Annelid

The annelids (/ˈænəlɪdz/), also known as the segmented worms, comprise a large phylum called
Annelida (/əˈnɛlɪdə/; from Latin anellus 'little ring').[3][a] It contains over 22,000 extant species,
including ragworms, earthworms, and leeches. The species exist in and have adapted to various
ecologies – some in marine environments as distinct as tidal zones and hydrothermal vents, others
in fresh water, and yet others in moist terrestrial environments.

The Annelids are bilaterally symmetrical, triploblastic, coelomate, invertebrate organisms. They also
have parapodia for locomotion. Most textbooks still use the traditional division into polychaetes
(almost all marine), oligochaetes (which include earthworms) and leech-like species. Cladistic
research since 1997 has radically changed this scheme, viewing leeches as a sub-group of
oligochaetes and oligochaetes as a sub-group of polychaetes. In addition, the Pogonophora, Echiura
and Sipuncula, previously regarded as separate phyla, are now regarded as sub-groups of
polychaetes. Annelids are considered members of the Lophotrochozoa, a "super-phylum" of
protostomes that also includes molluscs, brachiopods, and nemerteans.

The basic annelid form consists of multiple segments. Each segment has the same sets of organs
and, in most polychates, has a pair of parapodia that many species use for locomotion. Septa
separate the segments of many species, but are poorly defined or absent in others, and Echiura and
Sipuncula show no obvious signs of segmentation. In species with well-developed septa, the blood
circulates entirely within blood vessels, and the vessels in segments near the front ends of these
species are often built up with muscles that act as hearts. The septa of such species also enable
them to change the shapes of individual segments, which facilitates movement by peristalsis
("ripples" that pass along the body) or by undulations that improve the effectiveness of the
parapodia. In species with incomplete septa or none, the blood circulates through the main body
cavity without any kind of pump, and there is a wide range of locomotory techniques – some
burrowing species turn their pharynges inside out to drag themselves through the sediment.

Earthworms are oligochaetes that support terrestrial food chains both as prey and in some regions
are important in aeration and enriching of soil. The burrowing of marine polychaetes, which may
constitute up to a third of all species in near-shore environments, encourages the development of
ecosystems by enabling water and oxygen to penetrate the sea floor. In addition to improving soil
fertility, annelids serve humans as food and as bait. Scientists observe annelids to monitor the
quality of marine and fresh water. Although blood-letting is used less frequently by doctors than it
once was, some leech species are regarded as endangered species because they have been over-
harvested for this purpose in the last few
Annelida
centuries. Ragworms' jaws are now being studied
Temporal range: Possible Ediacaran record, 567
by engineers as they offer an exceptional
Ma [2]
combination of lightness and strength.

Since annelids are soft-bodied, their fossils are

rare – mostly jaws and the mineralized tubes that
some of the species secreted. Although some
late Ediacaran fossils may represent annelids, the
oldest known fossil that is identified with
confidence comes from about

Annelida and some examples of their diversity.

Scientific classification

Domain: Eukaryota

Kingdom: Animalia

Clade: Bilateria

Clade: Nephrozoa

(unranked): Protostomia

(unranked): Spiralia

Superphylum: Lophotrochozoa

Phylum: Annelida
Lamarck, 1809

Classes and subclasses

Cladistic view
 Palaeoannelida

Chaetopteriformia

Amphinomida

Sipunculida

Lobatocerebrum

Pleistoannelida
Myzostomida

Errantia
Protodriliformia

Aciculata
Phyllodocida

Eunicida

Sedentaria
Orbiniida

Cirratuliformia

Siboglinidae

Sabellida

Spionida

Capitellida
Echiura

Capitellidae

Terebelliformia

Maldanomorpha

Clitellata

Traditional view

Class "Polychaeta" (paraphyletic)

Class Clitellata
"Oligochaeta" (paraphyletic)
 Branchiobdellida

Hirudinea – leeches

Sipuncula (old phylum)

Echiura (old phylum)

Myzostomida (old phylum)

Pogonophora (old phylum)

Class †Machaeridia

518 (https://geoltime.github.io/?Ma=518) million years ago in the early Cambrian period. Fossils of
most modern mobile polychaete groups appeared by the end of the Carboniferous, about
299 (https://geoltime.github.io/?Ma=299) million years ago. Palaeontologists disagree about
whether some body fossils from the mid Ordovician, about
472 to 461 (https://geoltime.github.io/?Ma=472%E2%80%93461) million years ago, are the remains
of oligochaetes, and the earliest indisputable fossils of the group appear in the Paleogene period,
which began 66 million years ago.[5]

Classification and diversity

There are over 22,000 living annelid species,[6][7] ranging in size from microscopic to the Australian
giant Gippsland earthworm and Amynthas mekongianus, which can both grow up to 3 meters (9.8 ft)
long [7][8][9] to the largest annelid, Microchaetus rappi which can grow up to 6.7 m (22 ft). Although
research since 1997 has radically changed scientists' views about the evolutionary family tree of the
annelids,[10][11] most textbooks use the traditional classification into the following sub-groups:[8][12]

Polychaetes (about 12,000 species[6]). As their name suggests, they have multiple chetae ("hairs")
per segment. Polychaetes have parapodia that function as limbs, and nuchal organs that are
thought to be chemosensors.[8] Most are marine animals, although a few species live in fresh
water and even fewer on land.[13]

An earthworm's clitellum

Clitellates (about 10,000 species [7]). These have few or no chetae per segment, and no nuchal
organs or parapodia. However, they have a unique reproductive organ, the ring-shaped clitellum
 ("pack saddle") around their bodies, which produces a cocoon that stores and nourishes fertilized
eggs until they hatch [12][14] or, in moniligastrids, yolky eggs that provide nutrition for the
embryos.[7] The clitellates are sub-divided into:[8]
Oligochaetes ("with few hairs"), which includes earthworms. Oligochaetes have a sticky pad
in the roof of the mouth.[8] Most are burrowers that feed on wholly or partly decomposed
organic materials.[13]

Hirudinea, whose name means "leech-shaped" and whose best known members are
leeches.[8] Marine species are mostly blood-sucking parasites, mainly on fish, while most
freshwater species are predators.[13] They have suckers at both ends of their bodies, and use
these to move rather like inchworms.[15]

The Archiannelida, minute annelids that live in the spaces between grains of marine sediment, were
treated as a separate class because of their simple body structure, but are now regarded as
polychaetes.[12] Some other groups of animals have been classified in various ways, but are now
widely regarded as annelids:

Pogonophora / Siboglinidae were first discovered in 1914, and their lack of a recognizable gut
made it difficult to classify them. They have been classified as a separate phylum, Pogonophora,
or as two phyla, Pogonophora and Vestimentifera. More recently they have been re-classified as a
family, Siboglinidae, within the polychaetes.[13][16]

The Echiura have a checkered taxonomic history: in the 19th century they were assigned to the
phylum "Gephyrea", which is now empty as its members have been assigned to other phyla; the
Echiura were next regarded as annelids until the 1940s, when they were classified as a phylum in
their own right; but a molecular phylogenetics analysis in 1997 concluded that echiurans are
annelids.[6][16][17]

Myzostomida live on crinoids and other echinoderms, mainly as parasites. In the past they have
been regarded as close relatives of the trematode flatworms or of the tardigrades, but in 1998 it
was suggested that they are a sub-group of polychaetes.[13] However, another analysis in 2002
suggested that myzostomids are more closely related to flatworms or to rotifers and
acanthocephales.[16]

Sipuncula was originally classified as annelids, despite the complete lack of segmentation,
bristles and other annelid characters. The phylum Sipuncula was later allied with the Mollusca,
mostly on the basis of developmental and larval characters. Phylogenetic analyses based on 79
ribosomal proteins indicated a position of Sipuncula within Annelida.[18] Subsequent analysis of
the mitochondrion's DNA has confirmed their close relationship to the Myzostomida and Annelida
(including echiurans and pogonophorans).[19] It has also been shown that a rudimentary neural
 segmentation similar to that of annelids occurs in the early larval stage, even if these traits are
absent in the adults.[20]

Mitogenomic and phylogenomic analysis also implies that Orthonectida, a group of extremely
simplified parasites traditionally placed in Mesozoa, are actually reduced annelids.[21] Research
suggest that also nemerteans are annelids, with Oweniidae and Magelonidae as their closest
relatives.[22]

Distinguishing features

No single feature distinguishes Annelids from other invertebrate phyla, but they have a distinctive
combination of features. Their bodies are long, with segments that are divided externally by shallow
ring-like constrictions called annuli and internally by septa ("partitions") at the same points, although
in some species the septa are incomplete and in a few cases missing. Most of the segments
contain the same sets of organs, although sharing a common gut, circulatory system and nervous
system makes them inter-dependent.[8][12] Their bodies are covered by a cuticle (outer covering) that
does not contain cells but is secreted by cells in the skin underneath, is made of tough but flexible
collagen[8] and does not molt[23] – on the other hand arthropods' cuticles are made of the more rigid
α-chitin,[8][24] and molt until the arthropods reach their full size.[25] Most annelids have closed
circulatory systems, where the blood makes its entire circuit via blood vessels.[23]
Summary of distinguishing features

