Question: What era was underway 505 million years ago?

Answer: early Cambrian

Since annelids are soft-bodied, their fossils are rare. Polychaetes' fossil record consists mainly of the jaws that some species had and the mineralized tubes that some secreted. Some Ediacaran fossils such as Dickinsonia in some ways resemble polychaetes, but the similarities are too vague for these fossils to be classified with confidence. The small shelly fossil Cloudina, from 549 to 542 million years ago, has been classified by some authors as an annelid, but by others as a cnidarian (i.e. in the phylum to which jellyfish and sea anemones belong). <hl> Until 2008 the earliest fossils widely accepted as annelids were the polychaetes Canadia and Burgessochaeta, both from Canada's Burgess Shale, formed about 505 million years ago in the early Cambrian . <hl> Myoscolex, found in Australia and a little older than the Burgess Shale, was possibly an annelid. However, it lacks some typical annelid features and has features which are not usually found in annelids and some of which are associated with other phyla. Then Simon Conway Morris and John Peel reported Phragmochaeta from Sirius Passet, about 518 million years old, and concluded that it was the oldest annelid known to date. There has been vigorous debate about whether the Burgess Shale fossil Wiwaxia was a mollusc or an annelid. Polychaetes diversified in the early Ordovician, about 488 to 474 million years ago. It is not until the early Ordovician that the first annelid jaws are found, thus the crown-group cannot have appeared before this date and probably appeared somewhat later. By the end of the Carboniferous, about 299 million years ago, fossils of most of the modern mobile polychaete groups had appeared. Many fossil tubes look like those made by modern sessile polychaetes , but the first tubes clearly produced by polychaetes date from the Jurassic, less than 199 million years ago.

Since annelids are soft-bodied, their fossils are rare. Polychaetes' fossil record consists mainly of the jaws that some species had and the mineralized tubes that some secreted. Some Ediacaran fossils such as Dickinsonia in some ways resemble polychaetes, but the similarities are too vague for these fossils to be classified with confidence. The small shelly fossil Cloudina, from 549 to 542 million years ago, has been classified by some authors as an annelid, but by others as a cnidarian (i.e. in the phylum to which jellyfish and sea anemones belong). Until 2008 the earliest fossils widely accepted as annelids were the polychaetes Canadia and Burgessochaeta, both from Canada's Burgess Shale, formed about 505 million years ago in the <hl> early Cambrian <hl>. Myoscolex, found in Australia and a little older than the Burgess Shale, was possibly an annelid. However, it lacks some typical annelid features and has features which are not usually found in annelids and some of which are associated with other phyla. Then Simon Conway Morris and John Peel reported Phragmochaeta from Sirius Passet, about 518 million years old, and concluded that it was the oldest annelid known to date. There has been vigorous debate about whether the Burgess Shale fossil Wiwaxia was a mollusc or an annelid. Polychaetes diversified in the early Ordovician, about 488 to 474 million years ago. It is not until the early Ordovician that the first annelid jaws are found, thus the crown-group cannot have appeared before this date and probably appeared somewhat later. By the end of the Carboniferous, about 299 million years ago, fossils of most of the modern mobile polychaete groups had appeared. Many fossil tubes look like those made by modern sessile polychaetes , but the first tubes clearly produced by polychaetes date from the Jurassic, less than 199 million years ago.

Until 2008 the earliest fossils widely accepted as annelids were the polychaetes Canadia and Burgessochaeta, both from Canada's Burgess Shale, formed about 505 million years ago in the <hl> early Cambrian <hl> .

question: What era was underway 505 million years ago?, context: Since annelids are soft-bodied, their fossils are rare. Polychaetes' fossil record consists mainly of the jaws that some species had and the mineralized tubes that some secreted. Some Ediacaran fossils such as Dickinsonia in some ways resemble polychaetes, but the similarities are too vague for these fossils to be classified with confidence. The small shelly fossil Cloudina, from 549 to 542 million years ago, has been classified by some authors as an annelid, but by others as a cnidarian (i.e. in the phylum to which jellyfish and sea anemones belong). Until 2008 the earliest fossils widely accepted as annelids were the polychaetes Canadia and Burgessochaeta, both from Canada's Burgess Shale, formed about 505 million years ago in the early Cambrian. Myoscolex, found in Australia and a little older than the Burgess Shale, was possibly an annelid. However, it lacks some typical annelid features and has features which are not usually found in annelids and some of which are associated with other phyla. Then Simon Conway Morris and John Peel reported Phragmochaeta from Sirius Passet, about 518 million years old, and concluded that it was the oldest annelid known to date. There has been vigorous debate about whether the Burgess Shale fossil Wiwaxia was a mollusc or an annelid. Polychaetes diversified in the early Ordovician, about 488 to 474 million years ago. It is not until the early Ordovician that the first annelid jaws are found, thus the crown-group cannot have appeared before this date and probably appeared somewhat later. By the end of the Carboniferous, about 299 million years ago, fossils of most of the modern mobile polychaete groups had appeared. Many fossil tubes look like those made by modern sessile polychaetes , but the first tubes clearly produced by polychaetes date from the Jurassic, less than 199 million years ago.


Question: Where was Myoscolex found?

Answer: Australia

Since annelids are soft-bodied, their fossils are rare. Polychaetes' fossil record consists mainly of the jaws that some species had and the mineralized tubes that some secreted. Some Ediacaran fossils such as Dickinsonia in some ways resemble polychaetes, but the similarities are too vague for these fossils to be classified with confidence. The small shelly fossil Cloudina, from 549 to 542 million years ago, has been classified by some authors as an annelid, but by others as a cnidarian (i.e. in the phylum to which jellyfish and sea anemones belong). Until 2008 the earliest fossils widely accepted as annelids were the polychaetes Canadia and Burgessochaeta, both from Canada's Burgess Shale, formed about 505 million years ago in the early Cambrian. <hl> Myoscolex, found in Australia and a little older than the Burgess Shale, was possibly an annelid. <hl> However, it lacks some typical annelid features and has features which are not usually found in annelids and some of which are associated with other phyla. Then Simon Conway Morris and John Peel reported Phragmochaeta from Sirius Passet, about 518 million years old, and concluded that it was the oldest annelid known to date. There has been vigorous debate about whether the Burgess Shale fossil Wiwaxia was a mollusc or an annelid. Polychaetes diversified in the early Ordovician, about 488 to 474 million years ago. It is not until the early Ordovician that the first annelid jaws are found, thus the crown-group cannot have appeared before this date and probably appeared somewhat later. By the end of the Carboniferous, about 299 million years ago, fossils of most of the modern mobile polychaete groups had appeared. Many fossil tubes look like those made by modern sessile polychaetes , but the first tubes clearly produced by polychaetes date from the Jurassic, less than 199 million years ago.

Since annelids are soft-bodied, their fossils are rare. Polychaetes' fossil record consists mainly of the jaws that some species had and the mineralized tubes that some secreted. Some Ediacaran fossils such as Dickinsonia in some ways resemble polychaetes, but the similarities are too vague for these fossils to be classified with confidence. The small shelly fossil Cloudina, from 549 to 542 million years ago, has been classified by some authors as an annelid, but by others as a cnidarian (i.e. in the phylum to which jellyfish and sea anemones belong). Until 2008 the earliest fossils widely accepted as annelids were the polychaetes Canadia and Burgessochaeta, both from Canada's Burgess Shale, formed about 505 million years ago in the early Cambrian. Myoscolex, found in <hl> Australia <hl> and a little older than the Burgess Shale, was possibly an annelid. However, it lacks some typical annelid features and has features which are not usually found in annelids and some of which are associated with other phyla. Then Simon Conway Morris and John Peel reported Phragmochaeta from Sirius Passet, about 518 million years old, and concluded that it was the oldest annelid known to date. There has been vigorous debate about whether the Burgess Shale fossil Wiwaxia was a mollusc or an annelid. Polychaetes diversified in the early Ordovician, about 488 to 474 million years ago. It is not until the early Ordovician that the first annelid jaws are found, thus the crown-group cannot have appeared before this date and probably appeared somewhat later. By the end of the Carboniferous, about 299 million years ago, fossils of most of the modern mobile polychaete groups had appeared. Many fossil tubes look like those made by modern sessile polychaetes , but the first tubes clearly produced by polychaetes date from the Jurassic, less than 199 million years ago.

question: Where was Myoscolex found?, context: Since annelids are soft-bodied, their fossils are rare. Polychaetes' fossil record consists mainly of the jaws that some species had and the mineralized tubes that some secreted. Some Ediacaran fossils such as Dickinsonia in some ways resemble polychaetes, but the similarities are too vague for these fossils to be classified with confidence. The small shelly fossil Cloudina, from 549 to 542 million years ago, has been classified by some authors as an annelid, but by others as a cnidarian (i.e. in the phylum to which jellyfish and sea anemones belong). Until 2008 the earliest fossils widely accepted as annelids were the polychaetes Canadia and Burgessochaeta, both from Canada's Burgess Shale, formed about 505 million years ago in the early Cambrian. Myoscolex, found in Australia and a little older than the Burgess Shale, was possibly an annelid. However, it lacks some typical annelid features and has features which are not usually found in annelids and some of which are associated with other phyla. Then Simon Conway Morris and John Peel reported Phragmochaeta from Sirius Passet, about 518 million years old, and concluded that it was the oldest annelid known to date. There has been vigorous debate about whether the Burgess Shale fossil Wiwaxia was a mollusc or an annelid. Polychaetes diversified in the early Ordovician, about 488 to 474 million years ago. It is not until the early Ordovician that the first annelid jaws are found, thus the crown-group cannot have appeared before this date and probably appeared somewhat later. By the end of the Carboniferous, about 299 million years ago, fossils of most of the modern mobile polychaete groups had appeared. Many fossil tubes look like those made by modern sessile polychaetes , but the first tubes clearly produced by polychaetes date from the Jurassic, less than 199 million years ago.


