# Talk:Annelid

This page lists two different numbers of species, right next to each other: 12000 and 15000.  Where are these counts coming from?

Page 607 of Campell's Biology: Fourth Edition says "about 15,000 annelid species." --mav

Do we want to use "trocophore" or "trochophore"? "Trocophore" is already in use in Wikipedia, across several articles; but "trochophore" is 10 times more common according to Google, and matches better with "Trochozoa", which appears in Wikipedia (see the Trochozoa article).

"trochophore" gets my vote. WormRunner 18:15, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
yupp me too
Trochophore is what I have always seen before. Cerealkiller13 00:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

moved the following from the article.

Annelids are segmented worms and each segment consist of sex cells.  Annelids are usually hemaphordites but there are some individual sexes also.  Reproduction actually occurs in a specific time of the year, and ciliated sex cells are dispersed in the sea.
The info only applies to the polychaeta and needs rewritten. WormRunner 17:47, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Where do annelid eyes derive from (which type of cell/germ layer)?  Are they mesodermally derived or ectodermally derived?

The thing about Leeches is that technically considered they are predators, their prey being red blood cells. Thus calling them parasites not only is degrading to the Leech, which has helped create synthetic blood thinners, but also completely false.Adolph172 (talk) 01:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)adolph17

Red blood cells aren't whole organisms though, so they are still parasites. They might better be considered grazers, since the survival or their host isn't of much importance to them. Richard001 (talk) 08:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

"They range in length from under a millimeter to over 3 coeloms;"
The page does not specify how large a coelom is, and neither does the linked-to article. Perhaps this statement should be revised?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.227.157.119 (talk) 19:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC) 

It should read "over 3 meters"; the phrasing was an error caused by the deletion of several sentences.  I've reverted to the last version before the confusing edit. Cephal-odd (talk) 20:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