Recently merged into Closely

[10]
Similar-looking phyla
Annelida[8] Annelida related

Echiura[26] Sipuncula[27] Nemertea[28] Arthropoda[29] Onychophora[30]

External Only in a few Yes, except in

Yes No No
segmentation species mites

Repetition of In primitive
Yes No Yes Yes
internal organs forms

Septa between
In most species No
segments

Cuticle
Collagen None α-chitin
material

Generally no;[23] but

some polychaetes
Molting molt their jaws, and No[32] Yes[25]
leeches molt their
skins[31]

Coelom; but this is

Two Two
reduced or missing in
coelomata, coelomata, Coelom only
Body cavity many leeches and Hemocoel
main and in main and in in proboscis
some small
proboscis tentacles
polychaetes[23]

Open outflow,
Circulatory Closed in most return via
Open Closed Open
system species branched
vein

Description

Segmentation

Prostomium
Peristomium
O Mouth

Growth zone
Pygidium
 O Anus
Diagram of segments of an annelid[8][12]

In addition to Sipuncula and Echiura, also lineages like Lobatocerebrum, Diurodrilus and Polygordius
have lost their segmentation, but these are the exceptions from the rule.[33] Most of an annelid's
body consists of segments that are practically identical, having the same sets of internal organs
and external chaetae (Greek χαιτη, meaning "hair") and, in some species, appendages. The
frontmost and rearmost sections are not regarded as true segments as they do not contain the
standard sets of organs and do not develop in the same way as the true segments. The frontmost
section, called the prostomium (Greek προ- meaning "in front of" and στομα meaning "mouth")
contains the brain and sense organs, while the rearmost, called the pygidium (Greek πυγιδιον,
meaning "little tail") or periproct contains the anus, generally on the underside. The first section
behind the prostomium, called the peristomium (Greek περι- meaning "around" and στομα meaning
"mouth"), is regarded by some zoologists as not a true segment, but in some polychaetes the
peristomium has chetae and appendages like those of other segments.[8]

The segments develop one at a time from a growth zone just ahead of the pygidium, so that an
annelid's youngest segment is just in front of the growth zone while the peristomium is the oldest.
This pattern is called teloblastic growth.[8] Some groups of annelids, including all leeches,[15] have
fixed maximum numbers of segments, while others add segments throughout their lives.[12]

The phylum's name is derived from the Latin word annelus, meaning "little ring".[6]

Body wall, chaetae and parapodia

Annelids' cuticles are made of

collagen fibers, usually in layers
that spiral in alternating directions
so that the fibers cross each other.
These are secreted by the one-cell
deep epidermis (outermost skin
layer). A few marine annelids that
live in tubes lack cuticles, but their
tubes have a similar structure, and
mucus-secreting glands in the
epidermis protect their skins.[8]
Under the epidermis is the dermis,
which is made of connective
tissue, in other words a combination of cells and non-cellular materials such as collagen. Below this
are two layers of muscles, which develop from the lining of the coelom (body cavity): circular
muscles make a segment longer and slimmer when they contract, while under them are longitudinal
muscles, usually four distinct strips,[23] whose contractions make the segment shorter and fatter.[8]
But several families have lost the circular muscles, and it has been suggested that the lack of
circular muscles is a plesiomorphic character in Annelida.[34] Some annelids also have oblique
internal muscles that connect the underside of the body to each side.[23]

The setae ("hairs") of annelids project out from the epidermis to provide traction and other
capabilities. The simplest are unjointed and form paired bundles near the top and bottom of each
side of each segment. The parapodia ("limbs") of annelids that have them often bear more complex
chetae at their tips – for example jointed, comb-like or hooked.[8] Chetae are made of moderately
flexible β-chitin and are formed by follicles, each of which has a chetoblast ("hair-forming") cell at
the bottom and muscles that can extend or retract the cheta. The chetoblasts produce chetae by
forming microvilli, fine hair-like extensions that increase the area available for secreting the cheta.
When the cheta is complete, the microvilli withdraw into the chetoblast, leaving parallel tunnels that
run almost the full length of the cheta.[8] Hence annelids' chetae are structurally different from the
setae ("bristles") of arthropods, which are made of the more rigid α-chitin, have a single internal
cavity, and are mounted on flexible joints in shallow pits in the cuticle.[8]

Nearly all polychaetes have parapodia that function as limbs, while other major annelid groups lack
them. Parapodia are unjointed paired extensions of the body wall, and their muscles are derived
from the circular muscles of the body. They are often supported internally by one or more large,
thick chetae. The parapodia of burrowing and tube-dwelling polychaetes are often just ridges whose
tips bear hooked chetae. In active crawlers and swimmers the parapodia are often divided into large
upper and lower paddles on a very short trunk, and the paddles are generally fringed with chetae
and sometimes with cirri (fused bundles of cilia) and gills.[23]

Nervous system and senses

The brain generally forms a ring round the pharynx (throat), consisting of a pair of ganglia (local
control centers) above and in front of the pharynx, linked by nerve cords either side of the pharynx to
another pair of ganglia just below and behind it.[8] The brains of polychaetes are generally in the
prostomium, while those of clitellates are in the peristomium or sometimes the first segment behind
the prostomium.[35] In some very mobile and active polychaetes the brain is enlarged and more
complex, with visible hindbrain, midbrain and forebrain sections.[23] The rest of the central nervous
system, the ventral nerve cord, is generally "ladder-like", consisting of a pair of nerve cords that run
through the bottom part of the body and have in each segment paired ganglia linked by a transverse
connection. From each segmental ganglion a branching system of local nerves runs into the body
wall and then encircles the body.[8] However, in most polychaetes the two main nerve cords are
fused, and in the tube-dwelling genus Owenia the single nerve chord has no ganglia and is located in
the epidermis.[12][36]

As in arthropods, each muscle fiber (cell) is controlled by more than one neuron, and the speed and
power of the fiber's contractions depends on the combined effects of all its neurons. Vertebrates
have a different system, in which one neuron controls a group of muscle fibers.[8] Most annelids'
longitudinal nerve trunks include giant axons (the output signal lines of nerve cells). Their large
diameter decreases their resistance, which allows them to transmit signals exceptionally fast. This
enables these worms to withdraw rapidly from danger by shortening their bodies. Experiments have
shown that cutting the giant axons prevents this escape response but does not affect normal
movement.[8]

The sensors are primarily single cells that detect light, chemicals, pressure waves and contact, and
are present on the head, appendages (if any) and other parts of the body.[8] Nuchal ("on the neck")
organs are paired, ciliated structures found only in polychaetes, and are thought to be
chemosensors.[23] Some polychaetes also have various combinations of ocelli ("little eyes") that
detect the direction from which light is coming and camera eyes or compound eyes that can
probably form images.[36][37] The compound eyes probably evolved independently of arthropods'
eyes.[23] Some tube-worms use ocelli widely spread over their bodies to detect the shadows of fish,
so that they can quickly withdraw into their tubes.[36] Some burrowing and tube-dwelling
polychaetes have statocysts (tilt and balance sensors) that indicate which way is down.[36] A few
polychaete genera have on the undersides of their heads palps that are used both in feeding and as
"feelers", and some of these also have antennae that are structurally similar but probably are used
mainly as "feelers".[23]

Coelom, locomotion and circulatory system

Most annelids have a pair of coelomata (body cavities) in each segment, separated from other
segments by septa and from each other by vertical mesenteries. Each septum forms a sandwich
with connective tissue in the middle and mesothelium (membrane that serves as a lining) from the
preceding and following segments on either side. Each mesentery is similar except that the
mesothelium is the lining of each of the pair of coelomata, and the blood vessels and, in
polychaetes, the main nerve cords are embedded in it.[8] The mesothelium is made of modified
epitheliomuscular cells;[8] in other words, their bodies form part of the epithelium but their bases
extend to form muscle fibers in the body wall.[38] The mesothelium may also form radial and circular
muscles on the septa, and circular muscles around the blood vessels and gut. Parts of the
mesothelium, especially on the outside of the gut, may also form chloragogen cells that perform
similar functions to the livers of vertebrates: producing and storing glycogen and fat; producing the
oxygen-carrier hemoglobin; breaking down proteins; and turning nitrogenous waste products into
ammonia and urea to be excreted.[8]

Peristalsis moves this "worm" to the right

Many annelids move by peristalsis (waves of contraction and expansion that sweep along the
body),[8] or flex the body while using parapodia to crawl or swim.[39] In these animals the septa
enable the circular and longitudinal muscles to change the shape of individual segments, by making
each segment a separate fluid-filled "balloon".[8] However, the septa are often incomplete in annelids
that are semi-sessile or that do not move by peristalsis or by movements of parapodia – for
example some move by whipping movements of the body, some small marine species move by
means of cilia (fine muscle-powered hairs) and some burrowers turn their pharynges (throats)
inside out to penetrate the sea-floor and drag themselves into it.[8]

