Would an amphibian that lacks lungs and breathes entirely through its skin likely be larger or smaller than an amphibian that has lungs? A. Smaller because its larger surface area to volume ratio would allow it to breathe sufficiently through its skin alone. B. Larger because its smaller surface area to volume ratio would allow it to breathe sufficiently through its skin alone. C. Larger because its larger surface area to volume ratio would allow it to breathe sufficiently through its skin alone. D. Smaller because its smaller surface area to volume ratio would allow it to breathe sufficiently through its skin alone.
+4
Answers (1)
Know the Answer?
Not Sure About the Answer?
Get an answer to your question ✅ “Would an amphibian that lacks lungs and breathes entirely through its skin likely be larger or smaller than an amphibian that has lungs? A. ...” in 📙 Biology if there is no answer or all answers are wrong, use a search bar and try to find the answer among similar questions.
Home » Biology » Would an amphibian that lacks lungs and breathes entirely through its skin likely be larger or smaller than an amphibian that has lungs? A.