DOCSLIB.ORG

Morphology and Evolution of Caudal Fin in Lamniform Sharks

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Morphology and Evolution of Caudal Fin in Lamniform Sharks DePaul University Via Sapientiae College of Liberal Arts & Social Sciences Theses and Dissertations College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences 3-2010 Morphology and evolution of caudal fin in lamniform sharks Sun H. Kim DePaul University Follow this and additional works at: https://via.library.depaul.edu/etd Recommended Citation Kim, Sun H., "Morphology and evolution of caudal fin in lamniform sharks" (2010). College of Liberal Arts & Social Sciences Theses and Dissertations. 9. https://via.library.depaul.edu/etd/9 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences at Via Sapientiae. It has been accepted for inclusion in College of Liberal Arts & Social Sciences Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Via Sapientiae. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Morphology and Evolution of Caudal Fin in Lamniform Sharks A Thesis Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science December 2009 By Sun H. Kim Thesis Advisor: Kenshu Shimada, Ph.D. Department of Biological Sciences College of Liberal Arts and Sciences DePaul University Chicago, Illinois i Table of Contents Approval Page ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….…………….……i Table of Contents……...………………………………………………………………………………………………….…….…….ii List of Figures……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….……..……iii List of Tables…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….……….……..iv Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………………………………………………….….……v Abstract……………………..…………………………………………………………………………………………………….…..….vi Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…..…1 Materials and Methods……………………………………………………………………………………………………….….…4 Examined Specimens………………………………………………………………………………………….…...…….4 Anatomical Examination………………………………………………………………………………..………..…….5 Caudal Fin Terminology………………………………………………………………………………….………..…….6 Measurements……………………………………………………………………………………………….……………...6 Character Mapping………………………………………………………………………………………….…………..…8 Results…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………....10 Scyliorhinus retifer………………………………………………………………………………………………….…...10 Mitsukurina owstoni…………………………………………………………………………………..……………..…10 Carcharias taurus………………………………………………………………………………………..………….……11 Odontaspis ferox……………………………………………………………………………….…………..……….……11 Odontaspis noronhai………………………………………………………………………….……………..….…..…11 Pseudocarcharias kamoharai……………………………………………………….……………………...………12 Megachasma pelagios………………………………………………………………………………….….…..………12 Alopias pelagicus……………………………………………………………………………….……….……..…………12 Alopias superciliosus……………………………………………………………….………………….………..………13 Alopias vulpinus………………………………………………………………………………………….…………..……13 Cetorhinus maximus……………………………………..……………………………..…………….……………..…14 Carcharodon carcharias……………………………………………………….…………………….………………..14 Isurus oxyrinchus………………………………………………………………………………………..………………..14 Isurus paucus………………………………………………………………………………………….…….……………..15 Lamna ditropis……………………………………………………………………………….…………….………….…..15 Lamna nasus…………………………………………………………………………………..…………….……………..15 Discussion…………………………………………………………………………………………..…………………….……………..17 Phylogenetic Mapping of Caudal Fin Data……………………………………………………….….………..17 Three Caudal Fin Types in Lamniforms and Their Evolutionary History…………….…………..19 Functional Differences Based on Caudal Fin Types………………………………………………….…...21 References……………………………………………………………………………………………………….……….………….….25 Appendix 1……………………………………………………………………………………………………….……….…………….40 Appendix 2……………………………………………………………………………………………………….……….…………….41 ii List of Figures Figure 1 All 15 lamniform species……………………………………………………………………….