Talk:Eunice aphroditois

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 January 2019 and 29 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Conn renn. Peer reviewers: Smmeeks, CFiss.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:57, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Unconfirmed reports of venomous spines

There's a recent news report of a Giant Reef Worm turning up in a Cornish aquarium: [1] This report contains a worrying comment:

Having done some research we also discovered that it is covered with thousands of bristles which are capable of inflicting a sting resulting in permanent numbness'."

I can't find anything online to back this up, so I'm not going to add it to the main text. It would be useful if an expert in the field could look this up, as a good article surely needs to give a safety warning if this animal is genuinely dangerous.

--Nile (talk) 21:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Spelling question

Why is the worm spelled differently from the person? —Caesura^(t) 17:01, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Absent any explanation of the discrepancy, which, if legitimate, should really have been discussed in the article by whoever wrote this from the original sources (books probably available only by inter-library loan to most people), I'm going to assume it was just an error, and change the spelling to bobbitt. If you have some information that suggests it's different on purpose, plaese note it when you change the spelling back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nondirectional (talk • contribs) 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Looks like that reference did spell it "bobbit". —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 18:47, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Not a hoax

I was a bit sceptical about this entry, but found it confirmed on several other reputable pages. Who said marine biologists had no sense of humor? Timothy Chen Allen 17:56, 2005 May 25 (UTC)

Though, perhaps you could reference these reputable pages somewhere, as this is quite a wild claim. 87.194.32.52 13:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I'm no marine biologist, but the idea of having young ready to be fed soon enough "after mating" to make this claim reasonable...?

--3Idiot 18:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

me! Jesus On Wheels 12:10, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Section needs verification

I cut this from the article after weeks of not finding support or references:

The female may attack the male's sex organ after mating, detaching it with her sharp bone plates and then feeding it to her young. This behavior inspired the common name applied by marine biologists to the animal, (Bobbit worm), a reference to Lorena Bobbitt, a woman who cut off her husband's penis in 1993.

A totally fictitious work, should be removed or referenced. An article with no reference has no validity.Bob300w (talk) 05:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree Worminator2 (talk) 06:10, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Move

Probablty needs moving back to E. aphroditois (or tentacula) . Rich Farmbrough, 19:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC).

Name

It's a bit odd to give a vernacular name which is obviously very recent for an animal that's been described in the scientific literature since the eighteenth century. Looking for the Latin name in Google Books turns up a variety of different vernacular names: Biting reef worm (the most common), Wonder-worm, Bristle worm, large reef worm.N p holmes (talk) 15:39, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Sexual reproduction

"researchers hypothesize that sexual reproduction occurs at an early stage, maybe even when the worm is about 100 millimetres (3.9 in) in length; this is very early, considering that these worms can grow to sizes of nearly 3 metres (9.8 ft)"

Difficult to believe a worm would reproduce when young and then stop reproducing as an adult even though it keeps growing. Few species have such "grandmother stage", humans have it because human babies and children need a lot of attention. Evolutionarily speaking there's no reason for this worm to stop reproducing at an early age- sounds made up - references? 78.29.170.229 (talk) 23:10, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

video of bobbit worm spawning, possibly. Can't think what else it might be <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTDINa1w470> but then I'm not a biologist. Could be some kind of waste disposal or incidental outgassing from the seafloor, unrelated to the worm. Any thoughts? 92.24.204.48 (talk) 23:30, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I believe the Sexual Reproduction section about the bobbit worm is only just a theory, Because they are is no proof to back it up, Little is known about the Bobbit worm, not even its Anatomy. Worminator2 (talk) 06:10, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Aquarium specimen?