The fluid in the coelomata contains coelomocyte cells that defend the animals against parasites
and infections. In some species coelomocytes may also contain a respiratory pigment – red
hemoglobin in some species, green chlorocruorin in others (dissolved in the plasma)[23] – and
provide oxygen transport within their segments. Respiratory pigment is also dissolved in the blood
plasma. Species with well-developed septa generally also have blood vessels running all long their
bodies above and below the gut, the upper one carrying blood forwards while the lower one carries
it backwards. Networks of capillaries in the body wall and around the gut transfer blood between the
main blood vessels and to parts of the segment that need oxygen and nutrients. Both of the major
vessels, especially the upper one, can pump blood by contracting. In some annelids the forward end
of the upper blood vessel is enlarged with muscles to form a heart, while in the forward ends of
many earthworms some of the vessels that connect the upper and lower main vessels function as
hearts. Species with poorly developed or no septa generally have no blood vessels and rely on the
circulation within the coelom for delivering nutrients and oxygen.[8]

However, leeches and their closest relatives have a body structure that is very uniform within the
group but significantly different from that of other annelids, including other members of the
Clitellata.[15] In leeches there are no septa, the connective tissue layer of the body wall is so thick
that it occupies much of the body, and the two coelomata are widely separated and run the length of
the body. They function as the main blood vessels, although they are side-by-side rather than upper
and lower. However, they are lined with mesothelium, like the coelomata and unlike the blood
vessels of other annelids. Leeches generally use suckers at their front and rear ends to move like
inchworms. The anus is on the upper surface of the pygidium.[15]

Respiration

In some annelids, including earthworms, all respiration is via the skin. However, many polychaetes
and some clitellates (the group to which earthworms belong) have gills associated with most
segments, often as extensions of the parapodia in polychaetes. The gills of tube-dwellers and
burrowers usually cluster around whichever end has the stronger water flow.[23]

Feeding and excretion

Lamellibrachian tube worms have no

gut and gain nutrients from
chemoautotrophic bacteria living
inside them.

Feeding structures in the mouth region vary widely, and have little correlation with the animals' diets.
Many polychaetes have a muscular pharynx that can be everted (turned inside out to extend it). In
these animals the foremost few segments often lack septa so that, when the muscles in these
segments contract, the sharp increase in fluid pressure from all these segments everts the pharynx
very quickly. Two families, the Eunicidae and Phyllodocidae, have evolved jaws, which can be used
for seizing prey, biting off pieces of vegetation, or grasping dead and decaying matter. On the other
hand, some predatory polychaetes have neither jaws nor eversible pharynges. Selective deposit
feeders generally live in tubes on the sea-floor and use palps to find food particles in the sediment
and then wipe them into their mouths. Filter feeders use "crowns" of palps covered in cilia that wash
food particles towards their mouths. Non-selective deposit feeders ingest soil or marine sediments
via mouths that are generally unspecialized. Some clitellates have sticky pads in the roofs of their
mouths, and some of these can evert the pads to capture prey. Leeches often have an eversible
proboscis, or a muscular pharynx with two or three teeth.[23]

The gut is generally an almost straight tube supported by the mesenteries (vertical partitions within
segments), and ends with the anus on the underside of the pygidium.[8] However, in members of the
tube-dwelling family Siboglinidae the gut is blocked by a swollen lining that houses symbiotic
bacteria, which can make up 15% of the worms' total weight. The bacteria convert inorganic matter
– such as hydrogen sulfide and carbon dioxide from hydrothermal vents, or methane from seeps –
to organic matter that feeds themselves and their hosts, while the worms extend their palps into the
gas flows to absorb the gases needed by the bacteria.[23]

Annelids with blood vessels use metanephridia to remove soluble waste products, while those
without use protonephridia.[8] Both of these systems use a two-stage filtration process, in which
fluid and waste products are first extracted and these are filtered again to re-absorb any re-usable
materials while dumping toxic and spent materials as urine. The difference is that protonephridia
combine both filtration stages in the same organ, while metanephridia perform only the second
filtration and rely on other mechanisms for the first – in annelids special filter cells in the walls of
the blood vessels let fluids and other small molecules pass into the coelomic fluid, where it
circulates to the metanephridia.[40] In annelids the points at which fluid enters the protonephridia or
metanephridia are on the forward side of a septum while the second-stage filter and the
nephridiopore (exit opening in the body wall) are in the following segment. As a result, the hindmost
segment (before the growth zone and pygidium) has no structure that extracts its wastes, as there
is no following segment to filter and discharge them, while the first segment contains an extraction
structure that passes wastes to the second, but does not contain the structures that re-filter and
discharge urine.[8]

Reproduction and life cycle

Asexual reproduction

This sabellid tubeworm is budding

Polychaetes can reproduce asexually, by dividing into two or more pieces or by budding off a new
individual while the parent remains a complete organism.[8][41] Some oligochaetes, such as
Aulophorus furcatus, seem to reproduce entirely asexually, while others reproduce asexually in
summer and sexually in autumn. Asexual reproduction in oligochaetes is always by dividing into two
or more pieces, rather than by budding.[12][42] However, leeches have never been seen reproducing
asexually.[12][43]

Most polychaetes and oligochaetes also use similar mechanisms to regenerate after suffering
damage. Two polychaete genera, Chaetopterus and Dodecaceria, can regenerate from a single
segment, and others can regenerate even if their heads are removed.[12][41] Annelids are the most
complex animals that can regenerate after such severe damage.[44] On the other hand, leeches
cannot regenerate.[43]

Sexual reproduction

Apical tuft (cilia)

Prototroch (cilia)
Stomach
Mouth
Metatroch (cilia)
Mesoderm
Anus
/// = cilia
Trochophore larva[45]

It is thought that annelids were originally animals with two separate sexes, which released ova and
sperm into the water via their nephridia.[8] The fertilized eggs develop into trochophore larvae, which
live as plankton.[46] Later they sink to the sea-floor and metamorphose into miniature adults: the
part of the trochophore between the apical tuft and the prototroch becomes the prostomium (head);
a small area round the trochophore's anus becomes the pygidium (tail-piece); a narrow band
immediately in front of that becomes the growth zone that produces new segments; and the rest of
the trochophore becomes the peristomium (the segment that contains the mouth).[8]

However, the lifecycles of most living polychaetes, which are almost all marine animals, are
unknown, and only about 25% of the 300+ species whose lifecycles are known follow this pattern.
About 14% use a similar external fertilization but produce yolk-rich eggs, which reduce the time the
larva needs to spend among the plankton, or eggs from which miniature adults emerge rather than
larvae. The rest care for the fertilized eggs until they hatch – some by producing jelly-covered
masses of eggs which they tend, some by attaching the eggs to their bodies and a few species by
keeping the eggs within their bodies until they hatch. These species use a variety of methods for
sperm transfer; for example, in some the females collect sperm released into the water, while in
others the males have a penis that inject sperm into the female.[46] There is no guarantee that this is
a representative sample of polychaetes' reproductive patterns, and it simply reflects scientists'
current knowledge.[46]

Some polychaetes breed only once in their lives, while others breed almost continuously or through
several breeding seasons. While most polychaetes remain of one sex all their lives, a significant
percentage of species are full hermaphrodites or change sex during their lives. Most polychaetes
whose reproduction has been studied lack permanent gonads, and it is uncertain how they produce
ova and sperm. In a few species the rear of the body splits off and becomes a separate individual
that lives just long enough to swim to a suitable environment, usually near the surface, and
spawn.[46]

Most mature clitellates (the group that includes earthworms and leeches) are full hermaphrodites,
although in a few leech species younger adults function as males and become female at maturity.
All have well-developed gonads, and all copulate. Earthworms store their partners' sperm in
spermathecae ("sperm stores") and then the clitellum produces a cocoon that collects ova from the
ovaries and then sperm from the spermathecae. Fertilization and development of earthworm eggs
takes place in the cocoon. Leeches' eggs are fertilized in the ovaries, and then transferred to the
cocoon. In all clitellates the cocoon also either produces yolk when the eggs are fertilized or
nutrients while they are developing. All clitellates hatch as miniature adults rather than larvae.[46]

Ecological significance

Charles Darwin's book The Formation of Vegetable Mould Through the Action of Worms (1881)
presented the first scientific analysis of earthworms' contributions to soil fertility.[47] Some burrow
while others live entirely on the surface, generally in moist leaf litter. The burrowers loosen the soil
so that oxygen and water can penetrate it, and both surface and burrowing worms help to produce
soil by mixing organic and mineral matter, by accelerating the decomposition of organic matter and
thus making it more quickly available to other organisms, and by concentrating minerals and
converting them to forms that plants can use more easily.[48][49] Earthworms are also important prey
for birds ranging in size from robins to storks, and for mammals ranging from shrews to badgers,
and in some cases conserving earthworms may be essential for conserving endangered birds.[50]

Terrestrial annelids can be invasive in some situations. In the glaciated areas of North America, for
example, almost all native earthworms are thought to have been killed by the glaciers and the
worms currently found in those areas are all introduced from other areas, primarily from Europe,
and, more recently, from Asia. Northern hardwood forests are especially negatively impacted by
invasive worms through the loss of leaf duff, soil fertility, changes in soil chemistry and the loss of
ecological diversity. Especially of concern is Amynthas agrestis and at least one state (Wisconsin)
has listed it as a prohibited species.

