What is the Kingdom of Animalia

Regarding the Kingdom of Animalia, which phylogenic tree is more common: Molecular Comparisons or Body Plan Grades

In short, use sequence information when you can.

The long story goes: Sequence information and the trees generated from it are strictly more reliable than morphological signs. For example: Sharks are almost the same shape as they were millions of years ago, but they have "invisibly" accumulated genetic differences that allow us to precisely group the different species of shark. Where genetic data is not available (paleontology usually, certain types of field taxonomy where it is cheaper to code the morphological characteristics of each new beetle than to sequence them all), morphological trees continue to be used. So which type of tree is more common: It depends.

Regarding which type of tree is more accepted, it is genetic data from a landslide. Genetic data, by and large, are much less influenced by homologous structures and convergent evolution. Plus, it works on species that all look pretty much the same (imagine trying to code hundreds of types of bacteria, all of which are closely related). With highly conserved cellular machines, trees can be built for very distant species. Using unpreserved non-coding sequence trees for very closely related individuals, trees can be constructed with a reasonable degree of accuracy.

Some examples: Mitochondrial Eve would be impossible to date with morphological features. There are just not enough morphological differences between people. Opabinia is a really good example of how difficult it is to classify things by their shape, especially if they have a strange shape. Something you can do yourself: humans and thermodesulfator (seq) are about as morphologically different as two living things can be. One is you and one of them eats carbon dioxide and breathes sulfate and hydrogen. It lives on the ocean floor and would be more at home in a cup of hot coffee than outside. Even so, the two species show ~ 50% sequence similarity with 16S, twice as much as expected by chance and easy enough to classify a third thing as more closely related to one or the other. Try it for yourself if you want.