The worm found in the aquarium among the coral was a polychaete, but nothing states definitely that it is a bobbit worm, nor its species. There are 8,000 species and "bristle worm" or "bristleworm" is just the name for all of them, not any particular species. I doubt that the article about that individual worm belongs here. Perhaps in an article about the polychaete worms. See "Introduction to the Polychaeta." --Monado (talk) 20:37, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Indented line

The pictures of the aquarium worm show a completely different organism from the one in the article picture. I recommend the reference be removed. - Metalello ^talk 08:06, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Bristles / Numbness - False Information in sources

This Wiki quotes the 2012 Scientific American article for the quote " It is also covered in bristles that are capable of a sting that results in permanent numbness in humans" however - Scientific American are quoting verbatim the 2009 Daily Mail article in this instance.

The Daily Mail article, from what I can see, is the original source of this claim. It is based on second hand information obtained by an aquarium keeper unfamiliar with these animals. There is no information online prior to the 2009 article on this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.114.88 (talk) 04:22, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Update:

The aquarium-keeper quoted by the Daily Mail (& therefore Scientific American) was mis-informed: Wired quote two specialist researchers of these sorts of worms as saying it is physically impossible for this species to cause irritation, unlike a related species - Fireworms.

I have flagged the relevant references as unverified in relation to this claim, and suggest the wiki is updated to take this into account.

81.157.114.88 (talk) 04:40, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Either that or The Daily Fail just made it up. Nice sleuthing, 81.157.114.88. Please feel free to correct the article. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 05:05, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Duly updated! I've put in a few extra facts from that new source. There's still more info there, but I don't have time meld it into the wiki.81.157.114.88 (talk) 05:22, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

References

Source of 3rd paragraph?

Little is known about the sexual habits and lifespan of this worm, but researchers hypothesize that sexual reproduction occurs at an early stage, maybe even when the worm is about 100 millimetres (3.9 in) in length; this is very early, considering that these worms can grow to sizes of nearly 3 metres (9.8 ft) in some cases (although most observations point to a much lower average length of 1 metre (3 ft 3 in) and an average of 25 millimetres (0.98 in) in diameter). A long lifespan may very well explain the size of these creatures.[verification needed]

either this has inspired the following video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sczu8Q0YpLQ), or the seemingly untrustworthy video has been used as a source for writing this section. This also relates to the previously removed section about the relation between the creatures name and its alleged sexual behaviour. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.73.132.16 (talk) 21:23, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Bleu's Peer Review

Really excellent organism choice. Should be a lot more info out there about these viscous little creatures! would like to see more info about digestive strategies and how the animal actually feeds after capturing its prey. Nice start and look forward to learning more about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brivel9501 (talk • contribs) 03:38, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

"Injecting toxins" unsubstantiated

in Diet and Foraging, the following passage appears:

However, any quick strike by the mandibles of the worm can leave the fish stunned while also injecting a certain level of toxins.

The associated reference is totally unrelated. I was under the impression that this species was non-venomous. Can someone confirm? I was unable to find peer-reviewed references to this animal having a venomous bite, and the wording "toxins" makes me rather suspicious of this claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:1418:C242:A831:3EA8:96DE:5632 (talk) 13:58, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

"Barry(worm)" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Barry(worm) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 1 § Barry(worm) until a consensus is reached. Plantdrew (talk) 05:48, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 7 June 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Participants questioned whether "Bobbit worm" was the WP:COMMONNAME of the species (as opposed to other vernacular names such as "sand-striker"), and it was also shown that the name "Bobbit worm" has been used in reference to multiple species. (closed by non-admin page mover) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:13, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

