Ah, good questions. And that's why, even today, taxonomists sometimes disagree...
In fact, this exact question was asked (and answered) in Scientific American a few years ago:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...s-same-species
The commonly used, standardized system of taxonomy (using the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature) relies on the definition of a species, being the ability to reproduce and produce viable and even fertile offspring. Fact is, pretty much all dogs, regardless of breed, and how different they may appear, can successfully mate and produce pups that can go on to reproduce further. This system says absolutely NOTHING about the physical appearance of the animals, which as you point out in dogs, vary enormously from breed to breed.
So if we go by THAT definition, the metaphor, as applied to animals, instantly breaks down. So maybe a more apt comparison might be to look at other taxonomical systems that are similar (such as the taxonomy of plants or even more interestingly, phenetics). Perhaps the answer would be best answered statistically. You would have to devise a system by which every characteristic of a garment can be differentiated from another, and then determining whether the difference between two traits is statistically significant.
All taxonomy, in the end, must be to SOME extent arbitrary. Nature doesn't classify itself. It doesn't care. It just IS. Humans have a need to categorize it somehow. The key is, (I think), no matter what system you choose, to be able to justify it logically in that it makes sense, is internally and externally consistent, and is flexible enough to adapt to new information being thrown at it.
Originally Posted by CDNSushi
Bookmarks