From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


The head is at the front-end, hey? should i just change that to "head is at right of image"? sippawitz

So where are the myxolidids and the ionids? -phma 12:11, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

/* Description */ Edited to read "Because sea slugs, in the course of evolution, have lost their shell, they have had to evolve another means of defense:" but could simply be "they evolved" rather than "they have had to evolve".--Bruce Couper 23:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah that made no sense. Supposedly nothing evolves unless it's beneficial anyway, so if the lack of a shell harmed them, they wouldn't have evolved it until they were already colorful and "didnt need it" anymore. Not that I believe in such fantasy. ^_~

it says maximum length 60m!! Is that right? 15:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[]

It isn't suborder. Nudibranch is order. dumb —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:08, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

Please read the Taxonomy section of the article. JoJan 12:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[]

waka waka waka[edit]

I believe that the nudibranch eggs thumbnailed on the left take away from the visual presentation as you scroll down the page. Does anyone else think a different thumbnail would be appropriate? Also, needs more Chromodoris Elisabethina —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[]


Order v. suborder? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[]

According to species:Nudibranchia, it is a suborder of order Opisthobranchia, which article agrees. And, as you note, this article's lead and taxobox contradict one another. I'll update the taxobox, as most other agree it's a suborder, but welcome review: I'm in no way even trying to keep up with the taxonomists.  :-P — the Sidhekin (talk) 16:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[]
Ah, right, I had to update the subdivision ranks as well. And, it turns out, their names as well. Opisthobranchia and [[species:Nudibranchia] both give two infraorders, so I went with that. Again, I'm just copying info around, so someone who knows this stuff should review. — the Sidhekin (talk) 16:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[]
This article needs a complete overhaul, but then in terms of cladistics, according to the newer taxonomy of Bouchet & Rocroi. JoJan (talk) 08:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[]

A record breaking member[edit]

And what would that member be? GrahamBould (talk) 19:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[]


So does marine sea slug release mucus to attachment themselves to seabeds? Are their freshwater slugs? -- (talk) 08:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[]

Defensive behavior[edit]

I edited this section for readability and removed the discussion about whether the evolutionary theory of aposematism 'makes sense'. This deleted material (quoted below) seems more appropriate for the aposematism entry itself. BMbiobear (talk) 01:56, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[]

"Evolutionarily, aposematic coloring does not make sense: a bright, conspicuous novel color form would likely be prone to attack before having the chance to reproduce. One explanation for this apparent paradox is the idea of dietary conservatism in predators. This behavior, which involves avoidance of novel food sources, has been shown in many species of predatory birds, with some examples so strong that birds will starve before eating an unfamiliar prey[1]." — Preceding unsigned comment added by BMbiobear (talkcontribs) 01:55, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[]

I agree with removing the opinion on aposematism "not making sense", but unfortunately it appears that the text is still in the article. Whoever wrote that "evolutionarily, aposematic coloring doesn't make sense" doesn't know what they're talking about. Aposematism is a direct result of evolution, and likewise, avoidance behavior of aposematic coloration is obviously just as strongly selected for. These can be considered 'arms' in the evolutionary 'arms race'. -ja 16:20, 18 March 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

I have removed the sentences discussing the author's opinion of the evolutionary significance of aposematic coloration. Besides its inaccurate assertion (see above), it would be more appropriate in the Talk page of Aposematism. -ja 16:31, 18 March 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)


  1. ^ Marples, N. M., D. J. Kelly, and R. J. Thomas. 2005. Perspective: The evolution of warning coloration is not paradoxical. Evolution 59:933-940


What eats nudibranches? Yes, they may be toxic, but so are the things they eat. That suggests that they suffer predation themselves. No? - Denimadept (talk) 21:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[]

sulphuric acid[edit]

anonIP added "A unique feature of the nudibranch is that it can secrete sulphuric acid." to the lead. Frankly, seems improbable as a defining feature of the group, but not inconceivable (with some qualifications) for some species. Either way, citation would be needed. Cesiumfrog (talk) 11:09, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[]

You can find a reference here : [1]. JoJan (talk) 14:34, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[]
But the source does not say that all nudibranchs secrete sulfuric acid.--Mr Fink (talk) 16:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[]

