That's a great book, but for what you're asking it's both outdated and not an ideal source to begin with.
There are NO standards for taxonomic ranks. There are rules about how they should be named, spelled, etc, but zero standards for content. Above "species", all taxa are more or less arbitrary. They are nothing more than names for groups of related organisms. In principle, each higher rank is just a collection of all the related ranks below it. There is nothing to prevent a genus being converted to a phylum, and in fact there are several examples of genera being gradually raised to family status or higher.
Species and subspecies are different, since they are defined more or less by their population evolution and reproductive status. In fact, the definition of species is identical to the definition of subspecies, and there are a variety of "species concepts" which are used to identify species status for a population of organisms.
If you want specifics on how various animal taxa are defined, I don't think you will find it in a single work. Even for amphibians alone you would likely need to search through dozens of papers, and work out for yourself the points on which they differ.
Even in terms of the the accepted ranks, there is no absolute standard. The ICZN has a set of ranks which it governs and which fit within the "standard" set. Phylocode uses a slightly different set. Most biologists at some point also use taxa which are NOT included in the Code, simply because there is so much variety to life that the "standard" ranks are not sufficient on their own to keep everything organized. Standard ranks are generally supplemented with "Super-" [or "Supra-"], "Sub-", and "Infra-", to add ranks between the accepted ones. There are also more vague collections like "group", "cohort", "complex", "semi-", and the recently formalized "exerge" [between species and subspecies].
The basic original terms are Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species. Above Kingdom, Domain has been added. Below Family, Tribe has been added. The number of informal ranks is great. Wikipedia provides good coverage on this. See also
Taxa & Ranks | International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
Another huge obstacle to a master list of taxa and their traits, is two-fold. First, there is a great deal of ongoing flux, with the content and rank of many groups in a state of constant revision. Second, since ranks are arbitrary, one author's genus is another author's unranked superfamilial clade [eg., Terrarana, containing up to five families for frogs formerly placed mainly in genus
Eleutherodactylus].
I try to keep up with amphibian taxonomy above the level of species, but even so I simply can't adequately address every bit of new data. The rubber frogs,
Phrynomantis, have recently been treated as a distinct subfamily [Phrynomerinae] of the Microhylidae. Others have raised them to family as Phrynomeridae. The latest data seems to move Phrynomerus to possibly a position within the New World microhylids, presumably as Gastrophryninae or Gastrophrynidae. Increasingly, clades above the rank of genus are defined largely by genetic data, and not by some specific data, but by a collection of data which are
more or less in common,
on average.
Among amphibians, at the family level, most current taxa are at least partly defined by reproductive methods, morphology, and geographic distribution. There is a significant component of "isn't part of X, Y, or Z".
