Talk:Earthworm

Earthworms are also delicious and nutritious,

Could someone include the protein content/nutritional value of the common earthworm? They're delicious creatures, and very pleasant to eat for those with poor digestion.

Keep in mind the "Threats to Earthworms" Section. While they might be pretty yummy (Not that I would know) it's probably pretty dangerous to try to eat them because of all the chemicals in the ground that they consume.

Oh yes, I'm sure their delectable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zone156 (talk • contribs) 23:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[it's probably pretty dangerous to try to eat them because of all the chemicals in the ground that they consume] you could just cook it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.162.81.161 (talk) 16:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I would like to see nutritional information for earthworms. Percent protein, fat, etc, but particularly the amounts of vitamins and minerals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.56.247.187 (talk) 10:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Something else

"Various species of earthworms are used in vermiculture, the practice of feeding organic waste to earthworms to decompose (digest) it, a form of composting by the use of worms. These are usually ''Eisenia Fetida'' or the Brandling worm, also known as the Tiger worm or Red Wriggler."

Eisenia Fetida doesn't actually live freely in the soil but in compost so arn't really earthwormsm, but I'll leave the article as it is for now...quercus robur

varieties of worms

Soliciting opinions: Should there be entries for some of the more interesting species/varieties (e.g. Red Wrigglers)? FZ 01:25, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Oligochaeta

Oligochaeta (which is either a class or subclass depending on the author)

Except that the taxobox lists oligochaeta as an order. I'm not knowledgable enough to correct this myself, but consistency within the oage would be nice. Rho 23:02, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. The order level taxon should have been Haplotaxida. This got mislabeled in one of the changes in taxobox format. WormRunner | Talk 05:20, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Information available to merge/add

This page in my User namespace has some information about earthworms that can be added here, if anyone so desires: User:Stellertony/Notepad/Earthworm Stellertony the Bookcrosser 06:52, 17 May 2005 (UTC)suk my poonani

header 1	header 2	header 3
row 1, cell 1	row 1, cell 2	row 1, cell 3
row 2, cell 1	row 2, cell 2	row 2, cell 3

Regeneration?

I have heard that earthworms have powerful regenerative abilities, being able to regrow if cut in half. I have even heard that if cut in half, an earthworm can regenerate into two new individuals. Is this true? Please add info to the article. SpectrumDT 22:26, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I have heard that it must be cut precisely in half as to leave all the main organs of each half intact. But I can't remember where I heard that.

Earthworms do not regrow into two new individuals. Some earthworms can regenerate their posterior segments, but the back half dies. If the cut is in the anterior third (or so), the whole worm will probably die. There are some aquatic Oligochaeta (not earthworms) which can regenerate whole new individuals from both cut sections. -- WormRunner | Talk 06:55, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

G.E. Gates spent several years determining the regenerative abilities of earthworms. Because the incision levels from anterior or posterior overlap in several species then, in theory at least, it is possible to get two worms from one "individual". Head regererates are farily common in some Lumbricidae, and I have seen them in Pontoscolex corethrurus (Glossoscolecidae). One of the most adept regenerators is Perionyx excavatus (Megascolecidae). Hope this helps the discussion. Rob B.

Earthworms are North American Invasives

Until fairly recently, earthworms have been considered good for North American soil. With the realization that they endanger forests in the United states that have adapted to grow without them, I think we probably are overplaying their role as decomposers "that almost all plants and animals rely on". This makes them seem as important as the fungi, and they are certainly not.

Some earthworms are foreign invaders in North American forests, mostly Lumbricidae. Some North American forests and prairies developed without earthworms and have been changed by these invaders, but other forests already had their own (native) earthworm species (mostly Megascolecidae), especially in the moister areas of the Southeastern and Western US. -- WormRunner | Talk 07:00, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Origin and evolutionary history?

When did earthworms evolve? Or more precise; when did they leave water and started to live in the earth in terrestrial enviroments? Why did they do it and what adaptations did they went through? Who were their ancestors? In what ways have the worms and the plants evolved together in symbiosis? And why is it so hard to find information about these things?

I'm guessing that it's because they don't have bones and don't work their way into tar pits. There are other forms of fossilization, but basically that's why I would suspect there isn't tons of information about it. But there are probably theories at the least. I wonder. Lotusduck 19:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Behavior

Do some earthworms play dead?

Amynthas hupeiensis will coil but remain motionless when disturbed, unlike most other pheretimoids, and it emits quite a strong odour. So yes, perhaps it is playing possum.

Do earthworms mate in mating balls like garter snakes? I recently observed a small mass of earthworms forming something quite like a garter snake mating ball. The references I found online in a quick bit of googling all seemed to describe earthworms mating in pairs.

The rainstorm section should be rewritten. The fourth theory presented in the section, about carbonic acid, is completely false. Although the ground may contain a good amount of carbon dioxide, carbonic acid is NEVER present in sufficient quantities to affect the pH in any significant way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.248.83.175 (talk) 15:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

dissection....