………….30 Figure 2 Medical imaging technology used to radiographically………………………………………31 examine shark specimens Figure 3 Schematic drawings of lamniform caudal fin showing………………………………………32 nomenclature and measured variables Figure 4 Examples of radiographs showing caudal fin anatomy………………………………………33 in one carcharhiniform and 15 lamniform species Figure 5 Mapping of average values of Cobb’s angle and hypochordal…………………………..35 angle onto morphology-based phylogenetic tree of lamniforms along with schematic illustrations of caudal fin showing its outline and skeletal arrangement Figure 6 Mapping of average values of Cobb’s and hypochordal…………………………………….36 angle onto molecular-based phylogenetic tree of lamniforms along with schematic illustrations of caudal fin showing its outline and skeletal arrangement Figure 7 Three types of caudal fin in lamniforms and their possible……………………………….32 evolutionary scenarios iii List of Tables Table 1 List of examined specimens in this study………………………………………………………….38 Table 2 Average value of heterocercal angle, hypocercal angle,…………………………………..39 Cobb’s angle, and hypochordal angle data for each species iv Acknowledgements I thank the following individuals who were involved in the acquisition, loan, or transportation of examined specimens: A. Y. Suzumoto (BPBM); M. A. Rogers, K. Swagel, M. W. Westneat, P. Willink (FMNH); K. Nakaya (HUMZ); J. A. Seigel (LACM); K. E. Hartel, A. Williston (MCZ); C. Klepadlo, P. A. Hastings, H. J. Walker (SIO); L. M. Page, R. H. Robins (UF); D. W. Nelson (UMMZ); J. Finan, L. Palmer, S. Raredon, S. Smith; E. Wilbur, D. Pitassy, and J. T. Williams (USNM); M. Miya (Natural History Museum and Institute, Chiba, Japan), S. J. Arceneaux, R. L. Humphreys, Jr. (Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration); S. R. Van Sommeran (Pelagic Shark Research Foundation, Capitola, California); B. L. Beatty (New York College of Osteopathic Medicine); and J. L. Castillo-Geniz (Instituto Nacional de la Pesca, Baja California, México). Special thanks go to K. Gray, B. Karl, J. Hickey, P. Myefski, A. Nicholas, C. Rigsby, L. Wansk (Children's Memorial Hospital, Chicago, Illinois) for assisting me with CT scanning and x-ray shooting of examined specimens. Financial support was made by the Environmental Science Program, Department of Biological Sciences, and University Research Council at DePaul University, Chicago, Illinois, that were provided to, or awarded to, K. Shimada. I would also like to thank M. Silliker for her continued support since I came to DePaul. I also thank A. Ippolito and W. Aguirre for sitting on my thesis committee. Special thanks to K. Shimada for his patience and guidance as my mentor and supervising professor of this project. Finally, I would like to thank my friends and family for supporting me throughout all these years. v Abstract Sharks have a distinct asymmetrical caudal fin referred to as heterocercal tail that is a key characteristic of the group and has diversified within sharks in ways that are correlated with lifestyle. However, practically no study examining the evolutionary trend and history of the caudal fin morphology within a specific shark group exists. Here, I examined the caudal fin morphology and evolution of the shark order Lamniformes that consists of 15 extant species with diverse behaviors and lifestyles. The goals of this study are to describe the skeletal morphology of the caudal fin in each lamniform species based primarily on radiographic analysis, to examine the evolutionary pattern and history of the caudal fin through phylogenetic mapping, and to relate different caudal fin types observed in lamniforms to their known behaviors and life styles. This study suggests that caudal fins with a more horizontally directed curvature of the vertebral column are plesiomorphic, whereas those with a large dorsally directed curvature of the vertebral column are apomorphic within Lamniformes. It also shows that caudal fins with posteriorly directed hypochordal rays are plesiomorphic, and that those with ventrally directed hypochordal rays are apomorphic within Lamniformes. Three basic caudal fin types are recognized in extant lamniforms on the basis of these skeletal variables. One important discovery form the recognition of the three fin types is that the evolution of external morphology of caudal fin does not necessarily correspond to the evolution of its internal (skeletal) anatomy in lamniform sharks. Certain behaviors and lifestyles seen in different lamniforms are correlative with the different caudal fin types. A less asymmetrical tail is a derived feature in lamniforms that evolved for fast swimming to capture fast swimming prey. vi Introduction The structure and biomechanics of the caudal fin of fishes have been studied by many researchers (e.g., Agassiz, 1833; Ryder, 1884; Garman, 1913; Thomson, 1976; Thomson & Simanek, 1977; Lauder, 2000). In particular, the caudal fin of sharks (Chondrichthyes: Elasmobranchii) have received considerable attention due to the asymmetrical form referred to as heterocercal tail, or heterocercy (e.g. Thomson, 