I have been thinking lately that "kinds" might not have been looked at enough by Creationists. I believe a re-read of Genesis shows that every "sort" (NKJV) of animal should be saved in the ark, to preserve the "species".
I believe(for now I believe it) "kinds" are groups of animals of the same design-type, rather than relatedness. This would explain how we can not relate a wildly
differing morphology within the same kind.
it would be a bit like adoption. The Gentiles are adopted and grafted in. the families of the world would be related by design, rather than biology, although obviously you would have close genetics in the same kind.
This doesn't rule out diverse variation within a kind, as I am not claiming that there are any mutations. I am claiming that lots of sorts of species were taken on the ark, but not as many as today, and that from those species you would get variation, and speciation.
So then "defining" kinds, and which animal belongs where, would now be moot, because this whole thing about physical appearance can be 1. confusing. and 2. Not relevant.
So when you say, "which kind would animal X be in?", you are infact thinking in an evolutionary manner. A vastly different creature might be of the same kind, or might not.
Remember - you can't demand that I know all of the kinds because I was not there at the time. There is no cladogram, so to speak, because we are ignorant. Do not use our ignorance to try and prove something, as we are not liars - we cannot pretend to have information we do not have, we can only make conjectural remarks based on the facts.
™ Version 4.2