"The classroom dissection of the earthworm and other animals has become controversial in recent years. One response to this has been the development of online "virtual dissections"

But.....they're worms. I mean. They don't even have a brain. How could they feel pain? Besides, in Biology 2, I disected a dead one which was preserved in formaldehyde (or some substitute thereof).

They do have a brain, albeit a simple one, but more important is that they have a nervous system. When poked, they respond in a way that makes it very difficult to believe they do not feel pain in some way. Very much like you would, for example. Certainly a worm that is already dead will not feel pain, but I cannot imagine being dropped in formaldehyde is a pleasant experience either. I do research on earthworms, and I believe research and education are important, but let us not pretend the process is painless. -- WormRunner 22:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• Worms have such small brains that rationalized thought is not possible. Their nervous system is very symplistic with no central nerves, like in humans, so I doubt if pain would be possibel as well.

Pain is not a function of "rationalized thought". Grief and sadness may be related to rational functions, but I'd imagine that pain has been around since the early days of nervous systems. --72.150.43.254 (talk) 23:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Crop?

The crop...Isn't that for storage? I read in this article that it is for grinding, but have read elsewhere that the "gizzard" performs this function in earthworms. I think (and I'm probably wrong) that the crop is a portion of the digestive just before the gizzard, which stores the dead organic matter it eats prior to grinding. Any ideas? Is it different in oligocheates? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aydan Wessels (talk • contribs)

All the info I can find online leads me to believe you are correct. Please edit the article to reflect this. —Pengo ^{talk · contribs} 13:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• You are correct. The crop leads directly to the gizzard, and it stores soil waiting to be ground up.

Evolution

I would find it very interesting to know something about who are the closest relatives to the earthworms, when they first left the water and crawled onto land, and how much impact they have had on the flora and faune of earth since they first evolved and how important they are today etc. If this could be added somewhere in the article, it would imprive greatly. 217.68.114.116 15:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

---

can someone find a better pic for the anatomy?--Cyhborg 13:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• Here's the best I could find:

http://kentsimmons.uwinnipeg.ca/16cm05/1116/33-23-EarthwormAnatomy-L.jpg' Sorry, I don't know how to get it onto the article...

Just stopping by...(citations)

I don't know much (anything) about Earthworms, but I found this article to be very informative and well written. I'd like to offer a friendly critique: the article could use a great deal more citations throughout.

Nice work to everyone that's contributed so far! I've gone ahead and given it a B-class rating, I hope you're all in agreement. A great example of a developing wikipedia article. I've also added this article to my watchlist and will keep a sharp eye out for vandalism (it's about all I can help out with here). --Nemilar 04:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC) PLEASE help to reduce the vandalism - almost every other edit is mischievous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.198.14.36 (talk) 17:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Diet?

What do earthworms eat? Can someone knowledgeable expand this article with this information? Kwertii 23:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

They eat dead and decaying plant material -- but there is an opinion that what they really digest is the soil microbiota. I'd prefer it if someone with more direct knowledge than me were to fill this bit in. jake b 20:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

• Worms move primarily soil through their digestive systems (it's how the ground is refertilized). However, I have little knowledge on how worms recieve energy from eating dirt.

Bioaccumulation

There is a bit on accumulation up the foodchain (in 'threats' section). COuple of comments: 1. Bioconcentration factors (BCFs) of >20 are very common. I don't know where this figure came from. 2. OK, the principle of bioaccumulation is well-established, but are there any real examples of wildlife mortality (or any health problems at all?) from eating toxic worms? I'm not aware of any in the scientific literature -- if this isn't backed up by citing something reliable, I think this should be deleted. jake b 20:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, no response so far, so I have deleted this misleading section. (If someone wants to add a more reliable bit on bioaccumulation elsewhere, then great.)155.198.148.173 19:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Taxobox colour

Can editors please stop changing the taxobox to a colour other than pink. Thankyou. Abbott75 10:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Chromosones?

I'd appreciate it if people gave more information of the genes in worms.

• See here: http://www.genomesize.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.198.148.119 (talk) 19:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Question

can earth worms see red light? 205.222.248.204 16:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a question for the science reference desk - although the answer could be here! GB

metric conversions

According to google...

9cm = about 3 1/2 inches

10m = about 32 feet

However the Giant Gippsland Earthworm article gives 3 meters as a length for a big one. (That's about 10ft) I wonder if these numbers are reliable? or a bit mixed up? Billybigarms 11:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

ANSWER: this datum is pretty reliable, Amynthas mekongianus is also ~3m.

what are the improtance of earthworms to farmers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.80.53.60 (talk) 19:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Benefits

