Talk:Oligochaeta

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

AnimalsWikipedia:WikiProject AnimalsTemplate:WikiProject Animalsanimal articles	WikiProject Animals	(Rated Start-Class, Mid-importance)
	Animals portal v • d • e Oligochaeta is within the scope of WikiProject Animals, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to animals and zoology. For more information, visit the project page.  Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.  Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Animals To-do: edit · history · watch · purge Here are some Open Tasks : Copyedit: Dog Improve: Animal, Zoology, Invertebrate, Vertebrate, Ethology, Photoperiodism, Tool use by animals, Omnivore Requests: Cultural transmission in animals Mammals: Grizzlar Bear, Jarkov Mammoth, Townsend's big-eared baty Invertebrates: Shingle urchin, Velvet mite, Fingernail clam Fishes: Pike eel, Spotted sucker, Berycidae, Trichonotidae Amphibians: Cave salamander, Nightfrog Stubs: Stud, Candling, Crawling, Growling, Hatchling, Litter, Crossbreed, Pack hunter, Personal grooming, Protobird, Spoor, Territorial marking, Worming Nominate and vote: Science collaboration of the month, Article Improvement Drive, WikiProject Animals Collaboration

[edit] Semi-terrestrial?

Are earthworms "semi-terrestrial"? Why "semi"? Dave (talk) 23:30, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

Many earthworms are truly terrestrial, so the statement should be revised to be clearer. But while many earthworms are terrestrial, many are mud or seep dwellers, and all are heavily dependent on abundant moisture. Further, most oligochaetes are actually aquatic, limicolous or interstitial. -- WormRunner | Talk 02:13, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Are these critters hermaphroditic? --ThreeCubed 23:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Needs cleanup

The presentation of the taxonomy of Oligochaeta is in severe need of cleanup. The gigantic jpeg contradicts the other ToL pages in WP, and seems to be copied and pasted out of an article by the editor. Is this truly a scientific consensus, or a POV of one author? And what's with the section after the large jpeg? I just can't make heads or tails out of this article.

If someone who knows more about earthworms could please present the state of taxonomical knowledge in an NPOV way, it would vastly improve this article. Thanks! hike395 13:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Completely agree with Hike395 - the gigantic jpeg appears to be copied and is just one author's POV mostly concerning academic speculative taxonomy above family rank and therefore ungoverned by rules and recommendations of Code (ICZN, 1999). This will continue to change and differ between authors to a point of being unintelligible. It also seems to avoid the Principle of Priority whereby the earlier of two names stands. If the gigantic jpeg is removed then the family level classification remains practical and accessible, is compliant with the Code and provides a solid foundation for discussion and development.