I don't know of a specific book on taxonomy that deals with this, but I would argue from the concept of emergence.
We can assume that everything around us is made of the same constituent fundamental parts (standard atoms made of protons, neutrons, and electrons for the sake of simplicity).
A wolf is made of these atoms, just like a human is. Even though they are both made of the same fundamental building blocks, we regard them as different entities because the atoms are arranged differently in a human vs a wolf. Of course, even between two monozygotic twin wolves, their atoms are arranged differently, yet we would still think of them as "identical."
This is due to the concept of emergence. A "wolf" as taxonomy defines one, is a concept humans invented and refined. Before genetic science, we mostly divided animals based on their physical characteristics. If the specific characteristics of an animal's teeth, for example, was one criteria used to distinguish a wolf from a domestic Labrador, it would be correct to say that the teeth (as a whole) are "wolf teeth."
Using this example, you can see that we've gone from taking the animal as a whole (the "wolf") and drilled down a bit into specific distinguishing characteristics (teeth) and we have enough information to define teeth with specific characteristics as "wolf teeth."
With molecular science, we can go even further, and do the same regarding specific cells. Without genetic science, we might look at wolf fur and Husky fur and decide that we can't tell the difference, so it becomes less specific "canine fur." But with genetic science, we might look at the same fur and realize that wolf fur has wolf-specific DNA, allowing us to define it as "wolf fur" again.
Taking these examples and generalizing a bit, you can see that the way we define a wolf, or things that make up the wolf, essentially depends entirely on how much information we have regarding the wolf. Without molecular science, we can only define species based on their physical/behavioral characteristics. If we add molecular and DNA science, we can define deeper constituent molecular structures as wolf, because now we can differentiate between things such as "wolf cells" and "Labrador cells".
But, if we go all the way down to atoms, it's currently impossible to differentiate a wolf from a Labrador or even a table. These entities are made of the same thing, but we don't have atomic blueprints for wolves, Labradors, or tables. Therefore, you couldn't say that certain atoms are "wolf atoms" and others are "table atoms." To us, there’s no meaningful difference between either set of atoms.
Using this logic, we can see that wolves are emergent concepts. They are not fundamental parts of the universe, yet they exist, and they are constructed of the same fundamental parts of the universe that tables are. At some point in the hierarchy of existence, going from subatomic particles, to atoms, to molecules, to cells, to structures, to beings, to species, to concepts: we are able to determine where tables and wolves split into separate branches of existence. The more information we have, the further down (closer to the base building blocks of the universe) we are able to determine the split.
A wolf (or any part of it) can only be called “wolf” as long as we can distinguish is from anything else.