What do these Annelids eat anyway? Ypna (talk) 22:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, garden worms (in which I don't know their scientific name) just eat decomposed nutrients in soil. so most of the other ground-dwelling Annelids presumably eat it too. --Ypna (talk) 01:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
It sounds like a reasonable generalisation, but there may be doubts or exceptions on more detailed examination. It might be tricky to define "ground-dwelling", for example if some ground is "dry" enough for earthworms some of the time but wet enough for leeches at other times. --Philcha (talk) 05:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
When I said "ground-dwelling" I was mainly meaning Earthworms, but yes, there may be doubts. --Ypna (talk) 09:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I saw this article at WP:GAC, and, though I don't have the time to give GAC review, thought to note the lengthy lead for fixing.  It's currently five paragraphs; per WP:LEAD#Length, lead sections should be no longer than four paragraphs. Emw2012 (talk) 05:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Phyla are big subjects. WP:LEAD#Length has come up every time but one, and each reviewer decided to WP:IAR. --Philcha (talk) 06:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
There are articles for bigger subjects that conform to the MoS guidelines on lead length.  Consider, for example, the biological domains of Archaea and Bacteria, broad topics like the Immune system and Evolution, and basic macromolecules like Protein and Lipid. Given that, it's my opinion that conforming to the MoS guideline on lead length per WP:GACR criterion 1(b) should take precedence to WP:IAR at least in this case. Emw2012 (talk) 04:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
The opinion of several GA reviewers, all different, in reviews of articles on different phyla, differs from yours.
Nothing "takes precedence" over WP:IAR - that's the meaning of WP:IAR. Now guess what principle is the reason behind my belief that the 4-para "limit" would be harmful here. --Philcha (talk) 05:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps you're considering the taxonomic height of phyla to contend that "phyla are big subjects", exceptionally big, and thus WP:IAR applies.  If that's the case, then how would you reconcile your argument for IAR with the fact that articles on higher taxa like Archaea and Bacteria -- certainly bigger subjects -- are both able to contain their lead sections in three paragraphs? Emw2012 (talk) 06:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm not going to spend time analysing how well the leads of  Immune system and Evolution summarise their previous contnet. You haven't answered my previous question: what principle is the reason behind my belief that the 4-para "limit" would be harmful here? --Philcha (talk)
I assume you'd base your reasoning in the principle that  Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy.  However, as I've mentioned, I do not see how condensing a lead to meet the style guidelines is any less tractable for phyla than it is for domains.  If the general argument is that higher-level taxa necessitate exceptionally long leads, then Archaea and Bacteria would seem to strongly suggest otherwise.  Could you explain why don't consider those legitimate counterexamples? Emw2012 (talk) 07:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
It is a waste of time to speculate about the thinking of those who composed the leads for Archaea and Bacteria. Here's mine:
 Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy is relevant but not my primary consideration.
IMO the most important part of WP:LEAD is "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies". That means the lead will often have to cover more than 4 sub-topics.
It is a well-established principle of writing for the Web that paras should ideally contain only 1 idea each. Hence if the lead contains more than 4 sub-topics, it needs more than 4 paras.
So there's a conflict between good writing for the Web and the 4 paras recommendation at WP:LEAD#Length.
Please read all of the banner at the top of WP:LEAD. It leaves editors of individual articles to deide how to handle such conflicts.
I see no reason to let a mere rule-of-thumb override the opinions of widely recognised experts on writing for the Web. --Philcha (talk) 08:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
How is it a waste of time to consider the leads of Archaea and Bacteria?  In a discussion on whether high-level taxon articles warrant exception to the lead length guideline, featured articles on domains (a base case, the highest-level taxonomic rank) seem like they would be very useful to consider.  Those articles seem like a legitimate counterexample to your suggestion that phyla are exceptionally big subjects that thus call for WP:IAR.
Your previous comment argues for a basic limit on how concise a lead may be, more than making a specific comment on phyla-related articles.  Thus, rather than a case for occasional exception as in IAR, it seems like you're making a policy proposal better suited for WT:LEAD. Emw2012 (talk) 09:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
This discussion is becoming a waste of time - while you've contributed nothing but these complaints in the last 3.5 hours, while I've nearly wrapped up one GA review and am busy GA-reviewing another article. We're not going to agree on this, as we approach it from totally different points of view. However if you try to change the lead without first showing how this will not make it less useful for readers and then leaving reasonable time for a reply (I suggest 24 hours, to allow for any time-zone difference), I will revert the changes instantly, with an edit summary that notes your failure to provide good reason for the change. --Philcha (talk) 10:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't change the lead without more feedback from other editors, which I think would be useful at this point.  My point here was to address your idea that articles about phyla are reasonable exceptions to WP:IAR because they're big subjects.  I think I've made a compelling argument against that, and don't see how taking examples from the Archaea and Bacteria (or any other of the above-mentioned articles) is a waste of time or somehow illegitimate.  I'm content to leave the discussion as it stands.  Other than this issue, this article and the rest of your work with phyla seem exemplary. Emw2012 (talk) 11:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The article says both about 17000 and over 17000. I find this slightly contradictory. --Ettrig (talk) 18:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

What, where? --Philcha (talk) 18:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Found it. BTW thnaks for fixing some of my typos. --Philcha (talk)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Annelid/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Hi Philcha, the worms have waited long enough for their day in the spotlight!  This is a big article with lots of words I don't know, so this review may take up to a week. Looking forward to learning about this phylum. Sasata (talk) 18:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll be quite happy to wait a week as I'm moving house tomorrow! Have phun with the phylum :-) --Philcha (talk) 18:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Still not close to being done yet, but thought I'd drop a few notes on what I've read so far. Sasata (talk) 14:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
lede
*why is phylum linked to classification and not phylum?

now to phylum  --Philcha (talk) 15:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
*"recent research has radically changed this scheme," avoid the use of "recent"

now "since 1997" (D. McHugh, cited) --Philcha (talk) 15:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
*"locomotion" link leads to a dab page

now to Animal locomotion --Philcha (talk) 15:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
*"("ripples" that pass long the body)" long->along?

yep, done. --Philcha (talk) 15:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
*"evert" link lead to a dab page

rephrased "turn their pharynges inside out" --Philcha (talk) 15:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
*"pharynges" directs to human pharynx

not any more, I've nuked that piece of human medical imperialism --Philcha (talk) 15:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
*"encourage the development" encourages?

yep, done. --Philcha (talk) 15:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
*"The burrowing of marine polychaetes," passive voice

No, that's not passive voice - the verb is active (and transitive), the subject is a noun phrase based on a gerund. --Philcha (talk) 15:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Ok ya got me! Sasata (talk) 04:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
*bait->dab

now -> Fishing bait --Philcha (talk) 15:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
*"Although blood-letting is no longer in favor with doctors" -> physicians (unless you also meant PhDs)

I see your point, but "doctors" is the term more likely understood by a 12-year old. --Philcha (talk) 15:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. More on the 12-year old later. Sasata (talk) 04:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
*"Ragworms' jaws are now being studied by engineers" what kind of engineers?

source does not say - could be mechanical, or civil, or materials science, but the source's context suggests biomechanics to me. IMO best left as is. --Philcha (talk) 15:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Classification and diversity
*"Although recent research...