Earthworms migrate only a limited distance annually on their own, and the spread of invasive worms
is increased rapidly by anglers and from worms or their cocoons in the dirt on vehicle tires or
footwear.

Marine annelids may account for over one-third of bottom-dwelling animal species around coral
reefs and in tidal zones.[47] Burrowing species increase the penetration of water and oxygen into the
sea-floor sediment, which encourages the growth of populations of aerobic bacteria and small
animals alongside their burrows.[51]

Although blood-sucking leeches do little direct harm to their victims, some transmit flagellates that
can be very dangerous to their hosts. Some small tube-dwelling oligochaetes transmit myxosporean
parasites that cause whirling disease in fish.[47]

Interaction with humans

Earthworms make a significant contribution to soil fertility.[47] The rear end of the Palolo worm, a
marine polychaete that tunnels through coral, detaches in order to spawn at the surface, and the
people of Samoa regard these spawning modules as a delicacy.[47] Anglers sometimes find that
worms are more effective bait than artificial flies, and worms can be kept for several days in a tin
lined with damp moss.[52] Ragworms are commercially important as bait and as food sources for
aquaculture, and there have been proposals to farm them in order to reduce over-fishing of their
natural populations.[51] Some marine polychaetes' predation on molluscs causes serious losses to
fishery and aquaculture operations.[47]

Scientists study aquatic annelids to monitor the oxygen content, salinity and pollution levels in fresh
and marine water.[47]

Accounts of the use of leeches for the medically dubious practice of blood-letting have come from
China around 30 AD, India around 200 AD, ancient Rome around 50 AD and later throughout Europe.
In the 19th century medical demand for leeches was so high that some areas' stocks were
exhausted and other regions imposed restrictions or bans on exports, and Hirudo medicinalis is
treated as an endangered species by both IUCN and CITES. More recently leeches have been used
to assist in microsurgery, and their saliva has provided anti-inflammatory compounds and several
important anticoagulants, one of which also prevents tumors from spreading.[47]
Ragworms' jaws are strong but much lighter than the hard parts of many other organisms, which are
biomineralized with calcium salts. These advantages have attracted the attention of engineers.
Investigations showed that ragworm jaws are made of unusual proteins that bind strongly to
zinc.[53]

Evolutionary history

Fossil record

Burgessochaeta setigera

Since annelids are soft-bodied, their fossils are rare.[54] Polychaetes' fossil record consists mainly of
the jaws that some species had and the mineralized tubes that some secreted.[55] Some Ediacaran
fossils such as Dickinsonia in some ways resemble polychaetes, but the similarities are too vague
for these fossils to be classified with confidence.[1] The small shelly fossil Cloudina, from
549 to 542 (https://geoltime.github.io/?Ma=549%E2%80%93542) million years ago, has been
classified by some authors as an annelid, but by others as a cnidarian (i.e. in the phylum to which
jellyfish and sea anemones belong).[56][57] Until 2008 the earliest fossils widely accepted as annelids
were the polychaetes Canadia and Burgessochaeta, both from Canada's Burgess Shale, formed
about 505 (https://geoltime.github.io/?Ma=505) million years ago in the Middle Cambrian.[58]
Myoscolex, found in Australia and a little older than the Burgess Shale, was possibly an annelid.
However, it lacks some typical annelid features and has features which are not usually found in
annelids and some of which are associated with other phyla.[58] Then Simon Conway Morris and
John Peel reported Phragmochaeta from Sirius Passet, about
518 (https://geoltime.github.io/?Ma=518) million years old, and concluded that it was the oldest
annelid known to date.[1] There has been vigorous debate about whether the Burgess Shale fossil
Wiwaxia was a mollusc or an annelid.[58] Polychaetes diversified in the early Ordovician, about
488 to 474 (https://geoltime.github.io/?Ma=488%E2%80%93474) million years ago. It is not until the
early Ordovician that the first annelid jaws are found, thus the crown-group cannot have appeared
before this date and probably appeared somewhat later.[59] By the end of the Carboniferous, about
299 (https://geoltime.github.io/?Ma=299) million years ago, fossils of most of the modern mobile
polychaete groups had appeared.[58] Many fossil tubes look like those made by modern sessile
polychaetes,[60] but the first tubes clearly produced by polychaetes date from the Jurassic, less than
199 (https://geoltime.github.io/?Ma=199) million years ago.[58] In 2012, a 508 million year old
species of annelid found near the Burgess shale beds in British Columbia, Kootenayscolex, was
found that changed the hypotheses about how the annelid head developed. It appears to have
bristles on its head segment akin to those along its body, as if the head simply developed as a
specialized version of a previously generic segment.

The earliest good evidence for oligochaetes occurs in the Tertiary period, which began
65 (https://geoltime.github.io/?Ma=65) million years ago, and it has been suggested that these
animals evolved around the same time as flowering plants in the early Cretaceous, from
130 to 90 (https://geoltime.github.io/?Ma=130%E2%80%9390) million years ago.[61] A trace fossil
consisting of a convoluted burrow partly filled with small fecal pellets may be evidence that
earthworms were present in the early Triassic period from
251 to 245 (https://geoltime.github.io/?Ma=251%E2%80%93245) million years ago.[61][62] Body
fossils going back to the mid Ordovician, from
472 to 461 (https://geoltime.github.io/?Ma=472%E2%80%93461) million years ago, have been
tentatively classified as oligochaetes, but these identifications are uncertain and some have been
disputed.[61][63]

Internal relationships

Traditionally the annelids have been divided into two major groups, the polychaetes and clitellates.
In turn the clitellates were divided into oligochaetes, which include earthworms, and
hirudinomorphs, whose best-known members are leeches.[8] For many years there was no clear
arrangement of the approximately 80 polychaete families into higher-level groups.[10] In 1997 Greg
Rouse and Kristian Fauchald attempted a "first heuristic step in terms of bringing polychaete
systematics to an acceptable level of rigour", based on anatomical structures, and divided
polychaetes into:[64]

Scolecida, less than 1,000 burrowing species that look rather like earthworms.[65]

Palpata, the great majority of polychaetes, divided into:

Canalipalpata, which are distinguished by having long grooved palps that they use for
feeding, and most of which live in tubes.[65]
 Aciculata, the most active
Echiura
polychaetes, which have parapodia
Euarthropoda
reinforced by internal spines
(aciculae).[65] Onychophora

Also in 1997 Damhnait McHugh, using Sabellida

molecular phylogenetics to compare Canalipalpata Terebellida

similarities and differences in one gene, Articulata

Palpata Spionida
presented a very different view, in which: Annelida
Phyllodocida
the clitellates were an offshoot of one Aciculata

branch of the polychaete family tree; the Eunicida

pogonophorans and echiurans, which for a Scolecida

few decades had been regarded as a
Sipuncula
separate phyla, were placed on other
Morphological phylogeny of Annelida (1997)[64]
branches of the
polychaete tree.[67]
Subsequent some "Scolecida" and "Aciculata"

molecular some "Canalipalpata"

phylogenetics Sipuncula, previously a separate phylum

analyses on a
some "Oligochaeta"
similar scale
Hirudinea (leeches)
presented similar Clitellata
conclusions.[68] some "Oligochaeta"

some "Oligochaeta"
In 2007 Torsten
Struck and Aeolosomatidae[66]

colleagues Annelida some "Scolecida" and "Canalipalpata"

compared three some "Scolecida"

genes in 81 taxa, of
Echiura, previously a separate phylum
which nine were
some "Scolecida"
outgroups,[10] in
other words not some "Canalipalpata"

considered closely Siboglinidae, previously phylum Pogonophora

related to annelids some "Canalipalpata"

but included to give
some "Scolecida", "Canalipalpata" and "Aciculata"
an indication of
where the Annelid groups and phyla incorporated into Annelida (2007; simplified).[10]
organisms under
study are placed on Highlights major changes to traditional classifications.
the larger tree of
life.[69] For a cross-
check the study used an analysis of 11 genes (including the original 3) in ten taxa. This analysis
agreed that clitellates, pogonophorans and echiurans were on various branches of the polychaete
family tree. It also concluded that the classification of polychaetes into Scolecida, Canalipalpata
and Aciculata was useless, as the members of these alleged groups were scattered all over the
family tree derived from comparing the 81 taxa. It also placed sipunculans, generally regarded at the
time as a separate phylum, on another branch of the polychaete tree, and concluded that leeches
were a sub-group of oligochaetes rather than their sister-group among the clitellates.[10] Rouse
accepted the analyses based on molecular phylogenetics,[12] and their main conclusions are now
the scientific consensus, although the details of the annelid family tree remain uncertain.[11]