1976; Thomson & Simanek, 1977; Lauder, 1989, 2000; Liao & Lauder, 2000a, 2000b; Lauder et al., 2003; Lingham-Soliar, 2005a, 2005b). Heterocercy in sharks occurs because the enlarged, dorsoposteriorly directed dorsal (upper) lobe of the caudal fin relative to the ventroposteriorly directed ventral (lower) lobe as the notochord, or vertebral column, extends into the dorsal lobe and forms its axis (Goodrich, 1958). It is related to swimming that produces forces acting on the center of balance to give sharks fine control for climbing, diving, and turning (Thomson, 1976, 1990). Understanding the sequence of anatomical modification over the course of evolution is a central theme in comparative morphology. For example,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Diurnal Patterns in Gulf of Mexico Epipelagic Predator Interactions with Pelagic Longline Gear: Implications for Target Species Catch Rates and Bycatch Mitigation
    Bull Mar Sci. 93(2):573–589. 2017 research paper https://doi.org/10.5343/bms.2016.1008 Diurnal patterns in Gulf of Mexico epipelagic predator interactions with pelagic longline gear: implications for target species catch rates and bycatch mitigation 1 National Marine Fisheries Eric S Orbesen 1 * Service, Southeast Fisheries 1 Science Center, 75 Virginia Beach Derke Snodgrass 2 Drive, Miami, Florida 33149. Geoffrey S Shideler 1 2 University of Miami, Rosenstiel Craig A Brown School of Marine & Atmospheric John F Walter 1 Science, 4600 Rickenbacker Causeway, Miami, Florida 33149. * Corresponding author email: <[email protected]>. ABSTRACT.—Bycatch in pelagic longline fisheries is of substantial international concern, and the mitigation of bycatch in the Gulf of Mexico has been considered as an option to help restore lost biomass following the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill. The most effective bycatch mitigation measures operate upon a differential response between target and bycatch species, ideally maintaining target catch while minimizing bycatch. We investigated whether bycatch vs target catch rates varied between day and night sets for the United States pelagic longline fishery in the Gulf of Mexico by comparing the influence of diel time period and moon illumination on catch rates of 18 commonly caught species/species groups. A generalized linear model approach was used to account for operational and environmental covariates, including: year, season, water temperature, hook type, bait, and maximum hook depth. Time of day or moon
    [Show full text]
  • Luís M.D. Barcelos1, 2*, José M.N. Azevedo1, 3, Jürgen Pollerspöck4, and João P
    ACTA ICHTHYOLOGICA ET PISCATORIA (2018) 48 (2): 189–194 DOI: 10.3750/AIEP/02436 REVIEW OF THE RECORDS OF THE SMALLTOOTH SAND TIGER SHARK, ODONTASPIS FEROX (ELASMOBRANCHII: LAMNIFORMES: ODONTASPIDIDAE), IN THE AZORES Luís M.D. Barcelos1, 2*, José M.N. Azevedo1, 3, Jürgen Pollerspöck4, and João P. Barreiros1, 2 1Centre for Ecology, Evolution, and Environmental Changes, Azorean Biodiversity Group, Angra do Heroísmo, Portugal 2Faculty of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, University of the Azores, Angra do Heroísmo, Portugal 3Faculty of Sciences and Technology, University of the Azores, Ponta Delgada, Portugal 4Bavarian State Collection of Zoology, Munich, Germany Barcelos L.M.D., Azevedo J.M.N., Pollerspöck J., Barreiros J.P. 2018. Review of the records of the smalltooth sand tiger shark, Odontaspis ferox (Elasmobranchii: Lamniformes: Odontaspididae), in the Azores. Acta Ichthyol. Piscat. 48 (2): 189–194. Abstract. In recent years Azorean fishermen reported the presence of the smalltooth sand tiger shark,Odontaspis ferox (Risso, 1810), a very rare demersal shark species, associated with insular shelves and slopes, with occasional incursions into shallow waters and of poorly known biology and ecology. There are fourteen new records of this species, between 1996 and 2014, captured by spearfishing, harpoons, hand lines, or entangled in fishing gear in the Azores. These records were analysed and complemented with fishermen interviews, providing new locations and new biological data for this species. Also, specimens photographs were studied and post-mortem analysis were carefully carried out in one individual. This species is rare and captured only as bycatch in shallow waters. More detailed information on this species is critically needed in order to assess its conservation status and implement management guidelines.