.."since 1997" --Philcha (talk) 15:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
*"Pogonophora / Siboglinidae were first discovered in 1914" Pogo leads to dab; why are these names in italics?

You're right, have removed italics. --Philcha (talk) 15:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Didn't realise there was plant taxon w same name, have unlinked. --Philcha (talk) 15:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
*"Pogonophora, or as two phyla, Pogonophora and Vestimentifera." not sure why Vest needs to be linked, as it just redirects to the current family name, linked in the previous sentence

I think it would be better to give Vestimentifera and (Pogonophora) their own stub articles which explain that they have been incorporated into Annelida. --Philcha (talk) 16:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
*"However other recent analyses have suggested that myzostomids" recent again

in 1998" --Philcha (talk) 16:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
"Their bodies are covered by a cuticle (outer covering) that does not contain cells but is secreted by cells in the skin underneath, and is made of tough but flexible collagen[3] and does not molt[13] – on the other hand arthropods' cuticles are made of the more rigid α-chitin,[3][14] and molt until these animals reach their full size." sentence needs work... I think is missing an "and", and when the "and" is inserted, it will have too many "ands".
Give us a clue, where do you think the additional "and" should be? --Philcha (talk) 16:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Now inserted. See below for mention of the OTOH issue. Sasata (talk) 04:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
No, the structure is "fact A, fact B and fact C", all headed by "that", i.e. these are co-ordinate adjectival clauses. --Philcha (talk) 06:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I suppose there's ways to convince yourself that the construction is correct, but to me it sounds clunky, and when reading the article, I had to repeat the sentence to convince myself I understood it. For example, fact C ("and molt until these animals reach their full size.") - is the subject of "these animals" the worm cuticle (what you're implying, I think), or the arthropod's cuticle, which could be an equally valid way of interpreting the current sentence arrangement? Sasata (talk) 05:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Changed to "molt until the arthropods reach their full size" --Philcha (talk) 06:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Description
*epidermis->dab

unlinked since none of the DAB options is suitable. --Philcha (talk) 16:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
*"and in the tube-dwelling genus Owenia" Owenia link leads to a plant genus

unlinked - I wish taxonomists had computers and internet 100 years earlier :-/ Philcha (talk) 16:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
"that tell them which way is down" need better phrase than "tell them"
Why? The alternatives I can see all seem to require a higher reading age - not a good feature for a general encyclopedia. --Philcha (talk) 16:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
If the 12 year old can make it this far, I do not think it would be too taxing for them for them to read "indicate" rather than "tell them". :) Sasata (talk) 04:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
It's not just about vocabulary. Replacing "tell them" with "indicate" would create ambiguity about the recipient of the info (could be human field researchers). Clarifying this would make the phrase twice as long as it currently is, and just for the sake of using a 3-syllable Latin-derived word :-) --Philcha (talk) 06:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Ok, we disagree, but it's not a big deal. Sasata (talk) 05:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Continued... Sasata (talk) 04:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

