Talk:Annelid

Number of species

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

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

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

"trochophore" gets my vote. WormRunner 18:15, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

yupp me too

Trochophore is what I have always seen before. Cerealkiller13 00:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

---

moved the following from the article. The info only applies to the polychaeta and needs rewritten. WormRunner 17:47, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Annelids are segmented worms and each segment consist of sex cells. Annelids are usually hemaphordites but there are some individual sexes also. Reproduction actually occurs in a specific time of the year, and ciliated sex cells are dispersed in the sea.

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

The Problem With Leeches

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

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

I'm no biologist, but...

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

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

wiki is stupid —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.21.185.244 (talk) 14:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Diet?

What do these Annelids eat anyway?

Valserian (talk) 22:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Lead should be less than five paragraphs per WP:LEAD#Length

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

Phyla are big subjects. WP:LEAD#Length has come up every time but one, and each reviewer decided to WP:IAR. --Philcha (talk) 06:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

There are articles for bigger subjects that conform to the MoS guidelines on lead length. Consider, for example, the biological domains of Archaea and Bacteria, broad topics like the Immune system and Evolution, and basic macromolecules like Protein and Lipid. Given that, it's my opinion that conforming to the MoS guideline on lead length per WP:GACR criterion 1(b) should take precedence to WP:IAR at least in this case. Emw2012 (talk) 04:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The opinion of several GA reviewers, all different, in reviews of articles on different phyla, differs from yours.

Nothing "takes precedence" over WP:IAR - that's the meaning of WP:IAR. Now guess what principle is the reason behind my belief that the 4-para "limit" would be harmful here. --Philcha (talk) 05:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you're considering the taxonomic height of phyla to contend that "phyla are big subjects", exceptionally big, and thus WP:IAR applies. If that's the case, then how would you reconcile your argument for IAR with the fact that articles on higher taxa like Archaea and Bacteria -- certainly bigger subjects -- are both able to contain their lead sections in three paragraphs? Emw2012 (talk) 06:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to spend time analysing how well the leads of Immune system and Evolution summarise their previous contnet. You haven't answered my previous question: what principle is the reason behind my belief that the 4-para "limit" would be harmful here? --Philcha (talk)

I assume you'd base your reasoning in the principle that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. However, as I've mentioned, I do not see how condensing a lead to meet the style guidelines is any less tractable for phyla than it is for domains. If the general argument is that higher-level taxa necessitate exceptionally long leads, then Archaea and Bacteria would seem to strongly suggest otherwise. Could you explain why don't consider those legitimate counterexamples? Emw2012 (talk) 07:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

It is a waste of time to speculate about the thinking of those who composed the leads for Archaea and Bacteria. Here's mine:

• Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy is relevant but not my primary consideration.
• IMO the most important part of WP:LEAD is "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies". That means the lead will often have to cover more than 4 sub-topics.
• It is a well-established principle of writing for the Web that paras should ideally contain only 1 idea each. Hence if the lead contains more than 4 sub-topics, it needs more than 4 paras.
• So there's a conflict between good writing for the Web and the 4 paras recommendation at WP:LEAD#Length.
• Please read all of the banner at the top of WP:LEAD. It leaves editors of individual articles to deide how to handle such conflicts.
• I see no reason to let a mere rule-of-thumb override the opinions of widely recognised experts on writing for the Web. --82.34.73.184 (talk) 08:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)