The diversity of segmented worms was gradually recognized during the 18th century and referred to a special type of animal, distinct from insects and other groups. The relationship of microdriles with earthworms was suspected, thanks to the pioneering work of Rösel, Schäffer and Müller. However, annelids could not be diagnosed correctly, nor could any reliable classification be elaborated, as long as life forms were grouped by body shape, ‘degree of perfection’ (morphoanatomical or behavioural complexity), type of reproduction (sexual/asexual) or other aspects considered in isolation, as practised by Bonnet, Linnaeus and, later, Lamarck and Ehrenberg. The different attitude of Pallas and Cuvier, based on a rigorous anatomical/physiological evaluation, led to the unveiling of the interrelationships between the most varied forms and the specificities of the annelid body plan. In particular, Cuvier’s deep understanding of the internal structures of animals allowed him to recognize, at the close of the 18th century, the kinship between microdriles, megadriles and leeches. The reinterpretation of two episodes of oligochaete bioluminescence, one in France, the other, hitherto neglected, in Siberia, provides a good illustration of the state of knowledge of clitellates in the early 1770s. Neither species was named at the time, yet both were characterized sufficiently to be identified unequivocally today.

中文翻译：

---

探索启蒙时代及以后的环节动物：分类和生物发光

分段蠕虫的多样性在 18 世纪逐渐得到认可，并被称为一种特殊类型的动物，不同于昆虫和其他群体。由于 Rösel、Schäffer 和 Müller 的开创性工作，人们怀疑微钻与蚯蚓的关系。然而，环节动物无法正确诊断，也无法详细说明任何可靠的分类，只要生命形式按体型、“完美程度”（形态解剖学或行为复杂性）、繁殖类型（有性/无性）或其他孤立地考虑的各个方面，正如 Bonnet、Linnaeus 以及后来的 Lamarck 和 Ehrenberg 所实践的那样。Pallas 和 Cuvier 的不同态度，基于严格的解剖学/生理学评估，揭示了最多样化的形式与环节动物身体计划的特殊性之间的相互关系。特别是，居维叶对动物内部结构的深刻理解使他能够在 18 世纪末认识到微型水蛭、巨型水蛭和水蛭之间的亲缘关系。对两期寡毛纲生物发光的重新解释，一期在法国，另一期在西伯利亚至今被忽视，很好地说明了 1770 年代早期的 clitellates 知识状况。这两个物种当时都没有被命名，但两者的特征都足以在今天明确地识别出来。巨型水蛭和水蛭。对两期寡毛纲生物发光的重新解释，一期在法国，另一期在西伯利亚迄今被忽视，很好地说明了 1770 年代早期对 clitellates 的知识状况。这两个物种当时都没有被命名，但两者的特征都足以在今天明确地识别出来。巨型水蛭和水蛭。对两期寡毛纲生物发光的重新解释，一期在法国，另一期在西伯利亚迄今被忽视，很好地说明了 1770 年代早期对 clitellates 的知识状况。这两个物种当时都没有被命名，但两者的特征都足以在今天明确地识别出来。