What all this combined shows is that for those who translated the Septuagint, min constituted a broad category whose members were included on the basis of appearence.
That's interesting because folk taxonomy can be a problem for those who cleave to the idea of "Purity of kind."
It's not hard for example, to imagine the domestic dog and his wild "cousins" as being members of the same Biblical "Kind." After all, they're all fertile together, so they can, in a sense reproduce "according to their kind"
In addition to our beloved Canis familiaris, these would include:
Canis aureus
Golden jackal Old World (78 chromosomes)Canis adustus Side-striped jackal SubSahara Africa (78 chromosomes)
Canis mesomelas Black-backed jackal SubSahara Africa (78 chromosomes)
Canis simensis Simien jackal Ethiopia (78 chromosomes)
Canis lupus Gray wolf Holarctic (78 chromosomes)
Canis latrans Coyote North America (78 chromosomes)
Canis rufus Red wolf Southern U.S. (78 chromosomes)
Canis alpinus Dhole Asia (78 chromosomes)
Problem is, there are a whole boat-load of divergent members of the Canidae family
Speothos venaticus
Bushdog Ne S. America (74 chromosomes)Lycalopex vetulus Hoary fox Ne S. America (74 chromosomes)
Cerdocyon thous Crab-eating fox Ne S. America (74 chromosomes)
Chrysocyon brachyurus Maned wolf Ne S. America (76 chromosomes)
Vulpes velox Kit fox Western U.S. (50 chromosomes)
Vulpes vulpes Red fox Old and New world (36 chromosomes)
Alopex lagopus Arctic fox Holarctic (50 chromosomes)
Fennecus zerda Fennec fox Sahara (64 chromosomes)
Otocyon megalotis Bat-eared fox Subsaharan Africa (72 chromosomes)
Uocyon cinereoargenteus Gray fox North America (66 chromosomes)
Based on morphology, these are all obviously members of family Canidae but most of those in the second group cannot reproduce with the first group above.
Science appropriately catagorizes them into generas other than canis. This recognizes both their kinship to the Wolf, Jackal, Coyote and domestic Dog and their differences, which to me, seems the most honest way to look at things. However strict creationists, must wrestle with the question of whether these are distinctly different "Kinds" or not. Neither a "Yes" or a "No" answer really seems to me to accurately describe the reality of the situation, because the truth lies between these two extremes.