In addition to re-writing the classification of annelids and three previously independent phyla, the
molecular phylogenetics analyses undermine the emphasis that decades of previous writings
placed on the importance of segmentation in the classification of invertebrates. Polychaetes, which
these analyses found to be the parent group, have completely segmented bodies, while polychaetes'
echiurans and sipunculan offshoots are not segmented and pogonophores are segmented only in
the rear parts of their bodies. It now seems that segmentation can appear and disappear much
more easily in the course of evolution than was previously thought.[10][67] The 2007 study also noted
that the ladder-like nervous system, which is associated with segmentation, is less universal than
previously thought in both annelids and arthropods.[10][b]

The updated phylogenetic tree of the Annelid phylum is comprised by a grade of basal groups of
polychaetes: Palaeoannelida, Chaetopteriformia and the Amphinomida/Sipuncula/Lobatocerebrum
clade. This grade is followed by Pleistoannelida, the clade containing nearly all of annelid diversity,
divided into two highly diverse groups: Sedentaria and Errantia. Sedentaria contains the clitellates,
pogonophorans, echiurans and some archiannelids, as well as several polychaete groups. Errantia
contains the eunicid and phyllodocid polychaetes, and several archiannelids. Some small groups,
such as the Myzostomida, are more difficult to place due to long branching, but belong to either one
of these large groups.[70][71][72][73][74]
 Oweniidae
Palaeoannelida
Magelonidae

Apistobranchus

Chaetopteriformia Psammodrilidae

Chaetopteridae

Amphinomida

Lobatocerebrum

Sipuncula

Eunicida
Aciculata
Phyllodocida
Errantia
Polygordiidae
Protodriliformia
Protodrilida
?
Myzostomida
Annelida
Orbiniida

Cirratuliformia

Siboglinidae (pogonophorans)

Pleistoannelida Sabellida

Spionida

Opheliida
Sedentaria
Capitellidae
Capitellida
Echiura

Terebelliformia

Maldanomorpha

Clitellata (oligochaetes, leeches...)

External relationships

Annelids are members of the protostomes, one of the two major superphyla of bilaterian animals –
the other is the deuterostomes, which includes vertebrates.[68] Within the protostomes, annelids
used to be grouped with arthropods under the super-group Articulata ("jointed animals"), as
segmentation is obvious in most members of both phyla. However, the genes that drive
segmentation in arthropods do not appear to do the same in annelids. Arthropods and annelids
both have close relatives that are unsegmented. It is at least as easy to assume that they evolved
segmented bodies independently as it is to assume that the ancestral protostome or bilaterian was
segmented and that segmentation disappeared in many descendant phyla.[68] The current view is
that annelids are grouped with molluscs, brachiopods and several other phyla that have
lophophores (fan-like feeding structures) and/or trochophore larvae as members of
Lophotrochozoa.[75] Meanwhile, arthropods are now regarded as members of the Ecdysozoa
("animals that molt"), along with some phyla that are unsegmented.[68][76]

Acoelomorpha (Acoela and Nemertodermatida)

Deuterostomia (Ambulacrarians and chordates)

Ecdysozoa (Arthropods, etc.)

Gnathifera

Rouphozoa

Mesozoa

Cycliophora

Annelida

Bilateria
Mollusca
Protostomia
Brach
Spiralia

Platytrochozoa Brachiozoa Phoro

Lophotrochozoa
Entop
Lophophorata

Kryptotrochozoa
Bryozoa s.l. Ectop

Nemertea

The "Lophotrochozoa" hypothesis is also supported by the fact that many phyla within this group,
including annelids, molluscs, nemerteans and flatworms, follow a similar pattern in the fertilized
egg's development. When their cells divide after the 4-cell stage, descendants of these four cells
form a spiral pattern. In these phyla the "fates" of the embryo's cells, in other words the roles their
descendants will play in the adult animal, are the same and can be predicted from a very early
stage.[77] Hence this development pattern is often described as "spiral determinate cleavage".[78]

Phylogenetic tree of early

lophophorates

Fossil discoveries lead to the hypothesis that Annelida and the lophophorates are more closely
related to each other than any other phyla. Because of the body plan of lophotrochozoan fossils, a
phylogenetic analysis found the lophophorates as the sister group of annelids. Both groups share in
common: the presence of chaetae secreted by microvilli; paired, metameric coelomic
compartments; and a similar metanephridial structure.[79]
 Nemertea

†Wiwaxia

†Kimberella

Mollusca

†Phragmochaeta

Annelida
Lophotrochozoa
†Wufengella

Phoronida

Lophophorata Bryozoa

†"Tommotiids"

Brachiopoda

Notes

a. The term originated from Jean-Baptiste Lamarck's annélides.[3][4]

b. Since this section was written, a new paper has revised the 2007 results: Struck, T. H.; Paul, C.;
Hill, N.; Hartmann, S.; Hösel, C.; Kube, M.; Lieb, B.; Meyer, A.; Tiedemann, R.; Purschke, G. N.;
Bleidorn, C. (2011). "Phylogenomic analyses unravel annelid evolution". Nature. 471 (7336):
95–98. Bibcode:2011Natur.471...95S (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011Natur.471...95
S) . doi:10.1038/nature09864 (https://doi.org/10.1038%2Fnature09864) . PMID 21368831 (h
ttps://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21368831) . S2CID 4428998 (https://api.semanticscholar.or
g/CorpusID:4428998) .

References

1. Conway Morris, Simon; Pjeel, J.S. (2008). "The earliest annelids: Lower Cambrian polychaetes
from the Sirius Passet Lagerstätte, Peary Land, North Greenland" (http://www.app.pan.pl/archi
ve/published/app53/app53-137.pdf) (PDF). Acta Palaeontologica Polonica. 53 (1): 137–148.
doi:10.4202/app.2008.0110 (https://doi.org/10.4202%2Fapp.2008.0110) . S2CID 35811524
(https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:35811524) .
2. Bobrovskiy, I.; Nagovitsyn, A.; Hope, J. M.; Luzhnaya, E.; Brocks, J. J. (2022). "Guts, gut
contents, and feeding strategies of Ediacaran animals" (https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.cub.2022.
10.051) . Current Biology. 32 (24): 5382–5389.e3. Bibcode:2022CBio...32E5382B (https://ui.a
dsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022CBio...32E5382B) . doi:10.1016/j.cub.2022.10.051 (https://doi.o
rg/10.1016%2Fj.cub.2022.10.051) . PMID 36417903 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36417
903) .

3. McIntosh, William Carmichael (1878). "Annelida" (https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Encyclop%C

3%A6dia_Britannica,_Ninth_Edition/Annelida) . In Baynes, T. S. (ed.). Encyclopædia Britannica.
Vol. 2 (9th ed.). New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. pp. 65–72.

4. Mitchell, Peter Chalmers (1911). "Annelida" (https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclop%C

3%A6dia_Britannica/Annelida) . In Chisholm, Hugh (ed.). Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 2
(11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. pp. 72–73.

5. Renne, Paul R.; Deino, Alan L.; Hilgen, Frederik J.; Kuiper, Klaudia F.; Mark, Darren F.; Mitchell,
William S.; Morgan, Leah E.; Mundil, Roland; Smit, Jan (7 February 2013). "Time Scales of
Critical Events Around the Cretaceous-Paleogene Boundary" (http://www.cugb.edu.cn/uploadC
ms/file/20600/20131028144132060.pdf) (PDF). Science. 339 (6120): 684–687.
Bibcode:2013Sci...339..684R (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013Sci...339..684R) .
doi:10.1126/science.1230492 (https://doi.org/10.1126%2Fscience.1230492) .
PMID 23393261 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23393261) . S2CID 6112274 (https://api.s
emanticscholar.org/CorpusID:6112274) .

6. Rouse, G. W. (2002). "Annelida (Segmented Worms)". Encyclopedia of Life Sciences. John Wiley
& Sons. doi:10.1038/npg.els.0001599 (https://doi.org/10.1038%2Fnpg.els.0001599) .
ISBN 978-0470016176.

7. Blakemore, R.J. (2012). Cosmopolitan Earthworms. VermEcology, Yokohama.

8. Ruppert, E. E.; Fox, R. S. & Barnes, R. D. (2004). "Annelida". Invertebrate Zoology (https://archive.
org/details/isbn_9780030259821/page/414) (7th ed.). Brooks / Cole. pp. 414–420 (https://a
rchive.org/details/isbn_9780030259821/page/414) . ISBN 978-0-03-025982-1.