Question: When did the Tertiary period begin?

Answer: 65 million years ago

<hl> The earliest good evidence for oligochaetes occurs in the Tertiary period, which began 65 million years ago , and it has been suggested that these animals evolved around the same time as flowering plants in the early Cretaceous, from 130 to 90 million years ago. <hl> A trace fossil consisting of a convoluted burrow partly filled with small fecal pellets may be evidence that earthworms were present in the early Triassic period from 251 to 245 million years ago. Body fossils going back to the mid Ordovician, from 472 to 461 million years ago, have been tentatively classified as oligochaetes, but these identifications are uncertain and some have been disputed.

The earliest good evidence for oligochaetes occurs in the Tertiary period, which began <hl> 65 million years ago <hl>, and it has been suggested that these animals evolved around the same time as flowering plants in the early Cretaceous, from 130 to 90 million years ago. A trace fossil consisting of a convoluted burrow partly filled with small fecal pellets may be evidence that earthworms were present in the early Triassic period from 251 to 245 million years ago. Body fossils going back to the mid Ordovician, from 472 to 461 million years ago, have been tentatively classified as oligochaetes, but these identifications are uncertain and some have been disputed.

The earliest good evidence for oligochaetes occurs in the Tertiary period, which began <hl> 65 million years ago <hl> , and it has been suggested that these animals evolved around the same time as flowering plants in the early Cretaceous, from 130 to 90 million years ago.

question: When did the Tertiary period begin?, context: The earliest good evidence for oligochaetes occurs in the Tertiary period, which began 65 million years ago, and it has been suggested that these animals evolved around the same time as flowering plants in the early Cretaceous, from 130 to 90 million years ago. A trace fossil consisting of a convoluted burrow partly filled with small fecal pellets may be evidence that earthworms were present in the early Triassic period from 251 to 245 million years ago. Body fossils going back to the mid Ordovician, from 472 to 461 million years ago, have been tentatively classified as oligochaetes, but these identifications are uncertain and some have been disputed.


Question: What era did oligochaetes evolve in?

Answer: early Cretaceous

<hl> The earliest good evidence for oligochaetes occurs in the Tertiary period, which began 65 million years ago, and it has been suggested that these animals evolved around the same time as flowering plants in the early Cretaceous , from 130 to 90 million years ago. <hl> A trace fossil consisting of a convoluted burrow partly filled with small fecal pellets may be evidence that earthworms were present in the early Triassic period from 251 to 245 million years ago. Body fossils going back to the mid Ordovician, from 472 to 461 million years ago, have been tentatively classified as oligochaetes, but these identifications are uncertain and some have been disputed.

The earliest good evidence for oligochaetes occurs in the Tertiary period, which began 65 million years ago, and it has been suggested that these animals evolved around the same time as flowering plants in the <hl> early Cretaceous <hl>, from 130 to 90 million years ago. A trace fossil consisting of a convoluted burrow partly filled with small fecal pellets may be evidence that earthworms were present in the early Triassic period from 251 to 245 million years ago. Body fossils going back to the mid Ordovician, from 472 to 461 million years ago, have been tentatively classified as oligochaetes, but these identifications are uncertain and some have been disputed.

The earliest good evidence for oligochaetes occurs in the Tertiary period, which began 65 million years ago, and it has been suggested that these animals evolved around the same time as flowering plants in the <hl> early Cretaceous <hl> , from 130 to 90 million years ago.

question: What era did oligochaetes evolve in?, context: The earliest good evidence for oligochaetes occurs in the Tertiary period, which began 65 million years ago, and it has been suggested that these animals evolved around the same time as flowering plants in the early Cretaceous, from 130 to 90 million years ago. A trace fossil consisting of a convoluted burrow partly filled with small fecal pellets may be evidence that earthworms were present in the early Triassic period from 251 to 245 million years ago. Body fossils going back to the mid Ordovician, from 472 to 461 million years ago, have been tentatively classified as oligochaetes, but these identifications are uncertain and some have been disputed.


Question: What type of annelid fossils have been found from the mid Ordovician period?

Answer: oligochaetes

<hl> The earliest good evidence for oligochaetes occurs in the Tertiary period, which began 65 million years ago, and it has been suggested that these animals evolved around the same time as flowering plants in the early Cretaceous, from 130 to 90 million years ago. <hl> A trace fossil consisting of a convoluted burrow partly filled with small fecal pellets may be evidence that earthworms were present in the early Triassic period from 251 to 245 million years ago. Body fossils going back to the mid Ordovician, from 472 to 461 million years ago, have been tentatively classified as oligochaetes, but these identifications are uncertain and some have been disputed.

The earliest good evidence for <hl> oligochaetes <hl> occurs in the Tertiary period, which began 65 million years ago, and it has been suggested that these animals evolved around the same time as flowering plants in the early Cretaceous, from 130 to 90 million years ago. A trace fossil consisting of a convoluted burrow partly filled with small fecal pellets may be evidence that earthworms were present in the early Triassic period from 251 to 245 million years ago. Body fossils going back to the mid Ordovician, from 472 to 461 million years ago, have been tentatively classified as oligochaetes, but these identifications are uncertain and some have been disputed.

question: What type of annelid fossils have been found from the mid Ordovician period?, context: The earliest good evidence for oligochaetes occurs in the Tertiary period, which began 65 million years ago, and it has been suggested that these animals evolved around the same time as flowering plants in the early Cretaceous, from 130 to 90 million years ago. A trace fossil consisting of a convoluted burrow partly filled with small fecal pellets may be evidence that earthworms were present in the early Triassic period from 251 to 245 million years ago. Body fossils going back to the mid Ordovician, from 472 to 461 million years ago, have been tentatively classified as oligochaetes, but these identifications are uncertain and some have been disputed.


Question: When were the earliest annelid fossils found?

Answer: 472 to 461 million years ago

The earliest good evidence for oligochaetes occurs in the Tertiary period, which began 65 million years ago, and it has been suggested that these animals evolved around the same time as flowering plants in the early Cretaceous, from 130 to 90 million years ago. A trace fossil consisting of a convoluted burrow partly filled with small fecal pellets may be evidence that earthworms were present in the early Triassic period from 251 to 245 million years ago. <hl> Body fossils going back to the mid Ordovician, from 472 to 461 million years ago , have been tentatively classified as oligochaetes, but these identifications are uncertain and some have been disputed. <hl>

The earliest good evidence for oligochaetes occurs in the Tertiary period, which began 65 million years ago, and it has been suggested that these animals evolved around the same time as flowering plants in the early Cretaceous, from 130 to 90 million years ago. A trace fossil consisting of a convoluted burrow partly filled with small fecal pellets may be evidence that earthworms were present in the early Triassic period from 251 to 245 million years ago. Body fossils going back to the mid Ordovician, from <hl> 472 to 461 million years ago <hl>, have been tentatively classified as oligochaetes, but these identifications are uncertain and some have been disputed.

Body fossils going back to the mid Ordovician, from <hl> 472 to 461 million years ago <hl> , have been tentatively classified as oligochaetes, but these identifications are uncertain and some have been disputed.

question: When were the earliest annelid fossils found?, context: The earliest good evidence for oligochaetes occurs in the Tertiary period, which began 65 million years ago, and it has been suggested that these animals evolved around the same time as flowering plants in the early Cretaceous, from 130 to 90 million years ago. A trace fossil consisting of a convoluted burrow partly filled with small fecal pellets may be evidence that earthworms were present in the early Triassic period from 251 to 245 million years ago. Body fossils going back to the mid Ordovician, from 472 to 461 million years ago, have been tentatively classified as oligochaetes, but these identifications are uncertain and some have been disputed.


Question: What two groups are annelids traditionally divided among?

Answer: polychaetes and clitellates

<hl> Traditionally the annelids have been divided into two major groups, the polychaetes and clitellates . <hl> In turn the clitellates were divided into oligochaetes, which include earthworms, and hirudinomorphs, whose best-known members are leeches. For many years there was no clear arrangement of the approximately 80 polychaete families into higher-level groups. In 1997 Greg Rouse and Kristian Fauchald attempted a "first heuristic step in terms of bringing polychaete systematics to an acceptable level of rigour", based on anatomical structures, and divided polychaetes into:

Traditionally the annelids have been divided into two major groups, the <hl> polychaetes and clitellates <hl>. In turn the clitellates were divided into oligochaetes, which include earthworms, and hirudinomorphs, whose best-known members are leeches. For many years there was no clear arrangement of the approximately 80 polychaete families into higher-level groups. In 1997 Greg Rouse and Kristian Fauchald attempted a "first heuristic step in terms of bringing polychaete systematics to an acceptable level of rigour", based on anatomical structures, and divided polychaetes into:

Traditionally the annelids have been divided into two major groups, the <hl> polychaetes and clitellates <hl> .

question: What two groups are annelids traditionally divided among?, context: Traditionally the annelids have been divided into two major groups, the polychaetes and clitellates. In turn the clitellates were divided into oligochaetes, which include earthworms, and hirudinomorphs, whose best-known members are leeches. For many years there was no clear arrangement of the approximately 80 polychaete families into higher-level groups. In 1997 Greg Rouse and Kristian Fauchald attempted a "first heuristic step in terms of bringing polychaete systematics to an acceptable level of rigour", based on anatomical structures, and divided polychaetes into:


Question: What subtype of clitellates contains earthworms?

