Ok. Let us start somewhere definite. A geological dictionary definition. Lets just look at caldera: A large circular crater left after the collapse or explosion of a volcanic cone. Now, lets look at erosion: The wearing away of rocks or other materials by the action of water or ice or wind.
So, Adding the term erosion to the front of the word caldera implies this: a landscape formed through the actions of wind or water or ice but also simultaneously formed through the collapse or explosion of a volcanic cone. Hopefully, you agree that this is possibly misleading. We have two different formation concepts equally applicable at the same time. What gives? How can the same feature form at the same site twice? once by erosion and once from the collapse of a magma chamber.
|Mount Warning in the centre of the volcano remnant|
I think is is becoming obvious that there has been some sort of mistake in the development of the name erosion caldera. So, why use this term? A short answer is that most geologists tend not use this term, unless informally to illustrate the grand nature of some valleys that are formed in the remnants of large volcanos. That is not to say that some geologists don't mistakenly use the term anyway, I mean even geologists are human!
My suggestion, is not to use the term erosion caldera at all since it often results in confusion on the mechanism for the formation of thing it is actually used to describe.