Talk:Earthworm
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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 |
[edit] 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.
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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.
[edit] 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...
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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.
[edit] 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)
[edit] Taxobox colour
Can editors please stop changing the taxobox to a colour other than pink. Thankyou. Abbott75 10:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Chromosones?
I'd appreciate it if people gave more information of the genes in worms.
[edit] 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
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)