Answer: oligochaetes

Traditionally the annelids have been divided into two major groups, the polychaetes and clitellates. <hl> In turn the clitellates were divided into oligochaetes , which include earthworms, and hirudinomorphs, whose best-known members are leeches. <hl> For many years there was no clear arrangement of the approximately 80 polychaete families into higher-level groups. In 1997 Greg Rouse and Kristian Fauchald attempted a "first heuristic step in terms of bringing polychaete systematics to an acceptable level of rigour", based on anatomical structures, and divided polychaetes into:

Traditionally the annelids have been divided into two major groups, the polychaetes and clitellates. In turn the clitellates were divided into <hl> oligochaetes <hl>, which include earthworms, and hirudinomorphs, whose best-known members are leeches. For many years there was no clear arrangement of the approximately 80 polychaete families into higher-level groups. In 1997 Greg Rouse and Kristian Fauchald attempted a "first heuristic step in terms of bringing polychaete systematics to an acceptable level of rigour", based on anatomical structures, and divided polychaetes into:

In turn the clitellates were divided into <hl> oligochaetes <hl> , which include earthworms, and hirudinomorphs, whose best-known members are leeches.

question: What subtype of clitellates contains earthworms?, context: Traditionally the annelids have been divided into two major groups, the polychaetes and clitellates. In turn the clitellates were divided into oligochaetes, which include earthworms, and hirudinomorphs, whose best-known members are leeches. For many years there was no clear arrangement of the approximately 80 polychaete families into higher-level groups. In 1997 Greg Rouse and Kristian Fauchald attempted a "first heuristic step in terms of bringing polychaete systematics to an acceptable level of rigour", based on anatomical structures, and divided polychaetes into:


Question: What subtype of clitellates contains leeches?

Answer: hirudinomorphs

Traditionally the annelids have been divided into two major groups, the polychaetes and clitellates. <hl> In turn the clitellates were divided into oligochaetes, which include earthworms, and hirudinomorphs , whose best-known members are leeches. <hl> For many years there was no clear arrangement of the approximately 80 polychaete families into higher-level groups. In 1997 Greg Rouse and Kristian Fauchald attempted a "first heuristic step in terms of bringing polychaete systematics to an acceptable level of rigour", based on anatomical structures, and divided polychaetes into:

Traditionally the annelids have been divided into two major groups, the polychaetes and clitellates. In turn the clitellates were divided into oligochaetes, which include earthworms, and <hl> hirudinomorphs <hl>, whose best-known members are leeches. For many years there was no clear arrangement of the approximately 80 polychaete families into higher-level groups. In 1997 Greg Rouse and Kristian Fauchald attempted a "first heuristic step in terms of bringing polychaete systematics to an acceptable level of rigour", based on anatomical structures, and divided polychaetes into:

In turn the clitellates were divided into oligochaetes, which include earthworms, and <hl> hirudinomorphs <hl> , whose best-known members are leeches.

question: What subtype of clitellates contains leeches?, context: Traditionally the annelids have been divided into two major groups, the polychaetes and clitellates. In turn the clitellates were divided into oligochaetes, which include earthworms, and hirudinomorphs, whose best-known members are leeches. For many years there was no clear arrangement of the approximately 80 polychaete families into higher-level groups. In 1997 Greg Rouse and Kristian Fauchald attempted a "first heuristic step in terms of bringing polychaete systematics to an acceptable level of rigour", based on anatomical structures, and divided polychaetes into:


Question: How many polychaete families are there?

Answer: approximately 80

Traditionally the annelids have been divided into two major groups, the polychaetes and clitellates. In turn the clitellates were divided into oligochaetes, which include earthworms, and hirudinomorphs, whose best-known members are leeches. <hl> For many years there was no clear arrangement of the approximately 80 polychaete families into higher-level groups. <hl> In 1997 Greg Rouse and Kristian Fauchald attempted a "first heuristic step in terms of bringing polychaete systematics to an acceptable level of rigour", based on anatomical structures, and divided polychaetes into:

Traditionally the annelids have been divided into two major groups, the polychaetes and clitellates. In turn the clitellates were divided into oligochaetes, which include earthworms, and hirudinomorphs, whose best-known members are leeches. For many years there was no clear arrangement of the <hl> approximately 80 <hl> polychaete families into higher-level groups. In 1997 Greg Rouse and Kristian Fauchald attempted a "first heuristic step in terms of bringing polychaete systematics to an acceptable level of rigour", based on anatomical structures, and divided polychaetes into:

question: How many polychaete families are there?, context: Traditionally the annelids have been divided into two major groups, the polychaetes and clitellates. In turn the clitellates were divided into oligochaetes, which include earthworms, and hirudinomorphs, whose best-known members are leeches. For many years there was no clear arrangement of the approximately 80 polychaete families into higher-level groups. In 1997 Greg Rouse and Kristian Fauchald attempted a "first heuristic step in terms of bringing polychaete systematics to an acceptable level of rigour", based on anatomical structures, and divided polychaetes into:


Question: When did Greg Rouse begin trying to categorize polychaetes?

Answer: 1997

Traditionally the annelids have been divided into two major groups, the polychaetes and clitellates. In turn the clitellates were divided into oligochaetes, which include earthworms, and hirudinomorphs, whose best-known members are leeches. For many years there was no clear arrangement of the approximately 80 polychaete families into higher-level groups. <hl> In 1997 Greg Rouse and Kristian Fauchald attempted a "first heuristic step in terms of bringing polychaete systematics to an acceptable level of rigour", based on anatomical structures, and divided polychaetes into: <hl>

Traditionally the annelids have been divided into two major groups, the polychaetes and clitellates. In turn the clitellates were divided into oligochaetes, which include earthworms, and hirudinomorphs, whose best-known members are leeches. For many years there was no clear arrangement of the approximately 80 polychaete families into higher-level groups. In <hl> 1997 <hl> Greg Rouse and Kristian Fauchald attempted a "first heuristic step in terms of bringing polychaete systematics to an acceptable level of rigour", based on anatomical structures, and divided polychaetes into:

question: When did Greg Rouse begin trying to categorize polychaetes?, context: Traditionally the annelids have been divided into two major groups, the polychaetes and clitellates. In turn the clitellates were divided into oligochaetes, which include earthworms, and hirudinomorphs, whose best-known members are leeches. For many years there was no clear arrangement of the approximately 80 polychaete families into higher-level groups. In 1997 Greg Rouse and Kristian Fauchald attempted a "first heuristic step in terms of bringing polychaete systematics to an acceptable level of rigour", based on anatomical structures, and divided polychaetes into:


Question: Who compared annelid genes in 2007?

Answer: Torsten Struck and colleagues

<hl> In 2007 Torsten Struck and colleagues compared 3 genes in 81 taxa, of which 9 were outgroups, in other words not considered closely related to annelids but included to give an indication of where the organisms under study are placed on the larger tree of life. <hl> For a cross-check the study used an analysis of 11 genes (including the original 3) in 10 taxa. This analysis agreed that clitellates, pogonophorans and echiurans were on various branches of the polychaete family tree. It also 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. In addition, it also placed sipunculans, generally regarded at the time as a separate phylum, on another branch of the polychaete tree, and concluded that leeches were a sub-group of oligochaetes rather than their sister-group among the clitellates. Rouse accepted the analyses based on molecular phylogenetics, and their main conclusions are now the scientific consensus, although the details of the annelid family tree remain uncertain.

In 2007 <hl> Torsten Struck and colleagues <hl> compared 3 genes in 81 taxa, of which 9 were outgroups, in other words not considered closely related to annelids but included to give an indication of where the organisms under study are placed on the larger tree of life. For a cross-check the study used an analysis of 11 genes (including the original 3) in 10 taxa. This analysis agreed that clitellates, pogonophorans and echiurans were on various branches of the polychaete family tree. It also 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. In addition, it also placed sipunculans, generally regarded at the time as a separate phylum, on another branch of the polychaete tree, and concluded that leeches were a sub-group of oligochaetes rather than their sister-group among the clitellates. Rouse accepted the analyses based on molecular phylogenetics, and their main conclusions are now the scientific consensus, although the details of the annelid family tree remain uncertain.

question: Who compared annelid genes in 2007?, context: In 2007 Torsten Struck and colleagues compared 3 genes in 81 taxa, of which 9 were outgroups, in other words not considered closely related to annelids but included to give an indication of where the organisms under study are placed on the larger tree of life. For a cross-check the study used an analysis of 11 genes (including the original 3) in 10 taxa. This analysis agreed that clitellates, pogonophorans and echiurans were on various branches of the polychaete family tree. It also 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. In addition, it also placed sipunculans, generally regarded at the time as a separate phylum, on another branch of the polychaete tree, and concluded that leeches were a sub-group of oligochaetes rather than their sister-group among the clitellates. Rouse accepted the analyses based on molecular phylogenetics, and their main conclusions are now the scientific consensus, although the details of the annelid family tree remain uncertain.


Question: How many annelid genes did Torsten Struck first compare?

Answer: 3

<hl> In 2007 Torsten Struck and colleagues compared 3 genes in 81 taxa, of which 9 were outgroups, in other words not considered closely related to annelids but included to give an indication of where the organisms under study are placed on the larger tree of life. <hl> For a cross-check the study used an analysis of 11 genes (including the original 3) in 10 taxa. This analysis agreed that clitellates, pogonophorans and echiurans were on various branches of the polychaete family tree. It also 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. In addition, it also placed sipunculans, generally regarded at the time as a separate phylum, on another branch of the polychaete tree, and concluded that leeches were a sub-group of oligochaetes rather than their sister-group among the clitellates. Rouse accepted the analyses based on molecular phylogenetics, and their main conclusions are now the scientific consensus, although the details of the annelid family tree remain uncertain.

