Talk:Lumbricus rubellus

Anyone understand why this article has the note:

This Tree of Life article needs to be cleaned up to conform to a higher standard of quality. This may include adding a taxonomy box or adding correct categorization, as well as any other cleaning up.

??? Brallan 10:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

L. Rubellus = E. Fetida?!
I removed this extraordinary claim for being unsourced: It [L. rubellus] is one of the species of earthworm commonly claimed for used in vermiculture although each instance, on proper inspection, has been found to be Eisenia fetida. 198.189.164.204 (talk) 23:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Citation
One of the Edwards & Lofty citations says 1983. Is this right? One of the other articles had the year 1983 on it, but if there was another edition by E/L, it wasn't cited. 128.189.154.92 (talk) 08:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I removed the bit about misspellings -- firstly, it added nothing to the article, and secondly, I've never seen them misspelt that way before. jake b (talk) 20:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Epigeic, endogeic, anecic?
The article doesn't say wheter this particular species is epigeic, endogeic or anecic. For those who don't know, this is a common classification of earthworms, according which part of the soil they live on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.13.156.157 (talk) 14:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)