"...and mucus-secreting glands in the epidermis protect their skins." suggest linking gland
Good catch, for a wonder gland is not mammal chauvinist! Done. --Philcha (talk) 06:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
"of moderately flexible β-chitin and are formed by follicles," follicles links to hair follicles, is that really where it should go?
created and linked to Follicle (anatomy) to avoid mammalian chauvinism :-) -Philcha (talk) 06:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
"They are often supported internally by one or more large, thick chetae." But a while ago it said "The chetae ("hairs") of annelids project out from the epidermis"... so can chetae be internal as well?
Yes. The 2 textbooks I've used also start with external uses and then note internal uses. This kind of re-use of structures is common among invertebrates, especially in lophotrochozoans. E.g. the basic mollusc design uses mucus and cilia for a wide range of functions. -Philcha (talk) 06:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
"...linked by nerve cords either side of the pharynx..." how about linking to ventral nerve cord
Hmmm. I'm less sure about that. If you read the "Family tree" stuff you'll see that various anatomical features that used to be used a classifiers are now getting down-played. It used to be textbook dogma that the "higher invertebrates" had ventral nerve chords, but recent research (sorry!) jumbles that up, for example flatworms (minus Acoelomorpha) are now thought to be specialised lophotrochozoans, but have nerve-nets rather than "trunk and branch" nervous systems. Since ventral nerve cord is a stub, and perpetuates the old dogma, I prefer to avoid it. --Philcha (talk) 06:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
"...that perform similar functions to the livers of vertebrates: producing and storing glycogen and fat; producing the oxygen-carrier hemoglobin; breaking down proteins;" As far as I know, the liver is not generally known for breaking down proteins... what evidence do you know of to suggest otherwise? As for storing fat, fatty liver is a disease state.
Ruppert, Fox & Barnes p 418 "chlorogogen cells ... This tissue plays a vital role ... similar to that of the liver in vertebrates ... chief center of glycogen and fat storage and synthesis. Storage and detoxification of toxins, hemoglobin synthesis, protein catabolism and formation of ammonia, and synthesis of urea also take place in these cells." --Philcha (talk) 08:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, you are welcome to use that statement, as it can be backed up by a "reliable source", but in good conscience I wouldn't be able to pass the article for including such nonsense! Strongly suggest rewording the sentence to remove the incorrect "liver functions" of fat storage and synthesis, and protein catabolism. Also, chloragogen is the far more prevalent spelling. Sasata (talk) 05:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Google supports "chloragogen" so I've changed that. --Philcha (talk) 07:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Re the functions and comparison with the liver, I've done some additional research and there seems to be very little useful material about these cells, and much of it over 40 years old. I've found:
An Introduction to Annelida quotes Barnes 1968(!) for similar wording, i.e. no-one appears to have complained about this in 41 years.
Biology and ecology of earthworms (p. 75) is specific about the mechanics and describes chloragogen cells as a "mobile liver" but less specific about physiological functions.
I think the burden of proof is now on you to point out specifically what you think is wrong, with refs. --Philcha (talk) 07:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Fox, SA. (1992). Human Physiology, p. 503, table 17.4 gives a "Summary of the major categories of liver function". Headings in this table include:
Detoxification of blood
Carbohydrate metabolism
Lipid metabolism (actions listed as "Synthesis of triglyceride and cholesterol", "Excretion of cholesterol in bile", "Production of ketone bodies in fatty acids")
Protein synthesis ("actions listed as Production of albumin", "Production of plasma transport proteins", "Production of clotting factors (fibrinogen, prothrombin, and others)"
Secretion of bile
The item you took most exception to was "fat storage and synthesis". But S.A. Fox' list includes synthesis of lipids. Is it the storage aspect that bugs you? --Philcha (talk) 18:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Just the incorrectness of "fat storage" and "protein breakdown" as examples of major liver functions. Sasata (talk) 19:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Note the absence of any mention of "fat storage" or "protein breakdown"; looks like "fat synthesis" is listed. However, the fact that Ruppert et al. say its "the chief center... of fat... synthesis" makes the statement incorrect.  Not the most up-to-date of sources I admit, but it was handy on the bookshelf, and one might argue that the human liver is not representative of "animals". If you want me to find a general textbook for animal physiology, I'll do that (but it will take a few days until I am able to visit the library). Sasata (talk) 15:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Re "protein breakdown", see Liver, Advanced Topics in Zoology pp 116-117, The Bengal monitor p 59
Re "fat storage", see X-Kit Physiology (p 219), Fish morphology p 78 --Philcha (talk) 21:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
(<-)An analogy to help understand my POV: imagine if the word "brain" had been substituted for liver, so that the sentence read "...may also form chloragogen cells that perform similar functions to the brains of vertebrates: carbohydrate metabolism, fat storage, and protein breakdown." Technically, the sentence is correct: the brain performs each one of these tasks (as do almost all cells), and if one looked long enough, one could probably find a reference somewhere that says these listed items are functions of the brain... it's just misleading to characterise these as general brain functions. Yes, the liver does break down proteins, but it's not a major purpose of that organ; (almost) all organs break down proteins, should we now use this as an example of a comparative function? (Deamination of amino acids is amino acid metabolism, not protein metabolism. Semantics? Maybe.). Anyways, I've had my say, and will leave it up to you whether to reword or not... I doubt that few will notice or care :) Sasata (talk) 15:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
"However the septa are often incomplete in annelids that are semi-sessile or that do not move by peristalsis or by movements of parapodia – for example some move by whipping movements of the body, some small marine species move by means of cilia (fine muscle-powered hairs) and some burrowers turn their pharynges (throats) inside out to penetrate the sea-floor and drag themselves into it." sessile->dab; How about changing that ndash into a period, and adding a comma after "For example"?
I thought about this and prefer the current structure. The top-level contrast is fully vs incompletely septate; the 2nd level is sedentary vs mobile but non-septate; "for example some move by ..." is a comment on the mobile but non-septate group, and making it a sentence in its own right wold obscure the logical structure. --Philcha (talk)
We seem to have some differences of opinion on logical structures :) But again it's minor, so I'll let it go. Sasata (talk) 05:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
linked to Sessility (zoology) --Philcha (talk) 06:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
"The fluid in the coeloms contains coelomocyte cells that defend the animals against parasites and infections." I'd like to hear more about coelomocyte cells; are they analogous to phagocytes, for example?
Dunno, it's in the books. I'm not a professional biologist, just a WP editor who's mad enough to take on important topics that daunt other editors. --Philcha (talk) 06:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
FYI, they do provide immune-type functions. See here, for example. Sasata (talk) 05:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
That ref covers earthworms (or at least some species). Is there any evidence for leeches or "polychaetes"? --Philcha (talk) 17:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Didn't see anything about leeches, but for polychaetes, one study showed the chloragogen cells ("extravasal tissue") acted like phagocytes:
Title: THE ROLE OF THE HEART-BODY AND OF THE EXTRAVASAL TISSUE IN DISPOSAL OF FOREIGN CELLS IN 2 POLYCHAETE ANNELIDS 
Author(s): BRAUNBECK, T; DALES, RP
Source: TISSUE & CELL   Volume: 16   Issue: 4   Pages: 557-563   Published:  1984

