Chimera said:
Dog like, reptilian, a little of this, a little of that. Why do they have to have such a strict and limited classification?
In my view, the best answer is
what fits the campaign setting best. If it works best to have kobolds be rust colored mammalian dog-men, then that is what they should be. If it works best to have kobolds be blue reptile-men, then that is what they should be. Why does it matter what WotC say, or TSR said, or Gary says, or anything else? If it fits the campaign, it is right.
For example, in my setting, kobolds are reptilian, because I decided that they are the annointed servants of the Serpent-Demon. Their favored class was changed to cleric (but they can only be clerics of the Serpent-Demon), and they have greenish scales and look like diminutive lizardfolk. They are usually found with groups of lizardfolk that they have corrupted.
In another setting I know of, the DM decided that kobolds are blue (although still reptilian). The evidence seems to be that kobolds are an offshoot of dwarves caused by the evil influence of some sort of powerful and as yet unexplained magic.
Different takes, same "species", both fit the settings they are tied to. Therefore, both are "correct".