---

Eunice aphroditois → Bobbit worm – Per WP:COMMONNAME, we're supposed to use the common name of a species rather than the scientific name when possible. Most laypeople probably recognize the name "Bobbit worm" more than the name "Eunice aphroditois". Although the species has multiple common names (including sand-striker, bristle worm, etc), "Bobbit worm" is the most commonly recognized one today. Di (they-them) (talk) 01:17, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 06:05, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. I don't see a case being made for a clear common name. Even at a quick Google search, bobbit worm gets about 170,000 hits, while sand-striker gets 4.45 million hits. That much of a gap is a pretty big red flag for us to move from the default of using the species name. Looking at the results, it seems like sand striker has actually pervaded more into the lexicon. Even fishing bait uses the term sand striker, so when fishers are using sand worm or sand striker instead, that seems to be showing some pretty large recognition among lay people for the other terms. KoA (talk) 06:22, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Support: per WP:RECOGNIZABLE, if nothing else. The overall hits are low for both, so WP:COMMONNAME is a little hard to determine, but there are even scholarly sources that prefer the term "Bobbit worm", presumably for ease of recognizability, e.g. The Bobbit worm dilemma: a case for DNA, Earth's oldest 'Bobbit worm'–gigantism in a Devonian eunicidan polychaete, and papers such as this that introduce the subject with the so called “Bobbit worm” (Eunice aphroditois), i.e. lay term first, Latin name in brackets. Full results here. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:56, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Actually, that brings up a good point that bobbit worm would violate WP:COMMONNAME, specifically WP:FAUNA, for this species. It's a common name for other Eunice species. From the very source you provided: Not only is the name misleading with regard to the nature of the worms, it also leads to taxonomic confusion. Some sources specifically apply it to what they believe is Eunice aphroditois, others use it for any large eunicid. Given that not even eunicid taxonomists agree on the identity of E. aphroditois (well, taxonomists rarely agree with each other, but that's a different story), it is not too surprising that untrained aquarists or recreational divers lump all the species together under one easily memorable common name.

The only target for bobbit worm that may work is at the genus level, but that's pretty debatable if we follow sources. This particular species is more or less out though. KoA (talk) 14:29, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Eriksson uses the common name for any Eunicida. — Invasive Spices (talk) 20:01, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:PRECISION. Both of the papers that Iskander323 provided titles for make the point that "Bobbit worm" can refer to multiple species (and both use "giant eunicid" as a synonym for "Bobbit worm"). The Bobbit worm dilemma: a case for DNA is a response to Giant Eunicid Polychaetes (Annelida) in shallow tropical and temperate seas which has a whole section on images of various species found on the internet when searching for "Bobbit worms". A blog for an aquarium supply company has an interesting post; the name is attributed to a particular book ("Coral Reef Animals of the Indo-Pacific" by Terry Gosliner, which I haven't been able to access online), and the spelling "Bobbit worm" is said to be "confirmed" (John and Lorena Bobbitt's surname is spelled with two t's, although the single t spelling for the worm seems to be ubiquitous). The blog post invites commenters to discuss whether "bobbit worm" should taken to refer to only Eunice aphroditois or to other large eunicids. Eunice aphroditois is the only precise title for the subject of this article. "Bobbit [sic] worms/giant eunicids" a broader and less precise topic. Plantdrew (talk) 02:06, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Photograph "showing" its length

The referred to photo has no scale nor any common object as a reference. That is to say, it does not "show" the worm's length. I could argue that the thing is a couple of inches long or a couple of yards, there is no way to tell by looking at the photo. It's probably informative enough to warrant its inclusion, but the caption ought to be changed. I suggest something like "prostrate worm, across sea floor" (although 'prostrate' may be a bit inaccurate...). Oh, also the third photo, I can't figure out if that is one worm, or several, and if one whether it's been dismembered or the photo doesn't clearly indicate where it bends sharply nor where it's buried. I suggest removing it, I don't think it adds to the article, unless "adding confusion" is intended...98.21.208.178 (talk) 20:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree. ItchyBurrito (talk) 19:23, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Iridescent or Holographic skin?

This question was made because of a change someone made.

In my POV, The Bobbit Worm appears to resemble more of a Holographic skin rather than a iridescent skin. I am going to simplify the following sentence, I think its Holographic because Holographic tends to have a more Wider range and Rainbow style of colors rather than only being limited to the usual Pink - Blue - Green colors. Therefore I believe that the Bobbit Worm is Holographic

The problem with these such claims on Holographic skin is because there are simply NO articles that talk about holographic material/appearance itself Worminator2 (talk) 13:48, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Please see WP:OR. Who don't make decisions based on personal opinion, but how sources describe them. KoA (talk) 19:03, 27 August 2024 (UTC)