0
What else can I help you with?
What kind of dinosaur is ducky?
Yes they are. The new phylogenetic classification system seeks out to classify by relationship and not solely charecteristics as the old classification system. This means, if birds are more closely related to other dinosaurs, than all dinosaurs are to eachother, they will necessarily be dinosaurs themselves. Birds are more closely related to theropods, than they are to sauropods, and as such we can conclude them to be dinosaurs. Source: PhyloCode
Family of aloe vera?
Molecular studies, especially those based on DNA, have eliminated much of the uncertainty and guesswork that once characterized systematic botany. The classification of the genus Aloe and its relatives (Asphodelus, Kniphofia, Bulbine, etc.) is a good example. Older classification systems put Aloe in the family Liliaceae, but comparisons of DNA sequences have shown that this is clearly wrong. The molecular phylogenetic studies put Aloe in the very large order Asparagales. Within Asparagales, it is either in the family Asphodelaceae or the family Xanthorrhoeaceae. The choice between these two families is not a question of what is related to what, but a question of what groups to put at the rank of family. What some call Asphodelaceae is treated by others as the subfamily Asphodeloideae of the family Xanthorrhoeaceae. I must admit a personal preference for rankless systems like phylocode. As long as one knows what group is a subset of what other group, i dont think that it matters much whether a group is called a family, a subfamily, or whatever. Wikipedia has a good article on Xanthorrhoeaceae that goes into more detail.
Compare and contrast the classification system used by Linnaeus to system used now?
Over time, our understanding of the relationships between living things has changed. Linnaeus could only base his scheme on the structural similarities of the different organisms. The greatest change was the widespread acceptance of evolution as the mechanism of biological diversity and species formation. It then became generally understood that classifications ought to reflect the phylogeny of organisms, by grouping each taxon so as to include the common ancestor of the group's members (and thus to avoid polyphyly). Such taxa may be either monophyletic (including all descendants) such as genus Homo, or paraphyletic (excluding some descendants), such as genus Australopithecus. Originally, Linnaeus established three kingdoms in his scheme, namely Plantae, Animalia and an additional group for minerals, which has long since been abandoned. Since then, various life forms have been moved into three new kingdoms: Monera, for prokaryotes (i.e., bacteria); Protista, for protozoans and most algae; and Fungi. This five kingdom scheme is still far from the phylogenetic ideal and has largely been supplanted in modern taxonomic work by a division into three domains: Bacteria and Archaea, which contain the prokaryotes, and Eukaryota, comprising the remaining forms. This change was precipitated by the discovery of the Archaea. These arrangements should not be seen as definitive. They are based on the genomes of the organisms; as knowledge on this increases, so will the categories change. Reflecting truly evolutionary relationships, especially given the wide acceptance of cladistic methodology and numerous molecular phylogenies that have challenged long-accepted classifications, has proved problematic within the framework of Linnaean taxonomy. Therefore, some systematists have proposed a Phylocode to replace it. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linnaean_taxonomy
