Talk:Nudibranch

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)

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)

You can find a reference here : . 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)

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)

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)

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)

1. Division into Nudibranchia sensu strictu and Doridida. In Korshunova et al. (2025), the authors restrict Nudibranchia to include only taxa traditionally placed under Cladobranchia, and reinstated Doridida as an order including the dorids. Changes which I added to the taxonomy section of the article, but should these rank changes also result in the restriction of the Nudibranch wiki article to Nudibranchia sensu strictu?

These rank changes have been employed by WoRMS, and have been used in various articles, although all with the involvement of the main authors, usually as simple name-drops (Korshunova et al., 2020; Martynov et al., 2022; Moles et al., 2024) and more recently in Korshunova & Martynov (2026), where they re-establish their diagnostic traits and included subclades.

The authors justify this decision, as I wrote in the Taxonomy section, on: 1) the recurrent recovery of each group as strong monophyletic sister clades; 2) the distinguishable morphology, arrangement and homology of dorid gills (predominantly dorsal and modified into a circle, and homological to the lateral gill of the order Pleurobranchida); 3) the use of such ranks in their first taxonomic introduction; 4) the importance in separating major differences in patterns of organization at higher taxonomic scales.

If we are to accept these changes, which I think is reasonable considering the stance of WoRMS and the history of publication of the authors in the field, should we:

• Split and Keep: separate the content of Nudibranch into Nudibranchia (sensu strictu) and Doridida (perhaps by just repurposing Doridina), while keeping nudibranch as a colloquial name for both clades (something like Mangrove crab, for lack of better example), if "nudibranch" is understood as generally used for both groups.
• Split and NOT Keep: separate in the same way, while not keeping a colloquial Nudibranch article. Nudibranchia gets the "nudibranchs", Doridida gets the "dorid nudibranchs" or "dorids".
• NOT Split: have both orders represented in this article, long term or for the time being.

2. Updating nudibranch taxonomy. Many of the Wikipedia articles still employ the Bouchet & Rocroi (2005) or the Bouchet et al. (2017) taxonomy, taxonomies which precede several detailed molecular phylogenetic analysis, taxa descriptions, and shifts in taxonomic arrangement, most relevantly family assignments. I, therefore, also propose we restructure it according to Korshunova et al. (2025), also mostly followed by WoRMS, except in some clade name endings (which the authors complain about in Korshunova & Martynov (2026) anyway), and the position of some families has not been updated.

I would like to hear the oppinion of the community on this issue. Thank you. Sclerotized (talk) 22:40, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Split and keep. It looks like the boiler plate lead sentence for dorids includes "dorid nudibranch" (with dorid not linked). I'm not sure how much work it would take to update nudibranch taxonomy, but having to change links in the lead of every dorid article will add quite a bit more work. I assume if nudibranch remains a colloquial name, many articles wouldn't need to be changed outside of the taxobox (and with automatic taxoboxes largely adopted for gastropods, relatively few edits can propagate across many taxoboxes). Plantdrew (talk) 02:47, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

There are 1,112 articles] with "dorid nudibranch".  —  Jts1882 | talk  12:04, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

It's a tricky one. At one level, nudibranch clearly refers to Nudibranchia, but the traditional vernacular nudibranch (which will qualify as the wikipedia common names) refers to a group that includes dorids. The primary division seems to be between Nudibranchs ("naked gills") and Pleurobranchs ("side gills"), but is that an anatomic dichotomy. Are the side gills of pleurobranchs naked? If so the vernacular nudibranch could be used more broadly to refer to Neuropleura. With that confusion, it's best to use scientific names for the article title. With a name change this article can be edited to reflect the new taxonomy. Given the history, dorids shouldn't be removed totally. The article already has a historical account of how the taxonomy evolved, which can be updated. A new article for Doridida is needed.  —  Jts1882 | talk  17:48, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

I worked in the Pleurobranchida page some time ago and I do not recall ever seeing them described as "nudibranches", more so "side-gilled slugs", so placing the vernacular usage at Nudipleura does not seem fitting to me. Sclerotized (talk) 19:59, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

I did not take a proper stance in my original post, but I think I'd favour Split and Keep. Dorids seem to have a solid indentity of their own, as seen in many of their vernacular names in sea-life photography circles, but they also seem to be well established inside the nudibranch identity, and appear as such in many science communication pieces. I'd even argue that some dorids (like Chromodoris willani, Nembrotha kubaryana or Jorunna parva) are the main image that comes to many peoples minds when they think of a nudibranch. The crowned nudibranch, Polycera capensis, has a well established vernacular name as nudibranch, for example. Sclerotized (talk) 20:14, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

• Do not split. First of all, Cladobranchia already exists as a separate article, as does Doridina. More importantly however, many sources discussing Nudibranchia before the split will be referring to the larger clads. Presenting them and the text based on them as now only applying to part of that class is misrepresenting them. CMD (talk) 03:29, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks for the response. What you are proposing seems to me not that far out of line with the Split and Keep option: have 2 separate articles discussing each of the two monophyletic groups and this article discussing the vernacular usage, which comprises these two sister groups. Doridina can have a name change to Doridida. The new Nudibranchia sensu strictu was restricted to be somewhat equivalent to Cladobranchia, so we could repurpose that article for that, but I'd be in favour of keeping it as an historical grouping article due to the longevity of its usage.