"On the other hand some predatory polychaetes..." I think "On the other hand" should have be followed by a comma, for a pause effect. The same goes for the other three instances in the article.
Possibly a dialect issue. The timing of your contribs suggest you live in N America, and I've noticed N Americans use commas much more than I was taught to - in Scots education the default is "no comma". --Philcha (talk) 06:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
The word "palps" is used here the first of several times, but the word is never really explicitly defined. We do find out later that they are grooved, and used for feeding. I assume they're like tubes?
First used at end of "Nervous system and senses", where it's explained. The problem is that some clown has redir'd palp to pedipalp!!!!! --Philcha (talk) 06:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
"mesenteries (vertical partions within segments)" partitions?
What's the problem?? --Philcha (talk) 06:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
The mis-spelling of "partions". Sasata (talk) 05:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh. Fixed. --Philcha (talk) 17:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
"The gut is generally an almost straight tube supported by the mesenteries (vertical partions within segments), and ends with the anus on the underside of the pygidium.[3] " Or "The anus is on the upper surface of the pygidium.[10]" If I'm reading this correctly, these sources are disagreeing about whether the anus is up or down. Has this historically been a highly disputed research topic among worm researchers?
Note "generally" in the 1st sentence. My impression is that annelids, esp marine "polychaetes", are less well-known than most textbooks admit. Greg Rouse, who appears to be the godfather of annelid research (text-search the refs!), emphasises how broadbrush the conventional story about marine "polychaete" reproduction is, and I'm confident that that there are plenty of variations / exceptions in other aspects of these critters too. --Philcha (talk) 06:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I was mostly trying to making a joke (very poorly, obviously). Sasata (talk) 05:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, my sense of humour has not recovered as well as I thought after moving :-( --Philcha (talk) 18:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
"the gut is blocked by a swollen lining that houses symbiotic bacteria" FYI, there's a crappy stub at symbiotic bacteria which would be a more specific link (not necessarily better though)
You're right, it's a crappy stub :-) This is another example of a wide-spread feature that I don't want to over-emphasise, because the fact that it's so widespread merely shows that it was an easy evolutionary development so appears convergently all over the animals' tree of life (and plants', if you include nitrogen-fixers). --Philcha (talk) 06:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
"...rely on other mechanisms for the first - in annelids special filter..." Suggest changing the hyphen to a period (and adding a comma after annelids).
Once again I've used the dash to flag a comment on one part of a dichotomy, and IMO making "in annelids special filter..." a separate sentence would obscure this. --Philcha (talk) 06:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
"As a result, the hindmost segment..." comma
Och no, see above on use of commas :-) --Philcha (talk) 06:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
"...as there is no following segment via which to filter.." "via which to" just sounds wrong
Why? Would "has no structure that extracts its wastes, as there is no following segment via which to filter and discharge them" sound better? --Philcha (talk) 06:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Googled the phrase "via which to" and it shows up sufficient times to convince me that some people think it's acceptable to use, so change at your discretion (yes, I think the 2nd way sounds better). Sasata (talk) 05:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Used "no following segment to filter and discharge them" --Philcha (talk) 07:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
"Asexual reproduction in oligochaetes is always by dividing into two or more pieces." suggest to add at the end (for clarity) "...., rather than by budding."
Done. --Philcha (talk) 06:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Ecological significance"