In 2007 Torsten Struck and colleagues compared <hl> 3 <hl> genes in 81 taxa, of which 9 were outgroups, in other words not considered closely related to annelids but included to give an indication of where the organisms under study are placed on the larger tree of life. For a cross-check the study used an analysis of 11 genes (including the original 3) in 10 taxa. This analysis agreed that clitellates, pogonophorans and echiurans were on various branches of the polychaete family tree. It also 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. In addition, it also placed sipunculans, generally regarded at the time as a separate phylum, on another branch of the polychaete tree, and concluded that leeches were a sub-group of oligochaetes rather than their sister-group among the clitellates. Rouse accepted the analyses based on molecular phylogenetics, and their main conclusions are now the scientific consensus, although the details of the annelid family tree remain uncertain.

question: How many annelid genes did Torsten Struck first compare?, context: In 2007 Torsten Struck and colleagues compared 3 genes in 81 taxa, of which 9 were outgroups, in other words not considered closely related to annelids but included to give an indication of where the organisms under study are placed on the larger tree of life. For a cross-check the study used an analysis of 11 genes (including the original 3) in 10 taxa. This analysis agreed that clitellates, pogonophorans and echiurans were on various branches of the polychaete family tree. It also 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. In addition, it also placed sipunculans, generally regarded at the time as a separate phylum, on another branch of the polychaete tree, and concluded that leeches were a sub-group of oligochaetes rather than their sister-group among the clitellates. Rouse accepted the analyses based on molecular phylogenetics, and their main conclusions are now the scientific consensus, although the details of the annelid family tree remain uncertain.


Question: How many annelid genes did Torsten Struck compare for a cross-check?

Answer: 11

In 2007 Torsten Struck and colleagues compared 3 genes in 81 taxa, of which 9 were outgroups, in other words not considered closely related to annelids but included to give an indication of where the organisms under study are placed on the larger tree of life. <hl> For a cross-check the study used an analysis of 11 genes (including the original 3) in 10 taxa. <hl> This analysis agreed that clitellates, pogonophorans and echiurans were on various branches of the polychaete family tree. It also 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. In addition, it also placed sipunculans, generally regarded at the time as a separate phylum, on another branch of the polychaete tree, and concluded that leeches were a sub-group of oligochaetes rather than their sister-group among the clitellates. Rouse accepted the analyses based on molecular phylogenetics, and their main conclusions are now the scientific consensus, although the details of the annelid family tree remain uncertain.

In 2007 Torsten Struck and colleagues compared 3 genes in 81 taxa, of which 9 were outgroups, in other words not considered closely related to annelids but included to give an indication of where the organisms under study are placed on the larger tree of life. For a cross-check the study used an analysis of <hl> 11 <hl> genes (including the original 3) in 10 taxa. This analysis agreed that clitellates, pogonophorans and echiurans were on various branches of the polychaete family tree. It also 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. In addition, it also placed sipunculans, generally regarded at the time as a separate phylum, on another branch of the polychaete tree, and concluded that leeches were a sub-group of oligochaetes rather than their sister-group among the clitellates. Rouse accepted the analyses based on molecular phylogenetics, and their main conclusions are now the scientific consensus, although the details of the annelid family tree remain uncertain.

question: How many annelid genes did Torsten Struck compare for a cross-check?, context: In 2007 Torsten Struck and colleagues compared 3 genes in 81 taxa, of which 9 were outgroups, in other words not considered closely related to annelids but included to give an indication of where the organisms under study are placed on the larger tree of life. For a cross-check the study used an analysis of 11 genes (including the original 3) in 10 taxa. This analysis agreed that clitellates, pogonophorans and echiurans were on various branches of the polychaete family tree. It also 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. In addition, it also placed sipunculans, generally regarded at the time as a separate phylum, on another branch of the polychaete tree, and concluded that leeches were a sub-group of oligochaetes rather than their sister-group among the clitellates. Rouse accepted the analyses based on molecular phylogenetics, and their main conclusions are now the scientific consensus, although the details of the annelid family tree remain uncertain.


Question: What subtypes of polychaetes were useless classifications, according to the 2007 study?

Answer: Scolecida, Canalipalpata and Aciculata

In 2007 Torsten Struck and colleagues compared 3 genes in 81 taxa, of which 9 were outgroups, in other words not considered closely related to annelids but included to give an indication of where the organisms under study are placed on the larger tree of life. For a cross-check the study used an analysis of 11 genes (including the original 3) in 10 taxa. This analysis agreed that clitellates, pogonophorans and echiurans were on various branches of the polychaete family tree. <hl> It also 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. <hl> In addition, it also placed sipunculans, generally regarded at the time as a separate phylum, on another branch of the polychaete tree, and concluded that leeches were a sub-group of oligochaetes rather than their sister-group among the clitellates. Rouse accepted the analyses based on molecular phylogenetics, and their main conclusions are now the scientific consensus, although the details of the annelid family tree remain uncertain.

In 2007 Torsten Struck and colleagues compared 3 genes in 81 taxa, of which 9 were outgroups, in other words not considered closely related to annelids but included to give an indication of where the organisms under study are placed on the larger tree of life. For a cross-check the study used an analysis of 11 genes (including the original 3) in 10 taxa. This analysis agreed that clitellates, pogonophorans and echiurans were on various branches of the polychaete family tree. It also concluded that the classification of polychaetes into <hl> Scolecida, Canalipalpata and Aciculata <hl> was useless, as the members of these alleged groups were scattered all over the family tree derived from comparing the 81 taxa. In addition, it also placed sipunculans, generally regarded at the time as a separate phylum, on another branch of the polychaete tree, and concluded that leeches were a sub-group of oligochaetes rather than their sister-group among the clitellates. Rouse accepted the analyses based on molecular phylogenetics, and their main conclusions are now the scientific consensus, although the details of the annelid family tree remain uncertain.

question: What subtypes of polychaetes were useless classifications, according to the 2007 study?, context: In 2007 Torsten Struck and colleagues compared 3 genes in 81 taxa, of which 9 were outgroups, in other words not considered closely related to annelids but included to give an indication of where the organisms under study are placed on the larger tree of life. For a cross-check the study used an analysis of 11 genes (including the original 3) in 10 taxa. This analysis agreed that clitellates, pogonophorans and echiurans were on various branches of the polychaete family tree. It also 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. In addition, it also placed sipunculans, generally regarded at the time as a separate phylum, on another branch of the polychaete tree, and concluded that leeches were a sub-group of oligochaetes rather than their sister-group among the clitellates. Rouse accepted the analyses based on molecular phylogenetics, and their main conclusions are now the scientific consensus, although the details of the annelid family tree remain uncertain.


Question: What did Rouse decide leeches were a subgroup of?

Answer: oligochaetes

In 2007 Torsten Struck and colleagues compared 3 genes in 81 taxa, of which 9 were outgroups, in other words not considered closely related to annelids but included to give an indication of where the organisms under study are placed on the larger tree of life. For a cross-check the study used an analysis of 11 genes (including the original 3) in 10 taxa. This analysis agreed that clitellates, pogonophorans and echiurans were on various branches of the polychaete family tree. It also 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. <hl> In addition, it also placed sipunculans, generally regarded at the time as a separate phylum, on another branch of the polychaete tree, and concluded that leeches were a sub-group of oligochaetes rather than their sister-group among the clitellates. <hl> Rouse accepted the analyses based on molecular phylogenetics, and their main conclusions are now the scientific consensus, although the details of the annelid family tree remain uncertain.

In 2007 Torsten Struck and colleagues compared 3 genes in 81 taxa, of which 9 were outgroups, in other words not considered closely related to annelids but included to give an indication of where the organisms under study are placed on the larger tree of life. For a cross-check the study used an analysis of 11 genes (including the original 3) in 10 taxa. This analysis agreed that clitellates, pogonophorans and echiurans were on various branches of the polychaete family tree. It also 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. In addition, it also placed sipunculans, generally regarded at the time as a separate phylum, on another branch of the polychaete tree, and concluded that leeches were a sub-group of <hl> oligochaetes <hl> rather than their sister-group among the clitellates. Rouse accepted the analyses based on molecular phylogenetics, and their main conclusions are now the scientific consensus, although the details of the annelid family tree remain uncertain.

question: What did Rouse decide leeches were a subgroup of?, context: In 2007 Torsten Struck and colleagues compared 3 genes in 81 taxa, of which 9 were outgroups, in other words not considered closely related to annelids but included to give an indication of where the organisms under study are placed on the larger tree of life. For a cross-check the study used an analysis of 11 genes (including the original 3) in 10 taxa. This analysis agreed that clitellates, pogonophorans and echiurans were on various branches of the polychaete family tree. It also 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. In addition, it also placed sipunculans, generally regarded at the time as a separate phylum, on another branch of the polychaete tree, and concluded that leeches were a sub-group of oligochaetes rather than their sister-group among the clitellates. Rouse accepted the analyses based on molecular phylogenetics, and their main conclusions are now the scientific consensus, although the details of the annelid family tree remain uncertain.


Question: How many previously-separate phyla did the 2007 study reclassify?