9. Lavelle, P. (July 1996). "Diversity of Soil Fauna and Ecosystem Function" (http://horizon.docum
entation.ird.fr/exl-doc/pleins_textes/pleins_textes_6/b_fdi_45-46/010008126.pdf) (PDF).
Biology International. 33. Retrieved 2009-04-20.
10. Struck, T.H.; Schult, N.; Kusen, T.; Hickman, E.; Bleidorn, C.; McHugh, D.; Halanych, K.M. (5 April
2007). "Annelid phylogeny and the status of Sipuncula and Echiura" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.
gov/pmc/articles/PMC1855331) . BMC Evolutionary Biology. 7 (1): 57.
Bibcode:2007BMCEE...7...57S (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007BMCEE...7...57S) .
doi:10.1186/1471-2148-7-57 (https://doi.org/10.1186%2F1471-2148-7-57) . PMC 1855331 (ht
tps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1855331) . PMID 17411434 (https://pubmed.n
cbi.nlm.nih.gov/17411434) .

11. Hutchings, P. (2007). "Book Review: Reproductive Biology and Phylogeny of Annelida" (https://d
oi.org/10.1093%2Ficb%2Ficm008) . Integrative and Comparative Biology. 47 (5): 788–789.
doi:10.1093/icb/icm008 (https://doi.org/10.1093%2Ficb%2Ficm008) .

12. Rouse, G. (1998). "The Annelida and their close relatives". In Anderson, D. T. (ed.). Invertebrate
Zoology. Oxford University Press. pp. 176–179. ISBN 978-0-19-551368-4.

13. Rouse, G. (1998). "The Annelida and their close relatives". In Anderson, D.T. (ed.). Invertebrate
Zoology. Oxford University Press. pp. 179–183. ISBN 978-0-19-551368-4.

14. Ruppert, E. E.; Fox, R. S. & Barnes, R. D. (2004). "Annelida". Invertebrate Zoology (https://archive.
org/details/isbn_9780030259821/page/459) (7th ed.). Brooks / Cole. p. 459 (https://archive.
org/details/isbn_9780030259821/page/459) . ISBN 978-0-03-025982-1.

15. Ruppert, E. E.; Fox, R. S. & Barnes, R.D. (2004). "Annelida". Invertebrate Zoology (https://archive.
org/details/isbn_9780030259821/page/471) (7th ed.). Brooks / Cole. pp. 471–482 (https://a
rchive.org/details/isbn_9780030259821/page/471) . ISBN 978-0-03-025982-1.

16. Halanych, K. M.; Dahlgren, T. G.; McHugh, D. (2002). "Unsegmented Annelids? Possible Origins
of Four Lophotrochozoan Worm Taxa" (https://doi.org/10.1093%2Ficb%2F42.3.678) .
Integrative and Comparative Biology. 42 (3): 678–684. doi:10.1093/icb/42.3.678 (https://doi.or
g/10.1093%2Ficb%2F42.3.678) . PMID 21708764 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2170876
4) . S2CID 14782179 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:14782179) .

17. McHugh, D. (July 1997). "Molecular evidence that echiurans and pogonophorans are derived
annelids" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC21546) . Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 94 (15): 8006–8009.
Bibcode:1997PNAS...94.8006M (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997PNAS...94.8006M) .
doi:10.1073/pnas.94.15.8006 (https://doi.org/10.1073%2Fpnas.94.15.8006) . PMC 21546 (ht
tps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC21546) . PMID 9223304 (https://pubmed.ncbi.
nlm.nih.gov/9223304) .
18. Hausdorf, B.; et al. (2007). "Spiralian Phylogenomics Supports the Resurrection of Bryozoa
Comprising Ectoprocta and Entoprocta" (https://doi.org/10.1093%2Fmolbev%2Fmsm214) .
Molecular Biology and Evolution. 24 (12): 2723–2729. doi:10.1093/molbev/msm214 (https://do
i.org/10.1093%2Fmolbev%2Fmsm214) . PMID 17921486 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1
7921486) .

19. Shen, X.; Ma, X.; Ren, J.; Zhao, F. (2009). "A close phylogenetic relationship between Sipuncula
and Annelida evidenced from the complete mitochondrial genome sequence of Phascolosoma
esculenta" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2667193) . BMC Genomics. 10:
136. doi:10.1186/1471-2164-10-136 (https://doi.org/10.1186%2F1471-2164-10-136) .
PMC 2667193 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2667193) . PMID 19327168
(https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19327168) .

20. Wanninger, Andreas; Kristof, Alen; Brinkmann, Nora (Jan–Feb 2009). "Sipunculans and
segmentation" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2649304) . Communicative
and Integrative Biology. 2 (1): 56–59. doi:10.4161/cib.2.1.7505 (https://doi.org/10.4161%2Fcib.
2.1.7505) . PMC 2649304 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2649304) .
PMID 19513266 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19513266) .

21. Annelida (https://books.google.com/books?id=gyRXEAAAQBAJ&dq=Orthonectida+taxa+mem

bers+Annelida&pg=PA331)

22. Mitochondrial Genome Evolution in Annelida—A Systematic Study on Conservative and

Variable Gene Orders and the Factors Influencing its Evolution (https://academic.oup.com/sys
bio/article/72/4/925/7135606?login=false)

23. Rouse, G. (1998). "The Annelida and their close relatives". In Anderson, D. T. (ed.). Invertebrate
Zoology. Oxford University Press. pp. 183–196. ISBN 978-0-19-551368-4.

24. Cutler, B. (August 1980). "Arthropod cuticle features and arthropod monophyly". Cellular and
Molecular Life Sciences. 36 (8): 953. doi:10.1007/BF01953812 (https://doi.org/10.1007%2FBF0
1953812) . S2CID 84995596 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:84995596) .

25. Ruppert, E. E.; Fox, R. S. & Barnes, R. D. (2004). "Introduction to Arthropoda". Invertebrate
Zoology (https://archive.org/details/isbn_9780030259821/page/523) (7th ed.). Brooks /
Cole. pp. 523–524 (https://archive.org/details/isbn_9780030259821/page/523) . ISBN 978-0-
03-025982-1.

26. Ruppert, E. E.; Fox, R. S. & Barnes, R. D. (2004). "Echiura and Sipuncula". Invertebrate Zoology (ht
tps://archive.org/details/isbn_9780030259821/page/490) (7th ed.). Brooks / Cole. pp. 490–
495 (https://archive.org/details/isbn_9780030259821/page/490) . ISBN 978-0-03-025982-1.
27. Anderson, D. T. (1998). "The Annelida and their close relatives". In Anderson, D.T. (ed.).
Invertebrate Zoology. Oxford University Press. pp. 183–196. ISBN 978-0-19-551368-4.

28. Ruppert, E. E.; Fox, R. S. & Barnes, R. D. (2004). "Nemertea". Invertebrate Zoology (https://archiv
e.org/details/isbn_9780030259821/page/271) (7th ed.). Brooks / Cole. pp. 271–282 (http
s://archive.org/details/isbn_9780030259821/page/271) . ISBN 978-0-03-025982-1.

29. Ruppert, E. E.; Fox, R. S. & Barnes, R. D. (2004). "Arthropoda". Invertebrate Zoology (https://archi
ve.org/details/isbn_9780030259821/page/518) (7th ed.). Brooks / Cole. pp. 518–521 (http
s://archive.org/details/isbn_9780030259821/page/518) . ISBN 978-0-03-025982-1.

30. Ruppert, E. E.; Fox, R. S. & Barnes, R. D. (2004). "Onychophora and Tardigrada". Invertebrate
Zoology (https://archive.org/details/isbn_9780030259821/page/505) (7th ed.). Brooks /
Cole. pp. 505–510 (https://archive.org/details/isbn_9780030259821/page/505) . ISBN 978-0-
03-025982-1.

31. Paxton, H. (June 2005). "Molting polychaete jaws—ecdysozoans are not the only molting
animals". Evolution & Development. 7 (4): 337–340. doi:10.1111/j.1525-142X.2005.05039.x (htt
ps://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1525-142X.2005.05039.x) . PMID 15982370 (https://pubmed.ncbi.n
lm.nih.gov/15982370) . S2CID 22020406 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:2202040
6) .

32. Nielsen, C. (September 2003). "Proposing a solution to the Articulata–Ecdysozoa controversy"

(http://www.museunacional.ufrj.br/mndi/Aracnologia/pdfliteratura/Nielsen%202003%20articul
ata%20vs%20ecdiso.pdf) (PDF). Zoologica Scripta. 32 (5): 475–482. doi:10.1046/j.1463-
6409.2003.00122.x (https://doi.org/10.1046%2Fj.1463-6409.2003.00122.x) . S2CID 1416582
(https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:1416582) . Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/
20090320174932/http://www.museunacional.ufrj.br/mndi/Aracnologia/pdfliteratura/Nielsen%
202003%20articulata%20vs%20ecdiso.pdf) (PDF) from the original on 20 March 2009.
Retrieved 2009-03-11.