"Earthworms also important prey for birds" missing "are"
Done, thanks. --Philcha (talk) 07:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Interaction with humans

Any chance of fixing the one-sentence "paragraph"?
You mean "Scientists study aquatic annelids to monitor the oxygen content ..."? IMO no, as it's completely separate type of interaction from the other 3. The problem I found with this section and "Ecological significance" is that the literature is very patchy for annelids - unlike a.g. arthropods, where reams have been written about each of pollination, direct sources of food for humans, predators / prey / recycling of organics, stings / bites, and spreading of diseases. --Philcha (talk) 07:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Evolutionary history

"...but the first tubes clearly produced by polychaetes date from the Jurassic, in other words less than 199 million years ago." Any meaning lost if the phrase "in other words" were removed?
You're right, removed. --Philcha (talk) 07:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
"A trace fossil consisting of a convoluted burrow..." How do you feel about linking burrow?
Nice find, it's suitably generalised. Done. --Philcha (talk) 07:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
"...In 1997 Greg Rouse and Kristian Fauchald essayed a" What are the chances that the 12 year old will understand what "essayed" means?
Now "attempted". --Philcha (talk) 07:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
"Also in 1997 Damhnait McHugh, using molecular phylogenetics to compare similarities and differences in one gene, presented a very different view, in which: the clitellates were an off-shoot of one branch of the polychaete family tree; the pogonophorans and echiurans, which for a few decades had been regarded as a separate phyla, were placed on other branches of the polychaete tree." Try reading that out loud... it's a mouthful. The punctuation doesn't quite work for me either.
It's not one continuous sentence, it's a header and list, as marked by the colon after the header and semi-colon between list items. IMO each element is fairly short. --Philcha (talk) 07:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
It's a header and list where one of the list items is modified and supplemented by two clauses separated by commas. Technically legal perhaps, but sounds awkward to me... but again, stylistic differences. Sasata (talk) 05:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
"This 2007 study agreed that clitellates, pogonophorans and echiurans were on various branches of the polychaete family tree, and concluded that the classification of polychaetes into Scolecida, Canalipalpata and Aciculata was useless, as the members of these alleged groups were scattered all over the family tree derived from comparing the 81 taxa." Another monster sentence that needs "softening".
Made this study a separ para, split the sentence. What do you think? --Philcha (talk) 07:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Tweaked it a bit, I think it sounds better now. Sasata (talk) 05:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
"...and concluded that leeches were a sub-group of oligochaetes rather than their sister-group among the clitellates."  What's a sister-group (remember the 12-year old)?
W-linked. Or would a you prefer an explanation in parentheses? --Philcha (talk) 07:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Link is fine. Sasata (talk) 05:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
"Rouse accepted the analyses..." Who's Rouse? Why should I care that he accepted the analyses?
The Godfather - see how often his name appears in refs. --Philcha (talk)
"and their main conclusions are now the scientific consensus" to whom does the "their" refer? Rouse or Torsten Struck and colleagues?
The preceding plural noun is "the analyses (based on molecular phylogenetics)" --Philcha (talk) 07:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
"Polychaetes, which they found to be the parent group of all the rest," Does "they" refer to the molecular phylogenetics analyses? How about removing "which they"?
Now "which these analyses found to be the parent group of all the rest" --Philcha (talk) 07:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
"...while their echiurans and sipunculan offshoots are not segmented" getting confused... who's the "their" now?
OK, now "polychaetes'" --Philcha (talk) 07:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
"It now seems that segmentation can appear and disappear much more easily..." ->has appeared and disappeared - better?
Why? The point is that, contrary to dogma since the 19th cent, segmentation is not such a big deal. --Philcha (talk) 07:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
"and / or" I've heard the and/or construction was worth avoiding in formal writing. And what's up with the spaces?
"and / or" is the concise way to point out that "some have lophophores, some have trochophore larve and some have both". Inserting "some have lophophores, some have trochophore larve and some have both" into the sentence would require a major restructure, and make it about twice as long. --Philcha (talk) 07:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough... but why the spaces on either side of the slash? (and/or) Sasata (talk) 05:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Removed spaces. --Philcha (talk) 06:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
"Bryzoa may be the most basal phylum..." Suggest linking to basal (phylogenetics) in addition to the parenthetical explanation that's there.
Nice find, done. --Philcha (talk) 07:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
"Hence this development pattern is often described as "spiral deterministic cleavage".[57]" I could not find the quoted phrase in the reference.
Damn! It gets so close but not quite. Found a book ref. I hate searching for refs for basics, it's always harder than sourcing the advanced stuff.</rant> --Philcha (talk) 07:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
General

