Short answer: no. Both the word and the modern separation of “isomorphism” vs “homomorphism” are older than the examples you list and were in circulation already in the 1890s, first in the algebra-of-logic/universal-algebra literature and, on the group-theory side, in German algebra.

What changed

• In Jordan (1870) and much of the 19th‑century group literature, “isomorphism” covered what we would now describe as a structure‑preserving correspondence that need not be bijective; a bijective one was singled out as “holoedric isomorphism.”
• Around 1890–1900, authors began to reserve “isomorphism” for bijective structure‑preserving maps and to use “homomorphism/homomorphic” for the more general structure‑preserving mappings (allowing many‑to‑one), together with the kernel/image point of view. This usage was consolidated in German algebra in the 1920s and disseminated widely by Noether and van der Waerden.

Earlier occurrences (selected)

Universal algebra / algebra of logic:

• Ernst Schröder, Vorlesungen über die Algebra der Logik (Leipzig: Teubner), vols. I–III, 1890–1895. Schröder uses Isomorphie and Homomorphie explicitly for structure‑preserving correspondences between algebraic systems; this is one of the earliest systematic uses of the pair (homomorphy/isomorphy).
• A. N. Whitehead, A Treatise on Universal Algebra (Cambridge, 1898). Whitehead gives a clear, general definition of homomorphism as a (possibly many‑to‑one) mapping preserving the operations, and of isomorphism as a one‑to‑one homomorphism. This is an explicit use of “homomorphism” as a map, well before your 1928 Hopf citation.

Group theory (German/French):

• Heinrich Weber, Lehrbuch der Algebra, vol. 1 (1st ed. 1895; 2nd ed. 1898). In the group‑theoretic chapters Weber introduces Homomorphie of groups in essentially the modern sense: a correspondence respecting multiplication which, in effect, identifies a quotient of one group with a subgroup (or image) of the other. This is the same “homomorphic” relation de Séguier defines in 1904, but Weber predates him.
• Issai Schur and contemporaries (early 1900s). In representation‑theoretic papers Schur uses Homomorphie/Homomorphismus in the modern way (map preserving the group law). This predates Hopf’s 1928 textbook definition.
• Emmy Noether, “Abstrakter Aufbau der Idealtheorie in algebraischen Zahl- und Funktionenkörpern,” Abh. Math. Sem. Univ. Hamburg 5 (1927). Noether systematically uses Homomorphismus as a map and formulates the Homomorphiesätze (isomorphism theorems) in the modern abstract form, helping to fix the terminology.
• B. L. van der Waerden, Moderne Algebra (1930). This textbook (drawing on Noether and Artin) cemented the now‑standard usage internationally: homomorphism = structure‑preserving map; isomorphism = bijective homomorphism; kernels, images, and the homomorphism theorems.

French:

• Your de Séguier (1904) “homomorphes” is among the earlier French occurrences; earlier French group‑theory authors often kept Jordan’s “isomorphisme”/“isomorphisme holoédrique” longer than the German literature did. By the 1920s (e.g., Cartan), “homomorphisme” is standard.

English:

• As noted, Whitehead (1898) already has “homomorphism” as a map in a very general algebraic setting. In group‑theory monographs, adoption was slower; Burnside (1897/1911) still leans on the older isomorphism vocabulary, while American algebraists (E. H. Moore and students) and, later, Noether’s circle, accelerated the shift.

So:

• “Homomorphic” (adjective for a relation between two groups) appears at least as early as Weber (1895).
• “Homomorphism” (as a property/abstract relation) is in Schröder (1890s) and Weber (1895).
• “Homomorphism” (as a map preserving the operation) appears clearly in Whitehead (1898) and is standard in Noether (1927), well before Hopf (1928).

These sources explain both the earlier occurrences and the mechanism of the “switch”: the general‑algebra viewpoint introduced the homomorphism/isomorphism dichotomy and the kernel–image framework; German algebra then propagated it into group and ring theory, with Noether and van der Waerden fixing the modern terminology.