Over the course of it's history, western philosophy introduced all these distinctions between an object and it's class. But I'm a bit confused by this, because these all look very much alike. So what is the difference between them, besides their names and who named them?
For instance, are "tokens" thought to be inherently concrete, while philosophical species need not be so? I mean, an actual bird ("token") classed within a biological species ("type") is always concrete, whereas the class of primates ("species") within the class of mammals ("genus") is thought of as an abstract thing.
Or do universals have a larger extension than the other concepts? For instance, particular properties of different objects might be grouped into a universal, as I believe humorist pharmacology did when they grouped the different degrees of "coldness" of particular substances, which in salads causes people to feel refreshed but which in henbane causes death, into an universal "coldness" (unfortunately, I haven't thought of a less dated example). But the type–token distinction doesn't seem to be applied to properties and the classes of properties, but only to objects and the classes of objects.
So what is the difference between all of these?