I noticed over a dozen examples of sentences beginning with "however" that did not have a comma immediately following it, which is, at the very least, unconventional. See here for one take on this grammatical issue. Stylistically, I tend to use more commas than you, which is just a matter of preference, but in this particular example I think the comma is needed.
You're the first reviewer who's provided a ref that gives reasoning on this issue! Thanks, I'll try to remember this one. Done - wikEd roolz. --Philcha (talk) 08:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Another thing, and I don't really know what "the rule" is but thought I'd bring it up: "The compound eyes probably evolved independently of arthropods'." The apostrophe at the end of arthropods implies the unwritten word "eyes", and gives the sentence a different meaning than if that apostrophe had been left out. I understand that the word "eyes" was left out to avoid word repetition, and is "implied" by the apostrophe, but perhaps at the expense of some clarity.... what is the lesser evil? (grammar philosophy!)
Added "eyes" --Philcha (talk) 08:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I noticed 5 examples of the use of the phrase "in other words", as a way of introducing explanations of technical terms; you might consider changing of couple of these to mdashes for variety.
I'd rather be consistent. And if I went for dashes, it would be sp ndash sp - as a reader I dislike mdash, looks too much like hyphen. --Philcha (talk) 08:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I also noticed that none of these cases of the phrase "in other words" were followed by punctuation. Google the phrase and you'll see that at least 95% of the time it's followed by a comma in common usage. I think the same holds for "on the other hand" (3 instances). Sasata (talk) 05:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Geez, I didn't realise what a threat you guys were to wild comma populations :-) --Philcha (talk) 18:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I'll let you chew on these suggestions for a while, do another read through when you're done, and check some references. Sasata (talk) 04:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
A few more bits that came up during a reread: Sasata (talk)

chequered; practise  - going with Am or Brit spelling?
Meant to be Am.
Fixed "chequeredcheckered". IIRC I recently reverted an edit that inserted "practice"; no occurrences now. --Philcha (talk) 06:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
"Then Simon Conway Morris and John Peel reported Phragmochaeta" check the link for DJ Peel
unlinked "John Peel" --Philcha (talk) 06:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
checked as many references as I could access online, and everything seems fine. I'll pass the article after the few minor things are dealt with above. Sasata (talk) 05:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
why not use the shorthand format for the book references? It seems fairly ridiculous, for example, to give the full details including ISBN for the Rupert et al (2004) book 16 times!
They are (or should be) to different sections. None of our referencing schemes appear to handle this well:
I dislike indiv page numbers in refs plus biblio details separately. In scientific works you need to read the section to get context. In other cases there's danger of e.g. quoting an opposing view which the author is setting up for critique (Darwin made this mistake when claiming that Aristotle was an ancestor of evolutionary theory; A was setting up to criticise Empedocles' viwes)). And it just creates too long a list of refs, if you cite 2-3 pages from the same section. I much prefer to include chapter names, as that helps readers who don't have the same edition / printing as I'm using.
An alternative would be to incl chapter num in each ref, and biblio details in 1 place at end. The result would be refs that are still fairly long refs.
As a reader I dislike the common variant that gives no internal link to the biblio details. However WP provides no simple means to achieve this. I know how to do it, but it's a PITA.
The article uses only 2 books, so IMO it's no big deal.
BTW as a reader I dislike Harvard referencing, takes too much space in the main text and with the density of refs WP:V demands that's horrible - imagine "Annelids have features X(Ruppert, Fox and Barnes 2004: 214) but not feature Y(Ruppert, Fox and Barnes 2004: 216)" :-( -Philcha (talk) 06:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The lede is too long... just kidding. I've seen the other discussions you've had about this and don't want to go there, just thought the review couldn't be complete without mentioning it.
Of course :-) --Philcha (talk) 07:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 
The prose is fine; personally, I'd use more commas, but there's no need for me to impose my stylistic preferences.  The lead is longer than suggested by the MOS, but the main editor has valid arguments for it being this way, so I'm IAR.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c(OR): 
Well-referenced to reliable sources.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
Not an expert in the topic matter by any means, but I though it was a good overview.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars etc.: 

