I mean... I tried my best to understand it.  I rephrased it, and asked if I had it right, and asked you to clarify if I had it wrong.  Whether you believe me or not, I was trying my best to understand what you were saying, and just didn't think the analogy worked.  If you can say you were honestly giving me the same courtesy, I'll accept that.  

I edited my reply to you, but I will copy-paste what I added here:

If I applied your reasoning, I would say XCDE (species) is a video game (kingdom), a Switch product (family), and a remaster (genus). Or something along those lines.

Do you consider Psycho 1998 a remaster of the 1960 film of the same name? Shot for shot they are exactly the same. Just new sets and new actors. It's a remake. Xenoblade uses a new code. New engine. New assets. It was quite literally remade in the definition of the word. Uses new art tho. All this confusion started in the 7th gen when remasters were marketed as remakes. Even tho they were just ports of PS2 games cleaned up for HD consoles. A remaster. Same thing when an old movie is remastered for HD. FFVII R is not a remake but further confused the term by using it. You can debate reboot/reimagining term but either one is more fitting than a remake.

You cannot take marketing as gospel. If we did then every single game ever made the last 15 years is innovative and "cinematic" when they themselves don't even know what cinematic means. It's a nothing term that changes definition by those who use it. Sadly that's happened with terms that had definitive definitions before all this BS. Sure a remaster can add new features but the game is still the same assets just cleaned up. There is also this misconception a remake has to look better. See FFVI on Mobile or FFXV Pocket edition. A remake is just that. A game or work remade with new assets even if they closely resemble the older film or game.

Cool.  That shows you understood the general point I was making.

The problem with that though is that if that I just don't think FFVII Switch and Xenoblade Chronicles DE belong in the same genus.  I understand your point that it has a certain feature in common with FFVII, that it's based on the same source code, but I think it has more features in common with games that you'd put in the remake genus, like Link's Awakening.

The point of classification systems is to put things into workable groupings.  I.e. things that are comparable.  I feel like it would make sense for instance to ask "What is a better remake Xenoblade Chronicles DE or Metal Gear Solid Twin Snakes?"  I think we can have a good discussion about that. On the other hand if you asked me "which is a better remaster, Final Fantasy VII Switch or Xenoblade Chronicles DE?"  I wouldn't know what to say.  Those games are so different in terms of what their purpose is that I don't think you can meaningfully compare them.  And if they're not comparable, they should be grouped separately.

It is no different than comparing the work being done for AAA games. Some push certain aspects much more than others, yet they’re still AAA games, even if they don’t all look as good as God of War.

And I think the distinction can be made between mere ports and remasters.

FFVII on Switch is a port. It looks pretty much the same as the original, but enjoys the benefits of running on more modern hardware, so it’s polygon assets are rendered at a higher resolution. While a remaster has actual tweaks done to its assets, like FFX, XII and yeah, Xenoblade Chronicles.

Not all ports are remasters.

Cool.  That shows you understood the general point I was making.

The problem with that though is that if that I just don't think FFVII Switch and Xenoblade Chronicles DE belong in the same genus.  I understand your point that it has a certain feature in common with FFVII, that it's based on the same source code, but I think it has more features in common with games that you'd put in the remake genus, like Link's Awakening.

The point of classification systems is to put things into workable groupings.  I.e. things that are comparable.  I feel like it would make sense for instance to ask "What is a better remake Xenoblade Chronicles DE or Metal Gear Solid Twin Snakes?"  I think we can have a good discussion about that. On the other hand if you asked me "which is a better remaster, Final Fantasy VII Switch or Xenoblade Chronicles DE?"  I wouldn't know what to say.  Those games are so different in terms of what their purpose is that I don't think you can meaningfully compare them.  And if they're not comparable, they should be grouped separately.

It is no different than comparing the work being done for AAA games. Some push certain aspects much more than others, yet they’re still AAA games, even if they don’t all look as good as God of War.

And I think the distinction can be made between mere ports and remasters.

FFVII on Switch is a port. It looks pretty much the same as the original, but enjoys the benefits of running on more modern hardware, so it’s polygon assets are rendered at a higher resolution. While a remaster has actual tweaks done to its assets, like FFX, XII and yeah, Xenoblade Chronicles.

Not all ports are remasters.

I thought you'd referred to FFVII as a remaster.  If not, you can swap it for VIII in the example.  And categories are obviously going to convey a range of things.  

Obviously a category is going to contain a range of things.  But if a category is too broad or too narrow it's useless.  

Let's try this.  The purpose of a label is to convey useful information about a particular thing in a quick way.  Yes? 

If the label of remake vs remaster literally tells you only one thing, that it does or doesn't use some undefined amount of source code, and tells you next to nothing about what the new product will be like vs the original, what is the point of this label?  What purpose does sorting games into a "reuses some source code" pile and a "does not use source code" pile serve? Why should we bother?