Answer: 3

<hl> In addition to re-writing the classification of annelids and 3 previously independent phyla, the molecular phylogenetics analyses undermine the emphasis that decades of previous writings placed on the importance of segmentation in the classification of invertebrates. <hl> Polychaetes, which these analyses found to be the parent group, have completely segmented bodies, while polychaetes' echiurans and sipunculan offshoots are not segmented and pogonophores are segmented only in the rear parts of their bodies. It now seems that segmentation can appear and disappear much more easily in the course of evolution than was previously thought. The 2007 study also noted that the ladder-like nervous system, which is associated with segmentation, is less universal previously thought in both annelids and arthropods.[n 2]

In addition to re-writing the classification of annelids and <hl> 3 <hl> previously independent phyla, the molecular phylogenetics analyses undermine the emphasis that decades of previous writings placed on the importance of segmentation in the classification of invertebrates. Polychaetes, which these analyses found to be the parent group, have completely segmented bodies, while polychaetes' echiurans and sipunculan offshoots are not segmented and pogonophores are segmented only in the rear parts of their bodies. It now seems that segmentation can appear and disappear much more easily in the course of evolution than was previously thought. The 2007 study also noted that the ladder-like nervous system, which is associated with segmentation, is less universal previously thought in both annelids and arthropods.[n 2]

question: How many previously-separate phyla did the 2007 study reclassify?, context: In addition to re-writing the classification of annelids and 3 previously independent phyla, the molecular phylogenetics analyses undermine the emphasis that decades of previous writings placed on the importance of segmentation in the classification of invertebrates. Polychaetes, which these analyses found to be the parent group, have completely segmented bodies, while polychaetes' echiurans and sipunculan offshoots are not segmented and pogonophores are segmented only in the rear parts of their bodies. It now seems that segmentation can appear and disappear much more easily in the course of evolution than was previously thought. The 2007 study also noted that the ladder-like nervous system, which is associated with segmentation, is less universal previously thought in both annelids and arthropods.[n 2]


Question: What did the 2007 study decide was the parent group for annelids?

Answer: Polychaetes

In addition to re-writing the classification of annelids and 3 previously independent phyla, the molecular phylogenetics analyses undermine the emphasis that decades of previous writings placed on the importance of segmentation in the classification of invertebrates. <hl> Polychaetes , which these analyses found to be the parent group, have completely segmented bodies, while polychaetes' echiurans and sipunculan offshoots are not segmented and pogonophores are segmented only in the rear parts of their bodies. <hl> It now seems that segmentation can appear and disappear much more easily in the course of evolution than was previously thought. The 2007 study also noted that the ladder-like nervous system, which is associated with segmentation, is less universal previously thought in both annelids and arthropods.[n 2]

In addition to re-writing the classification of annelids and 3 previously independent phyla, the molecular phylogenetics analyses undermine the emphasis that decades of previous writings placed on the importance of segmentation in the classification of invertebrates. <hl> Polychaetes <hl>, which these analyses found to be the parent group, have completely segmented bodies, while polychaetes' echiurans and sipunculan offshoots are not segmented and pogonophores are segmented only in the rear parts of their bodies. It now seems that segmentation can appear and disappear much more easily in the course of evolution than was previously thought. The 2007 study also noted that the ladder-like nervous system, which is associated with segmentation, is less universal previously thought in both annelids and arthropods.[n 2]

<hl> Polychaetes <hl> , which these analyses found to be the parent group, have completely segmented bodies, while polychaetes' echiurans and sipunculan offshoots are not segmented and pogonophores are segmented only in the rear parts of their bodies.

question: What did the 2007 study decide was the parent group for annelids?, context: In addition to re-writing the classification of annelids and 3 previously independent phyla, the molecular phylogenetics analyses undermine the emphasis that decades of previous writings placed on the importance of segmentation in the classification of invertebrates. Polychaetes, which these analyses found to be the parent group, have completely segmented bodies, while polychaetes' echiurans and sipunculan offshoots are not segmented and pogonophores are segmented only in the rear parts of their bodies. It now seems that segmentation can appear and disappear much more easily in the course of evolution than was previously thought. The 2007 study also noted that the ladder-like nervous system, which is associated with segmentation, is less universal previously thought in both annelids and arthropods.[n 2]


Question: What offshoots of polychaetes are unsegmented?

Answer: echiurans and sipunculan

In addition to re-writing the classification of annelids and 3 previously independent phyla, the molecular phylogenetics analyses undermine the emphasis that decades of previous writings placed on the importance of segmentation in the classification of invertebrates. <hl> Polychaetes, which these analyses found to be the parent group, have completely segmented bodies, while polychaetes' echiurans and sipunculan offshoots are not segmented and pogonophores are segmented only in the rear parts of their bodies. <hl> It now seems that segmentation can appear and disappear much more easily in the course of evolution than was previously thought. The 2007 study also noted that the ladder-like nervous system, which is associated with segmentation, is less universal previously thought in both annelids and arthropods.[n 2]

In addition to re-writing the classification of annelids and 3 previously independent phyla, the molecular phylogenetics analyses undermine the emphasis that decades of previous writings placed on the importance of segmentation in the classification of invertebrates. Polychaetes, which these analyses found to be the parent group, have completely segmented bodies, while polychaetes' <hl> echiurans and sipunculan <hl> offshoots are not segmented and pogonophores are segmented only in the rear parts of their bodies. It now seems that segmentation can appear and disappear much more easily in the course of evolution than was previously thought. The 2007 study also noted that the ladder-like nervous system, which is associated with segmentation, is less universal previously thought in both annelids and arthropods.[n 2]

question: What offshoots of polychaetes are unsegmented?, context: In addition to re-writing the classification of annelids and 3 previously independent phyla, the molecular phylogenetics analyses undermine the emphasis that decades of previous writings placed on the importance of segmentation in the classification of invertebrates. Polychaetes, which these analyses found to be the parent group, have completely segmented bodies, while polychaetes' echiurans and sipunculan offshoots are not segmented and pogonophores are segmented only in the rear parts of their bodies. It now seems that segmentation can appear and disappear much more easily in the course of evolution than was previously thought. The 2007 study also noted that the ladder-like nervous system, which is associated with segmentation, is less universal previously thought in both annelids and arthropods.[n 2]


Question: What offshoots of polychaetes are only segmented in the rear?

Answer: pogonophores

In addition to re-writing the classification of annelids and 3 previously independent phyla, the molecular phylogenetics analyses undermine the emphasis that decades of previous writings placed on the importance of segmentation in the classification of invertebrates. <hl> Polychaetes, which these analyses found to be the parent group, have completely segmented bodies, while polychaetes' echiurans and sipunculan offshoots are not segmented and pogonophores are segmented only in the rear parts of their bodies. <hl> It now seems that segmentation can appear and disappear much more easily in the course of evolution than was previously thought. The 2007 study also noted that the ladder-like nervous system, which is associated with segmentation, is less universal previously thought in both annelids and arthropods.[n 2]

In addition to re-writing the classification of annelids and 3 previously independent phyla, the molecular phylogenetics analyses undermine the emphasis that decades of previous writings placed on the importance of segmentation in the classification of invertebrates. Polychaetes, which these analyses found to be the parent group, have completely segmented bodies, while polychaetes' echiurans and sipunculan offshoots are not segmented and <hl> pogonophores <hl> are segmented only in the rear parts of their bodies. It now seems that segmentation can appear and disappear much more easily in the course of evolution than was previously thought. The 2007 study also noted that the ladder-like nervous system, which is associated with segmentation, is less universal previously thought in both annelids and arthropods.[n 2]

question: What offshoots of polychaetes are only segmented in the rear?, context: In addition to re-writing the classification of annelids and 3 previously independent phyla, the molecular phylogenetics analyses undermine the emphasis that decades of previous writings placed on the importance of segmentation in the classification of invertebrates. Polychaetes, which these analyses found to be the parent group, have completely segmented bodies, while polychaetes' echiurans and sipunculan offshoots are not segmented and pogonophores are segmented only in the rear parts of their bodies. It now seems that segmentation can appear and disappear much more easily in the course of evolution than was previously thought. The 2007 study also noted that the ladder-like nervous system, which is associated with segmentation, is less universal previously thought in both annelids and arthropods.[n 2]


Question: What nervous system structure is less univeral among annelids than was thought before 2007?

Answer: ladder-like

In addition to re-writing the classification of annelids and 3 previously independent phyla, the molecular phylogenetics analyses undermine the emphasis that decades of previous writings placed on the importance of segmentation in the classification of invertebrates. Polychaetes, which these analyses found to be the parent group, have completely segmented bodies, while polychaetes' echiurans and sipunculan offshoots are not segmented and pogonophores are segmented only in the rear parts of their bodies. It now seems that segmentation can appear and disappear much more easily in the course of evolution than was previously thought. <hl> The 2007 study also noted that the ladder-like nervous system, which is associated with segmentation, is less universal previously thought in both annelids and arthropods.[n 2] <hl>

In addition to re-writing the classification of annelids and 3 previously independent phyla, the molecular phylogenetics analyses undermine the emphasis that decades of previous writings placed on the importance of segmentation in the classification of invertebrates. Polychaetes, which these analyses found to be the parent group, have completely segmented bodies, while polychaetes' echiurans and sipunculan offshoots are not segmented and pogonophores are segmented only in the rear parts of their bodies. It now seems that segmentation can appear and disappear much more easily in the course of evolution than was previously thought. The 2007 study also noted that the <hl> ladder-like <hl> nervous system, which is associated with segmentation, is less universal previously thought in both annelids and arthropods.[n 2]

question: What nervous system structure is less univeral among annelids than was thought before 2007?, context: In addition to re-writing the classification of annelids and 3 previously independent phyla, the molecular phylogenetics analyses undermine the emphasis that decades of previous writings placed on the importance of segmentation in the classification of invertebrates. Polychaetes, which these analyses found to be the parent group, have completely segmented bodies, while polychaetes' echiurans and sipunculan offshoots are not segmented and pogonophores are segmented only in the rear parts of their bodies. It now seems that segmentation can appear and disappear much more easily in the course of evolution than was previously thought. The 2007 study also noted that the ladder-like nervous system, which is associated with segmentation, is less universal previously thought in both annelids and arthropods.[n 2]


Question: What superphylum are annelids in?