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
All images have appropriate free use licenses.
Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

Thanks for the effort in taking on such a broad topic, and helping to enrich the biology education of 12 year olds everywhere! Sasata (talk) 15:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Annelid redone w white background.svg will be appearing as picture of the day on July 12, 2014. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2014-07-12. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:12, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Annelid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080720124908/http://www.tafi.org.au/zooplankton/imagekey/annelida/index.html to http://www.tafi.org.au/zooplankton/imagekey/annelida/index.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090501112634/http://www.agromedic.com:80/ to http://www.agromedic.com
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:23, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Chiswick Chap must have spent a lot of time on Christmas Day adding images and fixing up content, but also somehow managed to scramble parts of the tree in the process. Note, for example, that Lophotrochozoa and Ecdysozoa both appear twice in the diagram, with Lophotrochozoa shown as descended from itself. This has all the marks of confusion from making changes all over a structure too complex to see all of at once. It obviously needs to be fixed, but I'm not familiar enough to be comfortable working on it- I could easily just make things worse. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:22, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:39, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I want to suggest deleting the image link for Aptostichus simus, an arthropod; a spider. it's not actually mentioned in the article, but it's linked to the article Mr kitehead (talk) 04:18, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

This page opens with several paragraphs about football player Lionel Messi 97.156.157.210 (talk) 23:24, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I was working on something and stumbled upon the Messi annelids randomly, while looking into reproduction by fragmentation, just before it got reverted. just had to make an account for it
hilarious, Absolutely gold, I love this website :) MartinJoster42 (talk) 01:59, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

In the very last cladogram it appears that Wufengella has been placed outside the "Tommotiids" phylum. Both the pages for Wufengella and for "Tommotiids" seem to suggest that it falls within that group, however, even if the phylogeny isn't fully settled.
Is this a mistake, or a deliberate choice, and if the latter, could someone explain why? Thank you! :) Eyekosaeder (talk) 12:29, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

The "Cladistic view" at the top of the page contradicts itself and the pages it links to, particularly the Capitellida and the Maldanomorpha.  It says that Capitellida contains Echiura and Capitellidae, but the Capitellida page says it contains Arencollidae, Capitellidae, and Maldanidae instead.  However, the Maldanomorpha, Arencolidae, and Maldanidae pages all agree that Maldanomorpha contains Arencolidae and Maldanidae, and the Capitellidae page lists it as a subtaxon of Sedentaria without even acknowledging Capitellida.  Furthermore, the Echiura page similarly lists Echiura as an independent subclass within Sedentaria.  It would seem that this page is the odd one out here, except that the Sedentaria page uses the same phylogeny as this one at the top of the Annelid page, and both of these are compatible with the phylogeny tree in the "Evolutionary history" section.  It would seem that there are two competing phylogenies present here: one used in the Annelid and Sedentaria pages, and one used in all the other pages.  Which one is true? Thunderhawk256 (talk) 21:57, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

@Thunderhawk256 That's because most annelid pages are quite outdated. I improved the Annelid, Maldanomorpha, Pleistoannelida and Sedentaria pages because I saw a complete lack of accurate, up-to-date information, but updating the remaining articles is a large task. — Snoteleks (talk) 00:23, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
Ok, that makes sense.  So which of the mentioned pages, if any, have accurate phylogenies? Thunderhawk256 (talk) 01:17, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
@Thunderhawk256 Pretty much the ones I mentioned: Annelid, Pleistoannelida and Sedentaria. — Snoteleks (talk) 02:09, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
Ok, thanks Thunderhawk256 (talk) 02:23, 6 July 2025 (UTC)