> growing to more than 30cm in length
> growing to more than 30cm in length
So between the disappointment in the size of 'giant' and the age vs fossil age, this is a pretty big let down of a title.
Now maybe I'm a bit of an idiot for even a second believing any creature could be hundreds of millions of years old - but in the flip side once you take away both of those qualifiers (giant and old) there isn't much story here to be much interest. Or at least not to me.
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.
On the positive side, no comment of mine ever generated that much engagement!
I think you accidently hit control-v in the middle of a word