English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2006-10-24 05:31:00 · 18 answers · asked by bender 3 in Science & Mathematics Biology

18 answers

Slugs are gastropod molluscs without shells or with very small internal shells, in contrast to snails, which have a prominent coiled shell. The loss or reduction of the shell is a derived character, and the same basic body design has independently evolved several times, making slugs a polyphyletic group. Although they undergo torsion (180 degree twisting of internal organs) during development, their bodies are streamlined and worm-like, and so show little external evidence of it. Slugs include both marine and terrestrial species. The main group of marine or sea slugs are the nudibranchs. However, the ecological information in the article below applies mainly to land slugs.

The soft, slimy bodies of slugs are prone to desiccation, so land-living slugs are confined to moist environments.

2006-10-24 05:40:08 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

Slugs are just a bit more evidence against the evolution fable.

By rights, according to Darwinian evolution, slugs should not exist. Because they lack the protection of a shell they should have been wiped out by predation, leaving only the shelled version, i.e. snails, which according to evolution should be considered to be more advanced.

However, they tend to exist side by side in exactly the same environment, one being every bit as successful as the other. In fact, in my garden, the more vulnerable slugs seem to be more numerous than the snails.

2006-10-25 09:24:38 · answer #2 · answered by A.M.D.G 6 · 0 1

Essentially yes. Both are the same type of mollusc. But, and here's the difference, snails have large obvious external shells and slugs have, in most instances, very small internal shells. As for the taste...best ask a hedgehog!

2006-10-24 06:00:48 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Slugs may be related to snails but they are not shell-less snails if you see what I mean. You can eat a snail but would you eat a slug, not even my dog, who eats just about everything, will give a second sniff to a slug on the pavement at night in the damp.

2006-10-24 05:39:26 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

I've just been in the garden to look at the differences and similarities. Other than the shell thing, nothing. They even taste the same. Oh except the slugs scream a bit on the first bite!

2006-10-24 05:45:45 · answer #5 · answered by Freeb Ace 1 · 1 1

Slugs are gastropod molluscs without shells or with very small internal shells, in contrast to snails, which have a prominent coiled shell.

2006-10-24 08:03:16 · answer #6 · answered by Suedoenimm 3 · 0 1

Yes, that's right. Here in California we have Banana Slugs, especially near Santa Cruz. They literally look like little yellow bananas on the ground. Hard to miss!

2006-10-24 05:34:12 · answer #7 · answered by Jazz In 10-Forward 4 · 0 0

Snails are slugs that are taking their caravans with them on holiday.

2006-10-24 06:40:43 · answer #8 · answered by scary mary 3 · 1 0

This is more a moral question. It's like asking if a homeless person is the same as someone with a mobile home. Well of course. Don't be so judgemental.

2006-10-24 05:37:38 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

no slugs are actually homeless snails , or snugs if you prefer

2006-10-24 05:37:51 · answer #10 · answered by EWE ANCHOR 3 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers