I tend to think about them in terms of the evolution over time.
1. classical or flamenco guitar with gut strings - limited bass, strong mids, delicate highs but only enough volume for solo use, not loud enough for ensemble work
2. Early metal string acoustics - Martin experimented with metal string on guitars designed for gut strings (ladder bracing). They produced more volume and brilliant treble but the strings stressed the instrument and many failed prematurely.
3. Carved top acoustics - Orville Gibson borrowed a page form the cello construction manual and made carved top (and back) metal string acoustics (and mandolins) that were louder than gut string instruments, but the curved top, like symphonic onstruments, made more of the fundamental tone and less upper harmonics. So, the tone was loud, but somewhat dull and middy.
4. Dreadnaught acoustics - Martin revamped the construction of their metal string instruments with better bracing and a larger bottom bout. The result lives on today. This classic design has lots of treble and bass plus a slightly dipped middle that leaves room for the human voice. They are loud too. The jumbo, extends this formula even further.
5. Arch top acoustic - a true American invention. The jazz guitar. In early jazz combos banjos were used instead of guitar, since a guitar was not loud enough to compete with piano, drums and horns. The large bodied guitar with a carved spruce top solved this problem. It was really loud, middy (not bright) and projected well. It was perfect for dark, fat chords.
6. The electric archtop - Charlie Christian showed the world that an amplified guitar could do more than chords. The electrified version of the jazz archtop was loud enough to allow single note runs to be heard over the rest of hte band. However, they are very prone to feedback. Soon 2 variations arose: the acoustic archtop with a carved top and a pickup stuck on as an afterthought (Gibson L5 and similar) and a laminated top instrument with pickups that sounded almost dead acoustically, but could be played loudly through an amp with less feedback (Gibson ES175 and similar).
7. Neo-hollow designs - As amps got louder, even laminated top instruments would feedback and all arched top designed lacked the brilliant treble of a flat top acoustic or solid body electric. Gibson added a solid center block to the fully hollow ES330 to make the new ES335. It had the ping and zing of a solid body, with just a hint of acoustic resonance. The sustain and brighter tone was popular. So much so that the 330 fell out of favor. Seeing this, Fender routed out empty areas in a Tele and called it the Thinline.
By comparison, a solid body has a far purer electronic signal. The wood influences the sound to a much smaller degree than a hollow or partly hollow guitar. For my tastes, the solid body tone is the best. I tried to like the hollow tone and bought several looking for that magic one, but kept coming back to solid guitars. I descrube the difference as a different vowel sound. A solid guitar has a tone like an E or I or A. A hollow guitar has less sustain and a tone like a U or OO. Sort of "Bee, bah bee" versus "Boo, doo boo".
One researcher has a paper that says the difference in tone is caused by the amount of elasticity in the body. A solid body returns the string's energy quickly. A fully hollow body, with a wooden bridge (like an archtop) is harder to energize. It consumes some of the energy of the pick attack, before it is prodded into vibration. A metal bridge on a hollow body and/or a solid center block reduces this effect.
