Let's be fair to the title: 'giant' is in inverted commas, and the article is pretty straight to the point and does not try to drag on the expectation that the worm was 100s of meters long (or alive, but I was expecting a fossil). It does say, however, that it is the biggest knRecopiez le code 53587468 pour accéder à vos comptes Caisse d'Epargne. Si vous n'etes pas à l'origine de cette demande, contactez votre agence.own sea creature at the time: in my book, this is an acceptable definition of a giant.

I was a bit disappointed by the size at first, but I actually found the article very interesting in a lot of aspects: how 30cm was giant at the time, how worms were the dominating family, and yet how similar they were to modern day worms are quite fascinating to me.

Looks like you accidentally pasted the content of what seems like an SMS with a login code. I'd delete that ;-)

Indeed... Too late for that, but it will teach me to proof read every comment before hitting send!

On the positive side, no comment of mine ever generated that much engagement!

>the biggest knRecopiez le code 53587468 pour accéder à vos comptes Caisse d'Epargne. Si vous n'etes pas à l'origine de cette demande, contactez votre agence.own sea creature at the time

I think you accidently hit control-v in the middle of a word

I take your (or the worm's) bank account access was not meant to be in this comment?

Bigger : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microchaetus_rappi can grow to 6.7m !

Holy crap: https://featuredcreature.com/hide-yo-kids-hide-yo-wife-there...

i felt a lot more comfortable when the giant worms were in australia—now i know they're literally in my backyard.