Talk:Giant Palouse earthworm

Untitled

I apologize if this comment doesn't conform perfectly to the style rules here. I'm new at this! So, I found a recent article on the worm that could provide some updated information: [1] Rajsandhu1 (talk) 18:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Updated information on 7/25/11 available at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Link provided below.

[2]

Below is an excerpt from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife New Release:

Giant Palouse Earthworm Not Warranted for ESA Protections; FWS Contacts: Doug Zimmer, (360) 753-4370

A large white earthworm (Driloleius americanus) native to portions of Idaho and Washington will not be granted protection under the Federal Endangered Species Act, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced today. Federal biologists say recent information indicates the elusive worm, known as the giant Palouse earthworm, may be more widespread than previously thought and they need more information before providing protections that might come with an ESA listing.

"We have a lot of questions yet to answer about this species," said Robyn Thorson, Director of the Service's Pacific Region. "According to recent information, they may be more widespread and exist in more habitat types than we previously thought. We also don't know if they are a deep-burrowing species that forages on the surface or a more shallow-burrowing species that forages in top soil layers - questions that are relevant to assessing potential threats to the species. If we don't know where these animals live and we can't determine the level and type of threats, we cannot determine whether the protection of the Act is required."

"We do not know yet whether the giant Palouse earthworm is simply a difficult to find species, a naturally rare species, or a species that is rare and at risk from various threats," Thorson added.

Additional information available from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service website [www.fws.gov] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ladyilene (talk • contribs) 00:18, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

additional source and possible replacement image

Here is another source - [3]. The article has an excellent image, and AP image. The image we currently have on the article is also a non-free image, with a rational - perhaps it would be worthwhile for someone to review and see if this clearer and complete image of the subject would be a better choice. --Jordan 1972 (talk) 15:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)