A Norwegian aeolid sea slug with translucent tissue, orange digestive branches and a sparse documented natural-history record. The 2014 review distinguishes this species by its broad body, salmon-coloured speckling and ornamented rhinophores. Identification should use the full character set rather than orange colour alone.
See Norwegian Berghia Sea Slug clearly
Select any thumbnail to open the unobstructed full-size image in a separate window.
Aquarium suitability not established
Aquarium suitability has not yet been established for this record. Available observations do not constitute an acquisition recommendation.
Editorial inference from NTNU expert evidence: routine aquarium keeping is not substantiated because the species’ prey has not been observed. Treat prospective maintenance as a specialist suitability/feeding review, not an established Aiptasia-control recipe or proof of biological unsuitability.
MLL precaution: observation and specialist study take precedence over acquisition. Establish identification, source-water conditions and a verified food organism before attempting captive maintenance; a tropical reef recipe is unsupported. Numerical temperature, salinity, pH, enclosure and stocking limits remain unverified in this review. Published culture conditions and retailer recommendations are not proven tolerance limits.
Assessment sources: NTNU species accountResearch Evidence and Limits
These source findings support institutional assessment, identification or wildlife research. They are separate from aquarium-care completion.
Source findings and their limits
The authoritative expert account positively identifies an unresolved prey question, rather than merely lacking a retrieved culture paper.
Source limit: Actual prey and a sustainable species-matched feeding method remain unresolved; suitability review does not close this biological care gap.
Sources: Bakken, Evertsen and Skauge — NTNU Berghia norvegica accountIdentity or wild reproductive observations do not demonstrate complete captive rearing.
Source limit: A complete species-, population- and life-stage-matched captive rearing protocol remains unverified.
Sources: Bakken, Evertsen and Skauge — NTNU Berghia norvegica accountThe expert species account documents wild habitat and identification, not quantitative captive conditions.
Source limit: Species-matched captive operating settings and enclosure requirements remain unverified.
Sources: Bakken, Evertsen and Skauge — NTNU Berghia norvegica accountIdentification
The 2014 review distinguishes this species by its broad body, salmon-coloured speckling and ornamented rhinophores. Identification should use the full character set rather than orange colour alone.
Habitat and Distribution
The reviewed taxonomic material is Norwegian; Bernard Picton’s supplied photograph is from Gulen, Norway. These are documented regional records, not evidence of a complete present-day range.
Feeding and Ecology
A species-specific prey and captive ration were not established in the reviewed records. Its family membership is insufficient to prescribe the Aiptasia diet used for B. stephanieae.
Reproduction and Evidence
Taxonomic study describes reproductive anatomy. A verified egg-development, juvenile feeding or sustained captive-culture protocol remains unresolved.
Aquarium Planning
MLL precaution: observation and specialist study take precedence over acquisition. Establish identification, source-water conditions and a verified food organism before attempting captive maintenance; a tropical reef recipe is unsupported.
Responsible Observation and Sourcing
MLL precaution: favour documented, responsibly sourced material and observation over speculative collection. Check lawful origin and current conservation information. A photograph alone does not establish a Canadian occurrence.
Deeper care evidence review
The species account was based on a preserved Norwegian specimen; preservation prevented molecular study. It documents anatomy and regional identity rather than captive feeding or culture. The retrieved account does not corroborate a named live-prey ration, so no food organism or tropical culture setting is prescribed here. Remaining evidence gaps: Corroborated numerical water and enclosure limits; Complete long-term captive nutrition and stocking validation; A complete population- and life-stage-specific rearing protocol. Full lifetime husbandry remains unverified.
A living record
Accepted taxonomy and species-specific evidence reviewed. Source-labelled images, historical names, aquarium recommendations and remaining gaps are distinguished. Public content last reviewed October 2, 2026.
- WoRMS — accepted species, reviewed 1 October 2026 ↗Reference source
- Carmona et al. (2014) — Berghia taxonomy and regional records ↗Reference source
- Carmona et al.: Berghia taxonomic review (2014) ↗Reference source
- NTNU species account ↗Reference source