![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 August 2021 and 6 December 2021. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Emily.irvin. Peer reviewers:
BrittanyU,
CEPayne.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 05:29, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
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? 145.253.108.22 15:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
It isn't suborder. Nudibranch is order. dumb —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.184.44.202 ( talk) 02:08, August 30, 2007 (UTC)
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 68.98.59.103 ( talk) 03:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Order v. suborder? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.156.173 ( talk) 15:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
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? -- 75.154.186.241 ( talk) 08:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
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 ( talk • contribs) 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
71.35.136.67 (
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 71.35.136.67 ( talk)
References
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 ( talk • contribs)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 August 2021 and 6 December 2021. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Emily.irvin. Peer reviewers:
BrittanyU,
CEPayne.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 05:29, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
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? 145.253.108.22 15:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
It isn't suborder. Nudibranch is order. dumb —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.184.44.202 ( talk) 02:08, August 30, 2007 (UTC)
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 68.98.59.103 ( talk) 03:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Order v. suborder? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.156.173 ( talk) 15:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
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? -- 75.154.186.241 ( talk) 08:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
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 ( talk • contribs) 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
71.35.136.67 (
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 71.35.136.67 ( talk)
References
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 ( talk • contribs)