This section is written in an overly positive (almost hyperbolic) style. I have deleted just a couple of the more extreme statements. 155.198.148.173 (talk) 21:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• There are a couple of references to earthworms "acting as pistons". Is there any scientific evidence to back this up? (The quotation cited does not appear to be based on any actual data.) Seems much more likely to me that the principal benefits on soil aeration are going to be through changing soil structure, rather than this piston idea. (Which presumably would only have any validity at all for anecic worms anyway?) Not to mention that the whole concept is repeated in successive sections anyway. Worldoffish (talk) 22:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this section needs some work. Specifically, under the "chemical" subheading, I read that "Investigations in the US show that fresh earthworm casts are 5 times richer in available nitrogen, 7 times richer in available phosphates and 11 times richer in available potash than the surrounding upper 6 inches (150 mm) of soil.", with no reference whatsoever. I read similar figures in Steve Solomon's "Organic Gardener's Composting", which I will investigate to see what source he cites. However, the references for this article as a whole needs some serious improvement. I would be interested to know whether earthworm casts are so concentrated because of some special habit or property of the earthworm, or whether it is simply due to the universal nature of heterotrophs to concentrate nutrients in their poop. Any ideas? Noclock (talk) 23:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Ecological classification

I don't know why someone has changed this to four categories - there are three standard accepted ecophysiological categories not four! Earthworms pretty much only live in what we would commonly call 'topsoil' layers, which are not to be confused with actual soil horizons. Epige worms are litter/compost worms. I have checked the reference given for this comment (no. 4), and although it's not the best (that would be the original reference from Bouche -- this one isn't a proper peer-reviewed article), it does quite correctly give the three classes only, so I have left it in there. 155.198.148.173 (talk) 19:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Queston

How do earthworms move? in detail please 61.68.238.233 (talk) 08:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

This page is for discussing improvements to the article. Please ask this at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science. -- Donald Albury 18:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Worms are really helpful to the soil. Especially for the farmers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.107.181.61 (talk) 05:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

March 09

Sadly, this whole article is losing consistency - it's written very patchily, with different levels of fact and speculation in different places. There are all kinds of statements and comments just shoved in at random, i.e. in inappropriate sections. I think it would be ideal if someone would do a complete rewrite (maybe I'll have a go in the future, but don't have time now). I've also added Edwards + Bohlen's "Biology and Ecology of Earthworms" under further reading, as I have always considered this the most comprehensive and authoritative text for the general reader. (I see there's a 4th edition coming out but haven't got a copy yet.) Is there a way to highlight this text in particular, as a way of getting reliable information on earthworms? (I don't count myself as an expert earthworm biologist, for sure.) Worldoffish (talk) 18:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• Just had another look - maybe I was unfair to many persons' efforts before . The first half of the article (up to and including 'regeneration' is well written and informative - it's the remainder which is still could do with severe editing. Worldoffish (talk) 22:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• I think a section on earthworm biochemistry would be of interest - anyone else agree? Worldoffish (talk) 22:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

erthworms have no eyes thats it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.95.151.88 (talk) 11:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

earthworms as well as leeches and many segmented marine worms are annelids they belong to phylum annelids they name phylum comes from latin term annulus which main ring annelids have bodies that are divided into segmentation they have more complex bodies and well developed organ system than any other worms CEATED BY; EDDMARC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.95.151.88 (talk) 12:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Sources

• Edwards, C.A. (1996). "Diversity and geographical distribution". Biology and ecology of earthworms. Springer. pp. 40–41. ISBN 0412561603. Retrieved 2009-04-12. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) Pp. 40-141 say that: earthworm species are either very localized or near-global in distribution; the near-global ones have been spread accidentally by humans; the localized ones live in the northern hemisphere, between the deserts and seas to the south and the southern limit of the Quaternary glaciations, which suggests that more northerly populations were wiped out by the ice and the southerly populations have been very slow to re-colonize the devastated areas. --Philcha (talk) 21:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Possible plagiarism?

The entire Behavior subsection "Rainstorms," despite being poorly written, completely trivial, and totally lacking in attribution or citation, is likely adapted completely from this website:

http://www.miscfaq.com/earthworms-surface-rain/

As it stands, it should be removed until it becomes coherent, informative (which it is not), and attributable.

Examining the page history, this section developed over a number of edits from different editors. See, for example, this edit. So it's far more likely that miscfaq.com, which does not provide its sources, got information from Wikipedia. At the moment I think the article is more informative retaining this section than it would be if the section were removed; the maintenance tags rightly draw attention to the need to cleanup and verify. Feel free to help find sources. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 15:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Single celled earthworms?

Resolved

These single celled earthworms eat in a unique way: their mouth cavity connects directly into the digestive tract without any intermediate processes. Most earthworms are decomposers feeding on undecayed leaf and other plant matter, others are more geophagous.

Single celled earthworms? I don't think such a thing exists! Does the writer really mean "singled celled" or do they mean "single cavity" or something odd that I'm not thinking of? This should either be explained or removed! —Preceding unsigned comment added by John Elson (talk • contribs) 15:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, John. The first sentence seemed irredeemably confused, so I removed it. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 05:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Edible earthworms

they are edible and great and nutritious full of protein.Great for you body to take in.....:) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.100.229.90 (talk) 20:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Shut up. That's actually a bit cruel to earthworms, and it's a bit disgusting. I prefer perred salami 78.150.185.30 (talk) 10:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Colonizing when rainning questioned

"...worms may be using the moist conditions on the surface to travel more quickly than they can underground, thus colonizing new areas more quickly...".

How could a worm care to colonize if it is living well off where it is at?

By Bernie

189.129.200.44 (talk) 07:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)