Answer: protostomes

<hl> Annelids are members of the protostomes , one of the two major superphyla of bilaterian animals – the other is the deuterostomes, which includes vertebrates. <hl> Within the protostomes, annelids used to be grouped with arthropods under the super-group Articulata ("jointed animals"), as segmentation is obvious in most members of both phyla. However, the genes that drive segmentation in arthropods do not appear to do the same in annelids. Arthropods and annelids both have close relatives that are unsegmented. It is at least as easy to assume that they evolved segmented bodies independently as it is to assume that the ancestral protostome or bilaterian was segmented and that segmentation disappeared in many descendant phyla. The current view is that annelids are grouped with molluscs, brachiopods and several other phyla that have lophophores (fan-like feeding structures) and/or trochophore larvae as members of Lophotrochozoa. Bryzoa may be the most basal phylum (the one that first became distinctive) within the Lophotrochozoa, and the relationships between the other members are not yet known. Arthropods are now regarded as members of the Ecdysozoa ("animals that molt"), along with some phyla that are unsegmented.

Annelids are members of the <hl> protostomes <hl>, one of the two major superphyla of bilaterian animals – the other is the deuterostomes, which includes vertebrates. Within the protostomes, annelids used to be grouped with arthropods under the super-group Articulata ("jointed animals"), as segmentation is obvious in most members of both phyla. However, the genes that drive segmentation in arthropods do not appear to do the same in annelids. Arthropods and annelids both have close relatives that are unsegmented. It is at least as easy to assume that they evolved segmented bodies independently as it is to assume that the ancestral protostome or bilaterian was segmented and that segmentation disappeared in many descendant phyla. The current view is that annelids are grouped with molluscs, brachiopods and several other phyla that have lophophores (fan-like feeding structures) and/or trochophore larvae as members of Lophotrochozoa. Bryzoa may be the most basal phylum (the one that first became distinctive) within the Lophotrochozoa, and the relationships between the other members are not yet known. Arthropods are now regarded as members of the Ecdysozoa ("animals that molt"), along with some phyla that are unsegmented.

Annelids are members of the <hl> protostomes <hl> , one of the two major superphyla of bilaterian animals – the other is the deuterostomes, which includes vertebrates.

question: What superphylum are annelids in?, context: Annelids are members of the protostomes, one of the two major superphyla of bilaterian animals – the other is the deuterostomes, which includes vertebrates. Within the protostomes, annelids used to be grouped with arthropods under the super-group Articulata ("jointed animals"), as segmentation is obvious in most members of both phyla. However, the genes that drive segmentation in arthropods do not appear to do the same in annelids. Arthropods and annelids both have close relatives that are unsegmented. It is at least as easy to assume that they evolved segmented bodies independently as it is to assume that the ancestral protostome or bilaterian was segmented and that segmentation disappeared in many descendant phyla. The current view is that annelids are grouped with molluscs, brachiopods and several other phyla that have lophophores (fan-like feeding structures) and/or trochophore larvae as members of Lophotrochozoa. Bryzoa may be the most basal phylum (the one that first became distinctive) within the Lophotrochozoa, and the relationships between the other members are not yet known. Arthropods are now regarded as members of the Ecdysozoa ("animals that molt"), along with some phyla that are unsegmented.


Question: What is the other superphylum besides protostomes?

Answer: deuterostomes

<hl> Annelids are members of the protostomes, one of the two major superphyla of bilaterian animals – the other is the deuterostomes , which includes vertebrates. <hl> Within the protostomes, annelids used to be grouped with arthropods under the super-group Articulata ("jointed animals"), as segmentation is obvious in most members of both phyla. However, the genes that drive segmentation in arthropods do not appear to do the same in annelids. Arthropods and annelids both have close relatives that are unsegmented. It is at least as easy to assume that they evolved segmented bodies independently as it is to assume that the ancestral protostome or bilaterian was segmented and that segmentation disappeared in many descendant phyla. The current view is that annelids are grouped with molluscs, brachiopods and several other phyla that have lophophores (fan-like feeding structures) and/or trochophore larvae as members of Lophotrochozoa. Bryzoa may be the most basal phylum (the one that first became distinctive) within the Lophotrochozoa, and the relationships between the other members are not yet known. Arthropods are now regarded as members of the Ecdysozoa ("animals that molt"), along with some phyla that are unsegmented.

Annelids are members of the protostomes, one of the two major superphyla of bilaterian animals – the other is the <hl> deuterostomes <hl>, which includes vertebrates. Within the protostomes, annelids used to be grouped with arthropods under the super-group Articulata ("jointed animals"), as segmentation is obvious in most members of both phyla. However, the genes that drive segmentation in arthropods do not appear to do the same in annelids. Arthropods and annelids both have close relatives that are unsegmented. It is at least as easy to assume that they evolved segmented bodies independently as it is to assume that the ancestral protostome or bilaterian was segmented and that segmentation disappeared in many descendant phyla. The current view is that annelids are grouped with molluscs, brachiopods and several other phyla that have lophophores (fan-like feeding structures) and/or trochophore larvae as members of Lophotrochozoa. Bryzoa may be the most basal phylum (the one that first became distinctive) within the Lophotrochozoa, and the relationships between the other members are not yet known. Arthropods are now regarded as members of the Ecdysozoa ("animals that molt"), along with some phyla that are unsegmented.

Annelids are members of the protostomes, one of the two major superphyla of bilaterian animals – the other is the <hl> deuterostomes <hl> , which includes vertebrates.

question: What is the other superphylum besides protostomes?, context: Annelids are members of the protostomes, one of the two major superphyla of bilaterian animals – the other is the deuterostomes, which includes vertebrates. Within the protostomes, annelids used to be grouped with arthropods under the super-group Articulata ("jointed animals"), as segmentation is obvious in most members of both phyla. However, the genes that drive segmentation in arthropods do not appear to do the same in annelids. Arthropods and annelids both have close relatives that are unsegmented. It is at least as easy to assume that they evolved segmented bodies independently as it is to assume that the ancestral protostome or bilaterian was segmented and that segmentation disappeared in many descendant phyla. The current view is that annelids are grouped with molluscs, brachiopods and several other phyla that have lophophores (fan-like feeding structures) and/or trochophore larvae as members of Lophotrochozoa. Bryzoa may be the most basal phylum (the one that first became distinctive) within the Lophotrochozoa, and the relationships between the other members are not yet known. Arthropods are now regarded as members of the Ecdysozoa ("animals that molt"), along with some phyla that are unsegmented.


Question: What superphylum are vertebrates in?

Answer: deuterostomes

<hl> Annelids are members of the protostomes, one of the two major superphyla of bilaterian animals – the other is the deuterostomes , which includes vertebrates. <hl> Within the protostomes, annelids used to be grouped with arthropods under the super-group Articulata ("jointed animals"), as segmentation is obvious in most members of both phyla. However, the genes that drive segmentation in arthropods do not appear to do the same in annelids. Arthropods and annelids both have close relatives that are unsegmented. It is at least as easy to assume that they evolved segmented bodies independently as it is to assume that the ancestral protostome or bilaterian was segmented and that segmentation disappeared in many descendant phyla. The current view is that annelids are grouped with molluscs, brachiopods and several other phyla that have lophophores (fan-like feeding structures) and/or trochophore larvae as members of Lophotrochozoa. Bryzoa may be the most basal phylum (the one that first became distinctive) within the Lophotrochozoa, and the relationships between the other members are not yet known. Arthropods are now regarded as members of the Ecdysozoa ("animals that molt"), along with some phyla that are unsegmented.

Annelids are members of the protostomes, one of the two major superphyla of bilaterian animals – the other is the <hl> deuterostomes <hl>, which includes vertebrates. Within the protostomes, annelids used to be grouped with arthropods under the super-group Articulata ("jointed animals"), as segmentation is obvious in most members of both phyla. However, the genes that drive segmentation in arthropods do not appear to do the same in annelids. Arthropods and annelids both have close relatives that are unsegmented. It is at least as easy to assume that they evolved segmented bodies independently as it is to assume that the ancestral protostome or bilaterian was segmented and that segmentation disappeared in many descendant phyla. The current view is that annelids are grouped with molluscs, brachiopods and several other phyla that have lophophores (fan-like feeding structures) and/or trochophore larvae as members of Lophotrochozoa. Bryzoa may be the most basal phylum (the one that first became distinctive) within the Lophotrochozoa, and the relationships between the other members are not yet known. Arthropods are now regarded as members of the Ecdysozoa ("animals that molt"), along with some phyla that are unsegmented.

Annelids are members of the protostomes, one of the two major superphyla of bilaterian animals – the other is the <hl> deuterostomes <hl> , which includes vertebrates.

question: What superphylum are vertebrates in?, context: Annelids are members of the protostomes, one of the two major superphyla of bilaterian animals – the other is the deuterostomes, which includes vertebrates. Within the protostomes, annelids used to be grouped with arthropods under the super-group Articulata ("jointed animals"), as segmentation is obvious in most members of both phyla. However, the genes that drive segmentation in arthropods do not appear to do the same in annelids. Arthropods and annelids both have close relatives that are unsegmented. It is at least as easy to assume that they evolved segmented bodies independently as it is to assume that the ancestral protostome or bilaterian was segmented and that segmentation disappeared in many descendant phyla. The current view is that annelids are grouped with molluscs, brachiopods and several other phyla that have lophophores (fan-like feeding structures) and/or trochophore larvae as members of Lophotrochozoa. Bryzoa may be the most basal phylum (the one that first became distinctive) within the Lophotrochozoa, and the relationships between the other members are not yet known. Arthropods are now regarded as members of the Ecdysozoa ("animals that molt"), along with some phyla that are unsegmented.