33. The Invertebrate Tree of Life (https://books.google.com/books?id=YHetDwAAQBAJ&dq=Sipun

cula+Echiura+Lobatocerebrum+Diurodrilus+Polygordius&pg=PA399)

34. Minelli, Alessandro (2009), "Chapter 6. A gallery of the major bilaterian clades", Perspectives in
Animal Phylogeny and Evolution (https://books.google.com/books?id=jIASDAAAQBAJ) ,
Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-856620-5, p. 82: "This is the case for circular muscles,
which have been reported as absent in many families (Opheliidae, Protodrilidae, Spionidae,
Oweniidae, Aphroditidae, Acoetidae, Polynoidae, Sigalionidae, Phyllodocidae, Nephtyidae,
Pisionidae, and Nerillidae; Tzetlin et al. 2002). Tzetlin and Filippova (2005) suggest that
absence of circular muscles is possibly plesiomorphic in the Annelida."
35. Jenner, R. A. (2006). "Challenging received wisdoms: Some contributions of the new
microscopy to the new animal phylogeny" (https://doi.org/10.1093%2Ficb%2Ficj014) .
Integrative and Comparative Biology. 46 (2): 93–103. doi:10.1093/icb/icj014 (https://doi.org/10.
1093%2Ficb%2Ficj014) . PMID 21672726 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21672726) .

36. Ruppert, E. E.; Fox, R. S. & Barnes, R. D. (2004). "Annelida". Invertebrate Zoology (https://archive.
org/details/isbn_9780030259821/page/425) (7th ed.). Brooks / Cole. pp. 425–429 (https://a
rchive.org/details/isbn_9780030259821/page/425) . ISBN 978-0-03-025982-1.

37. Bok, Michael J.; Macali, Armando; Garm, Anders (2024-04-08). "High-resolution vision in
pelagic polychaetes" (https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.cub.2024.02.055) . Current Biology. 34 (7):
R269–R270. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2024.02.055 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.cub.2024.02.055) .
ISSN 0960-9822 (https://search.worldcat.org/issn/0960-9822) . PMID 38593767 (https://pub
med.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38593767) .

38. Ruppert, E.E.; Fox, R.S. & Barnes, R.D. (2004). "Introduction to Metazoa". Invertebrate Zoology (h
ttps://archive.org/details/isbn_9780030259821/page/103) (7th ed.). Brooks / Cole. pp. 103–
104 (https://archive.org/details/isbn_9780030259821/page/103) . ISBN 978-0-03-025982-1.

39. Ruppert, E.E.; Fox, R.S. & Barnes, R.D. (2004). "Annelida". Invertebrate Zoology (https://archive.or
g/details/isbn_9780030259821/page/423) (7th ed.). Brooks / Cole. pp. 423–425 (https://arc
hive.org/details/isbn_9780030259821/page/423) . ISBN 978-0-03-025982-1.

40. Ruppert, E.E.; Fox, R.S. & Barnes, R.D. (2004). "Introduction to Bilateria". Invertebrate Zoology (ht
tps://archive.org/details/isbn_9780030259821/page/196) (7th ed.). Brooks / Cole. pp. 196–
224 (https://archive.org/details/isbn_9780030259821/page/196) . ISBN 978-0-03-025982-1.

41. Ruppert, E. E.; Fox, R. S. & Barnes, R. D. (2004). "Annelida". Invertebrate Zoology (https://archive.
org/details/isbn_9780030259821/page/434) (7th ed.). Brooks / Cole. pp. 434–441 (https://a
rchive.org/details/isbn_9780030259821/page/434) . ISBN 978-0-03-025982-1.

42. Ruppert, E. E.; Fox, R. S. & Barnes, R. D. (2004). "Annelida". Invertebrate Zoology (https://archive.
org/details/isbn_9780030259821/page/466) (7th ed.). Brooks / Cole. pp. 466–469 (https://a
rchive.org/details/isbn_9780030259821/page/466) . ISBN 978-0-03-025982-1.

43. Ruppert, E. E.; Fox, R. S. & Barnes, R. D. (2004). "Annelida". Invertebrate Zoology (https://archive.
org/details/isbn_9780030259821/page/477) (7th ed.). Brooks / Cole. pp. 477–478 (https://a
rchive.org/details/isbn_9780030259821/page/477) . ISBN 978-0-03-025982-1.

44. Hickman, Cleveland; Roberts, L.; Keen, S.; Larson, A.; Eisenhour, D. (2007). Animal Diversity
(4th ed.). New York: Mc Graw Hill. p. 204. ISBN 978-0-07-252844-2.
45. Ruppert, E.E.; Fox, R.S. & Barnes, R.D. (2004). "Mollusca". Invertebrate Zoology (7th ed.). Brooks
/ Cole. pp. 290–291. ISBN 0030259827.

46. Rouse, G. (1998). "The Annelida and their close relatives". In Anderson, D. T. (ed.). Invertebrate
Zoology. Oxford University Press. pp. 196–202. ISBN 978-0-19-551368-4.

47. Siddall, M. E.; Borda, E.; Rouse, G. W. (2004). "Towards a tree of life for Annelida" (https://book
s.google.com/books?id=6lXTP0YU6_kC&q=annelid+food+eat&pg=PA237) . In Cracraft, J.;
Donoghue, M. J. (eds.). Assembling the tree of life. Oxford University Press. pp. 237–248.
ISBN 978-0-19-517234-8.

48. New, T. R. (2005). Invertebrate conservation and agricultural ecosystems (https://books.google.c

om/books?id=bwqGf_JK3HcC&q=annelid+ecosystem&pg=PA44) . Cambridge University
Press. pp. 44–46. ISBN 978-0-521-53201-3.

49. Nancarrow, L.; Taylor, J. H. (1998). The worm book (https://books.google.com/books?id=U9uQ

VXCzmGcC&q=annelid+ecosystem&pg=PA139) . Ten Speed Press. pp. 2–6. ISBN 978-0-
89815-994-3. Retrieved 2009-04-02.

50. Edwards, C. A.; Bohlen, P. J. (1996). "Earthworm ecology: communities" (https://books.google.c

om/books?id=ad4rDwD_GhsC&q=earliest+oligochaete+clitellate+fossil+&pg=PT7) . Biology
and ecology of earthworms. Springer. pp. 124–126. ISBN 978-0-412-56160-3. Retrieved
2009-04-12.

51. Scaps, P. (February 2002). "A review of the biology, ecology and potential use of the common
ragworm Hediste diversicolor". Hydrobiologia. 470 (1–3): 203–218.
doi:10.1023/A:1015681605656 (https://doi.org/10.1023%2FA%3A1015681605656) .
S2CID 22669841 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:22669841) .

52. Sell, F. E. (2008). "The humble worm – with a difference" (https://books.google.com/books?id=

t_8tfWmRmmQC&q=worm+fishing+angler+bait&pg=PA14) . Practical Fresh Water Fishing.
Read Books. pp. 14–15. ISBN 978-1-4437-6157-4.

53. "Rags to riches" (http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11785227) .

The Economist. July 2008. Retrieved 2009-04-20.

54. Rouse, G. (1998). "The Annelida and their close relatives". In Anderson, D. T. (ed.). Invertebrate
Zoology. Oxford University Press. p. 202. ISBN 978-0-19-551368-4.
55. Briggs, D. E. G.; Kear, A. J. (1993). "Decay and preservation of polychaetes; taphonomic
thresholds in soft-bodied organisms" (http://paleobiol.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstra
ct/19/1/107) . Paleobiology. 19 (1): 107–135. Bibcode:1993Pbio...19..107B (https://ui.adsab
s.harvard.edu/abs/1993Pbio...19..107B) . doi:10.1017/S0094837300012343 (https://doi.org/
10.1017%2FS0094837300012343) . S2CID 84073818 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/Corpu
sID:84073818) .

56. Miller, A. J. (2004). "A Revised Morphology of Cloudina with Ecological and Phylogenetic
Implications" (http://ajm.pioneeringprojects.org/files/CloudinaPaper_Final.pdf) (PDF).
Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20090327010536/http://ajm.pioneeringprojects.org/fil
es/CloudinaPaper_Final.pdf) (PDF) from the original on 27 March 2009. Retrieved
2009-04-12.

57. Vinn, O.; Zatoń, M. (2012). "Inconsistencies in proposed annelid affinities of early
biomineralized organism Cloudina (Ediacaran): structural and ontogenetic evidences" (https://
web.archive.org/web/20130711114507/http://paleopolis.rediris.es/cg/CG2012_A03/index.ht
ml) . Carnets de Géologie (CG2012_A03): 39–47. doi:10.4267/2042/46095 (https://doi.org/10.
4267%2F2042%2F46095) . Archived from the original (http://paleopolis.rediris.es/cg/CG2012
_A03/index.html) on 2013-07-11. Retrieved 2012-08-29.

58. Dzik, J. (2004). "Anatomy and relationships of the Early Cambrian worm Myoscolex". Zoologica
Scripta. 33 (1): 57–69. doi:10.1111/j.1463-6409.2004.00136.x (https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.14
63-6409.2004.00136.x) . S2CID 85216629 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:852166
29) .

59. Budd, G. E.; Jensen, S. (May 2000). "A critical reappraisal of the fossil record of the bilaterian
phyla". Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society. 75 (2): 253–95.
doi:10.1111/j.1469-185X.1999.tb00046.x (https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1469-185X.1999.tb000
46.x) . PMID 10881389 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10881389) . S2CID 39772232 (htt
ps://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:39772232) .