  On Cladobranchia and Doridina: As the article stands, both groups are presented and discussed as member of Order Nudibranchia and under the same taxobox with such a name. The Cladobranchia and Doridina articles are presented as if they are still accepted, in this article and their own. This does not follow their current organization, and it seems of importance that content on Wikipedia represents current understanding and taxonomic organization of the group. If the novel usage in taxonomic circles clashes with its vernacular usage what we can do is explain and inform readers of that clash in the text of the article and/or represent it in how we organize articles by creating articles for each usage.

  On sources: Any non-updating source will eventually go outdated in at least certain aspects of its content, and the usage of Nudibranchia sensu latu seems to now be among that content. If we use sources prior to the split and that refer to Nudibranchia, we should understand them as a product of the taxonomic scheme used at the time, use them under those contexts and understand their limitations. This is what we already do when families or other clades have new taxa added or removed at some point that change their distribution or morphological range, or really any new revolution in understanding in any field happens. If novel reliable sources are contradicting sources that precede them, not updating information or the organization of articles is misrepresenting current understanding. Sclerotized (talk) 16:35, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

  Talking about "vernacular usage" is entirely OR at this point. This is an extremely recent taxonomic shift, there's not been a chance for a different vernacular usage to be created. If you want to edit Cladobranchia and Doridina's infoboxes, that doesn't require any splitting, merging, or similar. Assuming the description above is correct and that the clade formerly known as Nudibranchia was divided into two sister clades, one of which is now Nudibranchia, than all sources used on this page are not outdated in respect to their use on this page. They cover the same clade as before, but the name has been shifted. No novel reliable source presented has affected the information here aside from the taxonomy and the naming. CMD (talk) 16:55, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

  I agree that "there's not been a chance for a different vernacular usage to be created" but a previous one still exists. Content that refered to "nudibranch", academic or not, until now refered to Nudibranchia sensu latu, and many instances of science communication on nudibranchs include and refer to dorids. I also agree that sources on this page are not oudated in many aspects of nudibranch morphology, distribution and such, and I do not see a problem in still keeping them on this page.

  An article for redefined Order Nudibranchia still needs to exist, and my idea is to have article "Nudibranch" (this one), "Nudibranchia", "Doridina"->"Doridida" and historical "Cladobranchia", with "Nudibranch" working as the typical higher tier clade article with information on both its 2 subclades, although this one would not be formally named. "Nudibranch" (this one) sees some changes in the lead and taxonomic names in text, probably keeping a good majority of its content, and "Nudibranchia" would have content that past "Cladobranchia" could have had if it had any edits, some of it moved or based in content from here might be the easiest. My use of "split" in my original post might not have been the most appropriate and I think it is causing confusion, I am not looking for a break of the content of the page in two but the creation of two new articles that bud from it and represent part of its content to some degree. Sclerotized (talk) 17:49, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

  If I am understanding you, the core proposal is to create a new Nudibranch (sensu strictu) article (sample title being used for clarity), and update the taxoboxes (and taxonomy sections) here and on Doridina to reflect this new arrangement? CMD (talk) 04:11, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, practically so. Sclerotized (talk) 21:23, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

  Then while I'm not sold on keeping the single-sentence Cladobranchia around, I'm not opposed to that. The step following would be to see if an RM is needed for this article in the future. CMD (talk) 01:29, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

I am not yet well read enough to provide meaningful feedback for your main proposal. My feedback is simple and more of a footnote, and much less educated but I am providing it in case having a comment from someone not yet so deeply involved helps at all.

Updating nudibranch taxonomy: I support abiding primarily by Korshunova et al. (2025), and suggest perhaps making exceptions in favour of WoRMS in specific cases, such as Trinchesiidae and the families affected by its taxonomic controversy. It is my understanding that Philippe Bouchet himself has only held off on updating Trinchesiidae and friends on WoRMS according to Korshunova et al. (2025) because of the impending rebuttal from the opposing team. If Bouchet sees it fit to pause update in one aspect, and yet still update the rest of WoRMS in accordance to the latest state of the art...I do not know if this makes sense, but such an odd move makes me inclined to trust his judgement.

I understand this may be an unpopular direction, but I'm hoping the exceptions made would be short-term; either the impending rebuttal will fail to find ground to revert Korshunova's changes to Trinchesiidae and WoRMS will (hopefully) finish out their update, or the rebuttal will drop something so extreme that all of us will be scrambling again anyways.

Apologies if that was incomprehensible, or seems flat-out stupid. Thank you for your patience. Snapplejackalope (talk) 20:55, 11 March 2026 (UTC)