    [Show full text]
  • Electrosensory Pore Distribution and Feeding in the Basking Shark Cetorhinus Maximus (Lamniformes: Cetorhinidae)
    Vol. 12: 33–36, 2011 AQUATIC BIOLOGY Published online March 3 doi: 10.3354/ab00328 Aquat Biol NOTE Electrosensory pore distribution and feeding in the basking shark Cetorhinus maximus (Lamniformes: Cetorhinidae) Ryan M. Kempster*, Shaun P. Collin The UWA Oceans Institute and the School of Animal Biology, The University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley, Western Australia 6009, Australia ABSTRACT: The basking shark Cetorhinus maximus is the second largest fish in the world, attaining lengths of up to 10 m. Very little is known of its sensory biology, particularly in relation to its feeding behaviour. We describe the abundance and distribution of ampullary pores over the head and pro- pose that both the spacing and orientation of electrosensory pores enables C. maximus to use passive electroreception to track the diel vertical migrations of zooplankton that enable the shark to meet the energetic costs of ram filter feeding. KEY WORDS: Ampullae of Lorenzini · Electroreception · Filter feeding · Basking shark Resale or republication not permitted without written consent of the publisher INTRODUCTION shark Rhincodon typus and the megamouth shark Megachasma pelagios, which can attain lengths of up Electroreception is an ancient sensory modality that to 14 and 6 m, respectively (Compagno 1984). These 3 has evolved independently across the animal kingdom filter-feeding sharks are among the largest living in multiple groups (Scheich et al. 1986, Collin & White- marine vertebrates (Compagno 1984) and yet they are head 2004). Repeated independent evolution of elec- all able to meet their energetic costs through the con- troreception emphasises the importance of this sense sumption of tiny zooplankton.
    [Show full text]
  • Order LAMNIFORMES ODONTASPIDIDAE Sand Tiger Sharks Iagnostic Characters: Large Sharks
    click for previous page Lamniformes: Odontaspididae 419 Order LAMNIFORMES ODONTASPIDIDAE Sand tiger sharks iagnostic characters: Large sharks. Head with 5 medium-sized gill slits, all in front of pectoral-fin bases, Dtheir upper ends not extending onto dorsal surface of head; eyes small or moderately large, with- out nictitating eyelids; no nasal barbels or nasoral grooves; snout conical or moderately depressed, not blade-like;mouth very long and angular, extending well behind eyes when jaws are not protruded;lower labial furrows present at mouth corners; anterior teeth enlarged, with long, narrow, sharp-edged but unserrated cusps and small basal cusplets (absent in young of at least 1 species), the upper anteriors separated from the laterals by a gap and tiny intermediate teeth; gill arches without rakers; spiracles present but very small. Two moderately large high dorsal fins, the first dorsal fin originating well in advance of the pelvic fins, the second dorsal fin as large as or somewhat smaller than the first dorsal fin;anal fin as large as second dorsal fin or slightly smaller; caudal fin short, asymmetrical, with a strong subterminal notch and a short but well marked ventral lobe. Caudal peduncle not depressed, without keels; a deep upper precaudal pit present but no lower pit. Intestinal valve of ring type, with turns closely packed like a stack of washers. Colour: grey or grey-brown to blackish above, blackish to light grey or white, with round or oval dark spots and blotches vari- ably present on 2 species. high dorsal fins upper precaudal eyes without pit present nictitating eyelids intestinal valve of ring type Habitat, biology, and fisheries: Wide-ranging, tropical to cool-temperate sharks, found inshore and down to moderate depths on the edge of the continental shelves and around some oceanic islands, and in the open ocean.