Question: What does 'Articulata' mean?

Answer: jointed animals

Annelids are members of the protostomes, one of the two major superphyla of bilaterian animals – the other is the deuterostomes, which includes vertebrates. <hl> Within the protostomes, annelids used to be grouped with arthropods under the super-group Articulata (" jointed animals "), as segmentation is obvious in most members of both phyla. <hl> However, the genes that drive segmentation in arthropods do not appear to do the same in annelids. Arthropods and annelids both have close relatives that are unsegmented. It is at least as easy to assume that they evolved segmented bodies independently as it is to assume that the ancestral protostome or bilaterian was segmented and that segmentation disappeared in many descendant phyla. The current view is that annelids are grouped with molluscs, brachiopods and several other phyla that have lophophores (fan-like feeding structures) and/or trochophore larvae as members of Lophotrochozoa. Bryzoa may be the most basal phylum (the one that first became distinctive) within the Lophotrochozoa, and the relationships between the other members are not yet known. Arthropods are now regarded as members of the Ecdysozoa ("animals that molt"), along with some phyla that are unsegmented.

Annelids are members of the protostomes, one of the two major superphyla of bilaterian animals – the other is the deuterostomes, which includes vertebrates. Within the protostomes, annelids used to be grouped with arthropods under the super-group Articulata ("<hl> jointed animals <hl>"), as segmentation is obvious in most members of both phyla. However, the genes that drive segmentation in arthropods do not appear to do the same in annelids. Arthropods and annelids both have close relatives that are unsegmented. It is at least as easy to assume that they evolved segmented bodies independently as it is to assume that the ancestral protostome or bilaterian was segmented and that segmentation disappeared in many descendant phyla. The current view is that annelids are grouped with molluscs, brachiopods and several other phyla that have lophophores (fan-like feeding structures) and/or trochophore larvae as members of Lophotrochozoa. Bryzoa may be the most basal phylum (the one that first became distinctive) within the Lophotrochozoa, and the relationships between the other members are not yet known. Arthropods are now regarded as members of the Ecdysozoa ("animals that molt"), along with some phyla that are unsegmented.

Within the protostomes, annelids used to be grouped with arthropods under the super-group Articulata (" <hl> jointed animals <hl> "), as segmentation is obvious in most members of both phyla.

question: What does 'Articulata' mean?, context: Annelids are members of the protostomes, one of the two major superphyla of bilaterian animals – the other is the deuterostomes, which includes vertebrates. Within the protostomes, annelids used to be grouped with arthropods under the super-group Articulata ("jointed animals"), as segmentation is obvious in most members of both phyla. However, the genes that drive segmentation in arthropods do not appear to do the same in annelids. Arthropods and annelids both have close relatives that are unsegmented. It is at least as easy to assume that they evolved segmented bodies independently as it is to assume that the ancestral protostome or bilaterian was segmented and that segmentation disappeared in many descendant phyla. The current view is that annelids are grouped with molluscs, brachiopods and several other phyla that have lophophores (fan-like feeding structures) and/or trochophore larvae as members of Lophotrochozoa. Bryzoa may be the most basal phylum (the one that first became distinctive) within the Lophotrochozoa, and the relationships between the other members are not yet known. Arthropods are now regarded as members of the Ecdysozoa ("animals that molt"), along with some phyla that are unsegmented.


Question: What are lophophores?

Answer: fan-like feeding structures

Annelids are members of the protostomes, one of the two major superphyla of bilaterian animals – the other is the deuterostomes, which includes vertebrates. Within the protostomes, annelids used to be grouped with arthropods under the super-group Articulata ("jointed animals"), as segmentation is obvious in most members of both phyla. However, the genes that drive segmentation in arthropods do not appear to do the same in annelids. Arthropods and annelids both have close relatives that are unsegmented. It is at least as easy to assume that they evolved segmented bodies independently as it is to assume that the ancestral protostome or bilaterian was segmented and that segmentation disappeared in many descendant phyla. <hl> The current view is that annelids are grouped with molluscs, brachiopods and several other phyla that have lophophores ( fan-like feeding structures ) and/or trochophore larvae as members of Lophotrochozoa. <hl> Bryzoa may be the most basal phylum (the one that first became distinctive) within the Lophotrochozoa, and the relationships between the other members are not yet known. Arthropods are now regarded as members of the Ecdysozoa ("animals that molt"), along with some phyla that are unsegmented.

Annelids are members of the protostomes, one of the two major superphyla of bilaterian animals – the other is the deuterostomes, which includes vertebrates. Within the protostomes, annelids used to be grouped with arthropods under the super-group Articulata ("jointed animals"), as segmentation is obvious in most members of both phyla. However, the genes that drive segmentation in arthropods do not appear to do the same in annelids. Arthropods and annelids both have close relatives that are unsegmented. It is at least as easy to assume that they evolved segmented bodies independently as it is to assume that the ancestral protostome or bilaterian was segmented and that segmentation disappeared in many descendant phyla. The current view is that annelids are grouped with molluscs, brachiopods and several other phyla that have lophophores (<hl> fan-like feeding structures <hl>) and/or trochophore larvae as members of Lophotrochozoa. Bryzoa may be the most basal phylum (the one that first became distinctive) within the Lophotrochozoa, and the relationships between the other members are not yet known. Arthropods are now regarded as members of the Ecdysozoa ("animals that molt"), along with some phyla that are unsegmented.

The current view is that annelids are grouped with molluscs, brachiopods and several other phyla that have lophophores ( <hl> fan-like feeding structures <hl> ) and/or trochophore larvae as members of Lophotrochozoa.

question: What are lophophores?, context: Annelids are members of the protostomes, one of the two major superphyla of bilaterian animals – the other is the deuterostomes, which includes vertebrates. Within the protostomes, annelids used to be grouped with arthropods under the super-group Articulata ("jointed animals"), as segmentation is obvious in most members of both phyla. However, the genes that drive segmentation in arthropods do not appear to do the same in annelids. Arthropods and annelids both have close relatives that are unsegmented. It is at least as easy to assume that they evolved segmented bodies independently as it is to assume that the ancestral protostome or bilaterian was segmented and that segmentation disappeared in many descendant phyla. The current view is that annelids are grouped with molluscs, brachiopods and several other phyla that have lophophores (fan-like feeding structures) and/or trochophore larvae as members of Lophotrochozoa. Bryzoa may be the most basal phylum (the one that first became distinctive) within the Lophotrochozoa, and the relationships between the other members are not yet known. Arthropods are now regarded as members of the Ecdysozoa ("animals that molt"), along with some phyla that are unsegmented.


Question: Which Lophotrochozoa phyla have similar egg development?

Answer: annelids, molluscs, nemerteans and flatworms

<hl> The "Lophotrochozoa" hypothesis is also supported by the fact that many phyla within this group, including annelids, molluscs, nemerteans and flatworms , follow a similar pattern in the fertilized egg's development. <hl> When their cells divide after the 4-cell stage, descendants of these 4 cells form a spiral pattern. In these phyla the "fates" of the embryo's cells, in other words the roles their descendants will play in the adult animal, are the same and can be predicted from a very early stage. Hence this development pattern is often described as "spiral determinate cleavage".

The "Lophotrochozoa" hypothesis is also supported by the fact that many phyla within this group, including <hl> annelids, molluscs, nemerteans and flatworms <hl>, follow a similar pattern in the fertilized egg's development. When their cells divide after the 4-cell stage, descendants of these 4 cells form a spiral pattern. In these phyla the "fates" of the embryo's cells, in other words the roles their descendants will play in the adult animal, are the same and can be predicted from a very early stage. Hence this development pattern is often described as "spiral determinate cleavage".

The "Lophotrochozoa" hypothesis is also supported by the fact that many phyla within this group, including <hl> annelids, molluscs, nemerteans and flatworms <hl> , follow a similar pattern in the fertilized egg's development.

question: Which Lophotrochozoa phyla have similar egg development?, context: The "Lophotrochozoa" hypothesis is also supported by the fact that many phyla within this group, including annelids, molluscs, nemerteans and flatworms, follow a similar pattern in the fertilized egg's development. When their cells divide after the 4-cell stage, descendants of these 4 cells form a spiral pattern. In these phyla the "fates" of the embryo's cells, in other words the roles their descendants will play in the adult animal, are the same and can be predicted from a very early stage. Hence this development pattern is often described as "spiral determinate cleavage".


Question: How do the cells of Lophotrochozoa eggs arrange themselves?

Answer: after the 4-cell stage, descendants of these 4 cells form a spiral pattern

The "Lophotrochozoa" hypothesis is also supported by the fact that many phyla within this group, including annelids, molluscs, nemerteans and flatworms, follow a similar pattern in the fertilized egg's development. <hl> When their cells divide after the 4-cell stage, descendants of these 4 cells form a spiral pattern . <hl> In these phyla the "fates" of the embryo's cells, in other words the roles their descendants will play in the adult animal, are the same and can be predicted from a very early stage. Hence this development pattern is often described as "spiral determinate cleavage".

The "Lophotrochozoa" hypothesis is also supported by the fact that many phyla within this group, including annelids, molluscs, nemerteans and flatworms, follow a similar pattern in the fertilized egg's development. When their cells divide <hl> after the 4-cell stage, descendants of these 4 cells form a spiral pattern <hl>. In these phyla the "fates" of the embryo's cells, in other words the roles their descendants will play in the adult animal, are the same and can be predicted from a very early stage. Hence this development pattern is often described as "spiral determinate cleavage".