Where to put this?[edit]

I just now contracted the article Sea slug to a disambiguation page, and now have this large quote left over. Any suggestions as to where it might be useful, (if anywhere?). Invertzoo (talk) 15:33, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[]

Actually sea slug is now back to being an article again, but I still feel that this section might be better off somewhere else other than in that article. Any ideas? Invertzoo (talk) 00:03, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[]

  • In 1884, in his book, Evenings at the Microscope, P. H. Gosse said the following: "If you ask what can be the use of ears to a class of animals which are invariably dumb, I answer that though this is true with respect to the great majority, yet it may be only that our senses are too dull to perceive the delicate sounds which they utter, and which may be sufficiently audible to their more sensitive organs; and besides, some Mollusca can certainly emit sounds audible by us. Two very elegant species of Sea-slug, viz., Eolis punctata [now known as Facelina annulicornis], and Tritonia arborescens, certainly produce audible sounds. Professor Grant, who first observed the interesting fact in some specimens of the latter which he was keeping in an aquarium, says of the sounds, that they resemble very much the clink of a steel wire on the side of the jar, one stroke only been given at a time, and repeated at intervals of a minute or two; when placed in a large basin of water the sound is much obscured, and is like that of a watch, one stroke being repeated, as before, at intervals. The sound is longest and oftenest repeated when the Tritonia) are lively and moving about, and is not heard when they are cold and without any motion; in the dark I have not observed any light emitted at the time of the stroke; no globule of air escapes to the surface of the water, nor is any ripple produced on the surface at the instant of the stroke ; the sound, when in a glass vessel, is mellow and distinct."
  • The Professor has kept these Tritonia alive in his room for a month, and during the whole period of their confinement they have continued to produce the sounds with very little diminution of their original intensity. In a small apartment they are audible at the distance of twelve feet. "The sounds obviously proceed from the mouth of the animal; and at the instant of the stroke, we observe the lips suddenly separate, as if to allow the the water to rush into a small vacuum formed within. As these animals are hermaphrodites, requiring mutual impregnation, the sounds may possibly be a means of communication between them; or, if they are of an electric nature, they may be the means of defending from foreign enemies one of the most delicate, defenceless, and beautiful Gasteropods that inhabit the deep." reference: Evenings at the Microscope, P.H. Gosse FRS, 1884 edn. p57

I suggest rather than maintaining this huge quote, simply reduce it to one sentence (with inline citation) in either bioacoustics or animal communication. In fact, you could have a paragraph that begins with a sentence noting that most underwater animals appear not to use sound (e.g. cite The Silent World (book)), then note the obvious exception of marine mammals (ideally perhaps citing some of the research into how mammal ears are specially derived from jaw bones which no doubt has evolutionary implications for the relative universality of sound communication in mammals as compared to nonmammals), then mention these less prominent but probably more widespread exceptions (acknowledging that the purpose of such sound is unknown and could even be a purposeless side-effect/spandrel (biology).. after all, it is physically implausible for anything to be perfectly silent unless it is absolutely motionless and inert..). Cesiumfrog (talk) 14:53, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[]

Vandalism or just Terrible Editing?[edit]

The introduction to this section contains so many poorly chosen words and outright errors that I can't help but feel that it is intentional vandalism. For example, '...wiggly, silly looking marine gastropod molluscs which also happen to be little guys.' 'Little guys'? Clearly this is someone having fun at the readers' expense. The following descends into outright mockery and falsehood: 'The word "see rabbit" comes from the English rabbit and the English see. 'See rabbits are often casually called ocean bunnies.' Of course it's 'sea rabbit'. And while there is a species of sea slug referred to as 'ocean bunny' it's only one species, not all nudibranaches. Unfortunately, this page now requires a heavy revision from someone well versed in malacology, which I am not.— Preceding unsigned comment added by RobotBoy66 (talkcontribs)

Thanks for noticing this, the last edit on the page introduced all of these changes so I have reverted them as vandalism and notified the user, particularly given the attempt to hide the change as a minor edit. |→ Spaully ~talk~  09:53, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[]