60. Vinn, O.; Mutvei, H. (2009). "Calcareous tubeworms of the Phanerozoic" (http://www.eap.ee/pu
blic/Estonian_Journal_of_Earth_Sciences/2009/issue_4/earth-2009-4-286-296.pdf) (PDF).
Estonian Journal of Earth Sciences. 58 (4): 286–296. doi:10.3176/earth.2009.4.07 (https://doi.o
rg/10.3176%2Fearth.2009.4.07) .

61. Humphreys, G.S. (2003). "Evolution of terrestrial burrowing invertebrates" (http://crcleme.org.a

u/Pubs/Advancesinregolith/Humphreys.pdf) (PDF). In Roach, I.C. (ed.). Advances in Regolith.
CRC LEME. pp. 211–215. ISBN 978-0-7315-5221-4. Retrieved 2009-04-13.
62. Retallack, G.J. (1997). "Palaeosols in the upper Narrabeen Group of New South Wales as
evidence of Early Triassic palaeoenvironments without exact modern analogues" (http://www.u
oregon.edu/~gregr/Papers/new%20south%20wales.pdf) (PDF). Australian Journal of Earth
Sciences. 44 (2): 185–201. Bibcode:1997AuJES..44..185R (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/
1997AuJES..44..185R) . doi:10.1080/08120099708728303 (https://doi.org/10.1080%2F0812
0099708728303) . Retrieved 2009-04-13.

63. Conway Morris, S.; Pickerill, R.K.; Harland, T.L. (1982). "A possible annelid from the Trenton
Limestone (Ordovician) of Quebec, with a review of fossil oligochaetes and other annulate
worms". Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences. 19 (11): 2150–2157.
Bibcode:1982CaJES..19.2150M (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982CaJES..19.2150M) .
doi:10.1139/e82-189 (https://doi.org/10.1139%2Fe82-189) .

64. Rouse, G. W.; Fauchald, K. (1997). "Cladistics and polychaetes". Zoologica Scripta. 26 (2): 139–
204. doi:10.1111/j.1463-6409.1997.tb00412.x (https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1463-6409.1997.t
b00412.x) . S2CID 86797269 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:86797269) .

65. Rouse, G. W.; Pleijel, F.; McHugh, D. (August 2002). "Annelida. Annelida. Segmented worms:
bristleworms, ragworms, earthworms, leeches and their allies" (http://tolweb.org/Annelida) .
The Tree of Life Web Project. Tree of Life Project. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20090
412090437/http://tolweb.org/Annelida) from the original on 12 April 2009. Retrieved
2009-04-13.

66. A group of worms classified by some as polychaetes and by others as clitellates, see Rouse &
Fauchald (1997) "Cladistics and polychaetes"

67. McHugh, D. (1997). "Molecular evidence that echiurans and pogonophorans are derived
annelids" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC21546) . Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 94 (15): 8006–8009.
Bibcode:1997PNAS...94.8006M (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997PNAS...94.8006M) .
doi:10.1073/pnas.94.15.8006 (https://doi.org/10.1073%2Fpnas.94.15.8006) . PMC 21546 (ht
tps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC21546) . PMID 9223304 (https://pubmed.ncbi.
nlm.nih.gov/9223304) .

68. Halanych, K.M. (2004). "The new view of animal phylogeny" (http://www-fourier.ujf-grenoble.fr/
~dpiau/cdem/130124b.pdf) (PDF). Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics. 35:
229–256. doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.35.112202.130124 (https://doi.org/10.1146%2Fannure
v.ecolsys.35.112202.130124) . Retrieved 2009-04-17.
69. "Reading trees: A quick review" (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/phylogenetics_
02) . University of California Museum of Paleontology. Archived (https://web.archive.org/we
b/20090415072142/http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/phylogenetics_02) from
the original on 15 April 2009. Retrieved 2009-04-13.

70. Struck, T.; Golombek, Anja; et al. (2015). "The Evolution of Annelids Reveals Two Adaptive
Routes to the Interstitial Realm" (https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.cub.2015.06.007) . Current
Biology. 25 (15): 1993–1999. Bibcode:2015CBio...25.1993S (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/ab
s/2015CBio...25.1993S) . doi:10.1016/j.cub.2015.06.007 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.cub.20
15.06.007) . PMID 26212885 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26212885) .
S2CID 12919216 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:12919216) .

71. Weigert, Anne; Bleidorn, Christoph (2015). "Current status of annelid phylogeny". Organisms
Diversity & Evolution. 16 (2): 345–362. doi:10.1007/s13127-016-0265-7 (https://doi.org/10.100
7%2Fs13127-016-0265-7) . S2CID 5353873 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:53538
73) .

72. Marotta, Roberto; Ferraguti, Marco; Erséus, Christer; Gustavsson, Lena M. (2008). "Combined-
data phylogenetics and character evolution of Clitellata (Annelida) using 18S rDNA and
morphology" (https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1096-3642.2008.00408.x) . Zoological Journal of
the Linnean Society. 154: 1–26. doi:10.1111/j.1096-3642.2008.00408.x (https://doi.org/10.111
1%2Fj.1096-3642.2008.00408.x) .

73. Christoffersen, Martin Lindsey (1 January 2012). "Phylogeny of basal descendants of cocoon-
forming annelids (Clitellata)" (https://journals.tubitak.gov.tr/zoology/vol36/iss1/9/) . Turkish
Journal of Zoology. 36 (1): 95–119. doi:10.3906/zoo-1002-27 (https://doi.org/10.3906%2Fzoo-
1002-27) . S2CID 83066199 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:83066199) .

74. Struck TH (2019). "Phylogeny". In Purschke G, Böggemann M, Westheide W (eds.). Handbook of

Zoology: Annelida. Vol. 1: Annelida Basal Groups and Pleistoannelida, Sedentaria I. De Gruyter.
pp. 37–68. doi:10.1515/9783110291582-002 (https://doi.org/10.1515%2F9783110291582-00
2) . ISBN 9783110291469. S2CID 242569001 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:242
569001) .

75. Dunn, CW; Hejnol, A; Matus, DQ; Pang, K; Browne, WE; Smith, SA; Seaver, E; Rouse, GW; Obst, M
(2008). "Broad phylogenomic sampling improves resolution of the animal tree of life". Nature.
452 (7188): 745–749. Bibcode:2008Natur.452..745D (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008
Natur.452..745D) . doi:10.1038/nature06614 (https://doi.org/10.1038%2Fnature06614) .
PMID 18322464 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18322464) . S2CID 4397099 (https://api.s
emanticscholar.org/CorpusID:4397099) .
76. Aguinaldo, A. M. A.; J. M. Turbeville; L. S. Linford; M. C. Rivera; J. R. Garey; R. A. Raff; J. A. Lake
(1997). "Evidence for a clade of nematodes, arthropods and other moulting animals". Nature.
387 (6632): 489–493. Bibcode:1997Natur.387R.489A (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997
Natur.387R.489A) . doi:10.1038/387489a0 (https://doi.org/10.1038%2F387489a0) .
PMID 9168109 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9168109) . S2CID 4334033 (https://api.sem
anticscholar.org/CorpusID:4334033) .

77. Shankland, M.; Seaver, E.C. (April 2000). "Evolution of the bilaterian body plan: What have we
learned from annelids?" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC34316) .
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 97 (9): 4434–
4437. Bibcode:2000PNAS...97.4434S (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000PNAS...97.4434
S) . doi:10.1073/pnas.97.9.4434 (https://doi.org/10.1073%2Fpnas.97.9.4434) . PMC 34316
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC34316) . PMID 10781038 (https://pubmed.n
cbi.nlm.nih.gov/10781038) .

78. Pearson, R.D. (2003). "The Determined Embryo" (https://books.google.com/books?id=65Bdfy-S

OyMC&q=spiral+determinate+cleavage&pg=PA67) . In Hall, B.K.; Pearson, R.D.; Müller, G.B.
(eds.). Environment, Development, and Evolution. MIT Press. pp. 67–69. ISBN 978-0-262-08319-
5. Retrieved 2009-07-03.

79. Guo, Jin; Parry, Luke A.; Vinther, Jakob; Edgecombe, Gregory D.; Wei, Fan; Zhao, Jun; Zhao,
Yang; Béthoux, Olivier; Lei, Xiangtong; Chen, Ailin; Hou, Xianguang; Chen, Taimin; Cong, Peiyun
(2022). "A Cambrian tommotiid preserving soft tissues reveals the metameric ancestry of
lophophorates" (https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.cub.2022.09.011) . Current Biology. 32 (21):
S0960–9822(22)01455–5. Bibcode:2022CBio...32E4769G (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/
2022CBio...32E4769G) . doi:10.1016/j.cub.2022.09.011 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.cub.202
2.09.011) . ISSN 1879-0445 (https://search.worldcat.org/issn/1879-0445) . PMID 36170853
(https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36170853) .

External links

Media related to Annelida at Wikimedia Commons

Data related to Annelida at Wikispecies