When their cells divide <hl> after the 4-cell stage, descendants of these 4 cells form a spiral pattern <hl> .

question: How do the cells of Lophotrochozoa eggs arrange themselves?, context: The "Lophotrochozoa" hypothesis is also supported by the fact that many phyla within this group, including annelids, molluscs, nemerteans and flatworms, follow a similar pattern in the fertilized egg's development. When their cells divide after the 4-cell stage, descendants of these 4 cells form a spiral pattern. In these phyla the "fates" of the embryo's cells, in other words the roles their descendants will play in the adult animal, are the same and can be predicted from a very early stage. Hence this development pattern is often described as "spiral determinate cleavage".


Question: What is the Lophotrochozoa spiral egg-cell pattern sometimes called?

Answer: spiral determinate cleavage

The "Lophotrochozoa" hypothesis is also supported by the fact that many phyla within this group, including annelids, molluscs, nemerteans and flatworms, follow a similar pattern in the fertilized egg's development. When their cells divide after the 4-cell stage, descendants of these 4 cells form a spiral pattern. In these phyla the "fates" of the embryo's cells, in other words the roles their descendants will play in the adult animal, are the same and can be predicted from a very early stage. <hl> Hence this development pattern is often described as " spiral determinate cleavage ". <hl>

The "Lophotrochozoa" hypothesis is also supported by the fact that many phyla within this group, including annelids, molluscs, nemerteans and flatworms, follow a similar pattern in the fertilized egg's development. When their cells divide after the 4-cell stage, descendants of these 4 cells form a spiral pattern. In these phyla the "fates" of the embryo's cells, in other words the roles their descendants will play in the adult animal, are the same and can be predicted from a very early stage. Hence this development pattern is often described as "<hl> spiral determinate cleavage <hl>".

Hence this development pattern is often described as " <hl> spiral determinate cleavage <hl> ".

question: What is the Lophotrochozoa spiral egg-cell pattern sometimes called?, context: The "Lophotrochozoa" hypothesis is also supported by the fact that many phyla within this group, including annelids, molluscs, nemerteans and flatworms, follow a similar pattern in the fertilized egg's development. When their cells divide after the 4-cell stage, descendants of these 4 cells form a spiral pattern. In these phyla the "fates" of the embryo's cells, in other words the roles their descendants will play in the adult animal, are the same and can be predicted from a very early stage. Hence this development pattern is often described as "spiral determinate cleavage".


Question: What does it mean to say that God is omnipotent?

Answer: unlimited power

In monotheism and henotheism, God is conceived of as the Supreme Being and principal object of faith. <hl> The concept of God as described by theologians commonly includes the attributes of omniscience (infinite knowledge), omnipotence ( unlimited power ), omnipresence (present everywhere), omnibenevolence (perfect goodness), divine simplicity, and eternal and necessary existence. <hl> God is also usually defined as a non-corporeal being without any human biological gender, but the concept of God actively (as opposed to receptively) creating the universe has caused some religions to give "Him" the metaphorical name of "Father". Because God is conceived as not being a corporeal being, God cannot(some say should not) be portrayed in a literal visual image; some religious groups use a man (sometimes old and bearded) to symbolize God because of His deed of creating man's mind in the image of His own.

In monotheism and henotheism, God is conceived of as the Supreme Being and principal object of faith. The concept of God as described by theologians commonly includes the attributes of omniscience (infinite knowledge), omnipotence (<hl> unlimited power <hl>), omnipresence (present everywhere), omnibenevolence (perfect goodness), divine simplicity, and eternal and necessary existence. God is also usually defined as a non-corporeal being without any human biological gender, but the concept of God actively (as opposed to receptively) creating the universe has caused some religions to give "Him" the metaphorical name of "Father". Because God is conceived as not being a corporeal being, God cannot(some say should not) be portrayed in a literal visual image; some religious groups use a man (sometimes old and bearded) to symbolize God because of His deed of creating man's mind in the image of His own.

The concept of God as described by theologians commonly includes the attributes of omniscience (infinite knowledge), omnipotence ( <hl> unlimited power <hl> ), omnipresence (present everywhere), omnibenevolence (perfect goodness), divine simplicity, and eternal and necessary existence.

question: What does it mean to say that God is omnipotent?, context: In monotheism and henotheism, God is conceived of as the Supreme Being and principal object of faith. The concept of God as described by theologians commonly includes the attributes of omniscience (infinite knowledge), omnipotence (unlimited power), omnipresence (present everywhere), omnibenevolence (perfect goodness), divine simplicity, and eternal and necessary existence. God is also usually defined as a non-corporeal being without any human biological gender, but the concept of God actively (as opposed to receptively) creating the universe has caused some religions to give "Him" the metaphorical name of "Father". Because God is conceived as not being a corporeal being, God cannot(some say should not) be portrayed in a literal visual image; some religious groups use a man (sometimes old and bearded) to symbolize God because of His deed of creating man's mind in the image of His own.


Question: What is the feeling of God being everywhere?

Answer: omnipresence

In monotheism and henotheism, God is conceived of as the Supreme Being and principal object of faith. <hl> The concept of God as described by theologians commonly includes the attributes of omniscience (infinite knowledge), omnipotence (unlimited power), omnipresence (present everywhere), omnibenevolence (perfect goodness), divine simplicity, and eternal and necessary existence. <hl> God is also usually defined as a non-corporeal being without any human biological gender, but the concept of God actively (as opposed to receptively) creating the universe has caused some religions to give "Him" the metaphorical name of "Father". Because God is conceived as not being a corporeal being, God cannot(some say should not) be portrayed in a literal visual image; some religious groups use a man (sometimes old and bearded) to symbolize God because of His deed of creating man's mind in the image of His own.

In monotheism and henotheism, God is conceived of as the Supreme Being and principal object of faith. The concept of God as described by theologians commonly includes the attributes of omniscience (infinite knowledge), omnipotence (unlimited power), <hl> omnipresence <hl> (present everywhere), omnibenevolence (perfect goodness), divine simplicity, and eternal and necessary existence. God is also usually defined as a non-corporeal being without any human biological gender, but the concept of God actively (as opposed to receptively) creating the universe has caused some religions to give "Him" the metaphorical name of "Father". Because God is conceived as not being a corporeal being, God cannot(some say should not) be portrayed in a literal visual image; some religious groups use a man (sometimes old and bearded) to symbolize God because of His deed of creating man's mind in the image of His own.

question: What is the feeling of God being everywhere?, context: In monotheism and henotheism, God is conceived of as the Supreme Being and principal object of faith. The concept of God as described by theologians commonly includes the attributes of omniscience (infinite knowledge), omnipotence (unlimited power), omnipresence (present everywhere), omnibenevolence (perfect goodness), divine simplicity, and eternal and necessary existence. God is also usually defined as a non-corporeal being without any human biological gender, but the concept of God actively (as opposed to receptively) creating the universe has caused some religions to give "Him" the metaphorical name of "Father". Because God is conceived as not being a corporeal being, God cannot(some say should not) be portrayed in a literal visual image; some religious groups use a man (sometimes old and bearded) to symbolize God because of His deed of creating man's mind in the image of His own.


Question: What is the extent of God's knowledge?

Answer: infinite knowledge

In monotheism and henotheism, God is conceived of as the Supreme Being and principal object of faith. <hl> The concept of God as described by theologians commonly includes the attributes of omniscience ( infinite knowledge ), omnipotence (unlimited power), omnipresence (present everywhere), omnibenevolence (perfect goodness), divine simplicity, and eternal and necessary existence. <hl> God is also usually defined as a non-corporeal being without any human biological gender, but the concept of God actively (as opposed to receptively) creating the universe has caused some religions to give "Him" the metaphorical name of "Father". Because God is conceived as not being a corporeal being, God cannot(some say should not) be portrayed in a literal visual image; some religious groups use a man (sometimes old and bearded) to symbolize God because of His deed of creating man's mind in the image of His own.

In monotheism and henotheism, God is conceived of as the Supreme Being and principal object of faith. The concept of God as described by theologians commonly includes the attributes of omniscience (<hl> infinite knowledge <hl>), omnipotence (unlimited power), omnipresence (present everywhere), omnibenevolence (perfect goodness), divine simplicity, and eternal and necessary existence. God is also usually defined as a non-corporeal being without any human biological gender, but the concept of God actively (as opposed to receptively) creating the universe has caused some religions to give "Him" the metaphorical name of "Father". Because God is conceived as not being a corporeal being, God cannot(some say should not) be portrayed in a literal visual image; some religious groups use a man (sometimes old and bearded) to symbolize God because of His deed of creating man's mind in the image of His own.

The concept of God as described by theologians commonly includes the attributes of omniscience ( <hl> infinite knowledge <hl> ), omnipotence (unlimited power), omnipresence (present everywhere), omnibenevolence (perfect goodness), divine simplicity, and eternal and necessary existence.

question: What is the extent of God's knowledge?, context: In monotheism and henotheism, God is conceived of as the Supreme Being and principal object of faith. The concept of God as described by theologians commonly includes the attributes of omniscience (infinite knowledge), omnipotence (unlimited power), omnipresence (present everywhere), omnibenevolence (perfect goodness), divine simplicity, and eternal and necessary existence. God is also usually defined as a non-corporeal being without any human biological gender, but the concept of God actively (as opposed to receptively) creating the universe has caused some religions to give "Him" the metaphorical name of "Father". Because God is conceived as not being a corporeal being, God cannot(some say should not) be portrayed in a literal visual image; some religious groups use a man (sometimes old and bearded) to symbolize God because of His deed of creating man's mind in the image of His own.