the eighths (in lowest terms) are no longer adjacent to the quarters (and so on for their children).
Am I right to understand this is simply called a homomorphism between graphs, but is not called a graph homomorphism because it fails to preserve adjacency and distance between vertices? Is there a better name?
Seems to have the potential to cause confusion.
EDIT: Actually, reading more extensively it looks like the topological definition of homeomorphism between graphs is weaker than the morphism I describe because for example in a homeomorphism by that definition, vertices of order $2$ and their two edges can be removed leaving a single edge, and the graphs be topologically homomorphic, but this change wouldn't preserve a complete, infinite, binary, rooted tree.
Candidate for the name of such a map: A permutation of vertices?
This seems to be a matter of terminology. According to Wikipedia a graph homomorphism from $G$ to $H$ is a function from $V(G)$ to $V(H)$ which preserves adjacency. You can still consider functions that don't preserve adjacency, and call them what you will, but not graph homomorphisms because that contradicts their characteristic property and to avoid confusion. This is true for any concrete category where the morphisms are structure-preserving functions. You can consider functions defined on the underlying sets, but if they don't preserve the structure, they are not morphisms.