The concrete level has detail irrelevant for Basic Level𓇯 identification. You don't need to check out the shape or arrangement of leaves into order to tell that a plant is a tree, but you do to distinguish between an oak and a maple.
content
Importantly, it is more effortful to make concrete-level distinctions. Answering “is this a Bernese Mountain Dog?” takes longer than answering “Is this a dog?” even among people who know well what a Bernese Mountain Dog looks like.
It seems plausible identifying a more-concrete-than-basic category takes longer because it involves attending to what George Lakoff calls the “distinctive features” of the animal, which I interpret as meaning the distinctive features of its parts. For example, Wikipedia says this of the Bernese Mountain Dog:
> “The Bernese mountain dog is a large, heavy dog with a distinctive tri-coloured coat, black with white chest and rust-coloured markings above eyes, sides of the mouth, front of legs, and out around the white chest. However, it is the only breed of Sennenhund dogs with a long coat.”
To put it in mechanistic terms, there seems to be a two-step process. Recognizing that you’re confronted with a dog is immediate. But challenged to identify the breed, the brain has to play something like a game of 20 Questions with the visible features.
If I had to answer "What kind of dog is that?", I can imagine this internal dialogue:
* "This is a bulky/boxy-looking dog. Is it a Saint Bernard?" "No, smaller, but the fur like it has the same texture."
* "Ah... is it mostly black-and-white with some brown?" <checks> "Yup."
* "Bernese Mountain Dog."
I wouldn't use all the details that Wikipedia gives (like where the brown is) because I've never noticed them.