On page 129 of his titillating roman a clef, Comparative Animal Physiology, Professor C. Ladd Prosser writes:

"Many gastropod and pelecypod molluscs feed on phytoplankton or larger aquatic plants and in those possessing a crystalline style the only strong extracellular digestion is of starch, as mussels, clams, and oysters."

He pauses to refer us to an authority, though few would contest his assertion, and continues: "There is a style in all herbivorous pelecypods." Whatever a herbivorous pelecypod may be, we see the professor is warming to his topic.

But then: "It is vestigial in the carnivorous septibranch bivalves"; what, have not the carnivorous septibranch bivalves their own vivacious style? "The style is present in only those herbivorous gastropods which feed by cilia or by slow radular action; in archeogastropods (e.g., Lunella) the style is mucus rod"; will Lunella tolerate such a slur? "Carnivorous snails have no style." The last straw!

Who is there to defend the carnivorous snail, in these days of Big Science? No one: the scientist has turned on his friend, the carnivorous snail that willingly sacrificed itself for the furtherance of knowledge, and has accused it of having no style.

Even the porker, grunting pig latin, lives in a pig style. Why not the carnivorous snail?