    [Show full text]
  • 2014 Fishing Year
    ATLANTIC STATES MARINE FISHERIES COMMISSION REVIEW OF THE INTERSTATE FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR COASTAL SHARKS 2014 FISHING YEAR Prepared by the Plan Review Team Approved by the Spiny Dogfish & Coastal Sharks Management Board August 2016 Table of Contents I. Status of the Fishery Management Plan .......................................................................... 2 II. Status of the Stock and Assessment Advice ..................................................................... 4 III. Status of the Fishery ....................................................................................................... 6 VI. Implementation of FMP Compliance Requirements for 2014 ..................................... 27 VII. PRT Recommendations ................................................................................................. 29 1 I. Status of the Fishery Management Plan Date of FMP Approval: August 2008 Amendments None Addenda Addendum I (September 2009) Addendum II (May 2013) Addendum III (October 2013) Management Unit: Entire coastwide distribution of the resource from the estuaries eastward to the inshore boundary of the EEZ States With Declared Interest: Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida Active Boards/Committees: Coastal Shark Management Board, Advisory Panel, Technical Committee, and Plan Review Team a) Goals and Objectives The Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Coastal Sharks (FMP) established the following
    [Show full text]
  • Great White Shark) on Appendix I of the Convention of International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES)
    Prop. 11.48 Proposal to include Carcharodon carcharias (Great White Shark) on Appendix I of the Convention of International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) A. PROPOSAL ..............................................................................................3 B. PROPONENT............................................................................................3 C. SUPPORTING STATEMENT....................................................................3 1. Taxonomy.........................................................................................................................3 1.1 Class.................................................................................................................................... 1.2 Order................................................................................................................................... 1.3 Family ................................................................................................................................. 1.4 Species ................................................................................................................................ 1.5 Scientific Synonyms............................................................................................................. 1.6 Common Names .................................................................................................................. 2. Biological Parameters......................................................................................................3
    [Show full text]
  • Gill Morphometrics of the Thresher Sharks (Genus Alopias): Correlation of Gill Dimensions with Aerobic Demand and Environmental Oxygen
    JOURNAL OF MORPHOLOGY :1–12 (2015) Gill Morphometrics of the Thresher Sharks (Genus Alopias): Correlation of Gill Dimensions with Aerobic Demand and Environmental Oxygen Thomas P. Wootton,1 Chugey A. Sepulveda,2 and Nicholas C. Wegner1,3* 1Center for Marine Biotechnology and Biomedicine, Marine Biology Research Division, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093 2Pfleger Institute of Environmental Research, Oceanside, CA 92054 3Fisheries Resource Division, Southwest Fisheries Science Center, NOAA Fisheries, La Jolla, CA 92037 ABSTRACT Gill morphometrics of the three thresher related species that inhabit similar environments shark species (genus Alopias) were determined to or have comparable metabolic requirements. As examine how metabolism and habitat correlate with such, in reviews of gill morphology (e.g., Gray, respiratory specialization for increased gas exchange. 1954; Hughes, 1984a; Wegner, 2011), fishes are Thresher sharks have large gill surface areas, short often categorized into morphological ecotypes water–blood barrier distances, and thin lamellae. Their large gill areas are derived from long total filament based on the respiratory dimensions of the gills, lengths and large lamellae, a morphometric configura- namely gill surface area and the thickness of the tion documented for other active elasmobranchs (i.e., gill epithelium (the water–blood barrier distance), lamnid sharks, Lamnidae) that augments respiratory which both reflect a species’ capacity for oxygen surface area while
    [Show full text]
  • The Denticle Surface of Thresher Shark Tails: Three-Dimensional Structure and Comparison to Other Pelagic Species
    Received: 3 April 2020 Revised: 14 May 2020 Accepted: 21 May 2020 DOI: 10.1002/jmor.21222 RESEARCH ARTICLE The denticle surface of thresher shark tails: Three-dimensional structure and comparison to other pelagic species Meagan Popp1 | Connor F. White1 | Diego Bernal2 | Dylan K. Wainwright1 | George V. Lauder1 1Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Abstract Massachusetts Shark skin denticles (scales) are diverse in morphology both among species and 2 Department of Biology, University of across the body of single individuals, although the function of this diversity is poorly Massachusetts Dartmouth, Dartmouth, Massachusetts understood. The extremely elongate and highly flexible tail of thresher sharks pro- vides an opportunity to characterize gradients in denticle surface characteristics Correspondence George V. Lauder, Museum of Comparative along the length of the tail and assess correlations between denticle morphology and Zoology, 26 Oxford Street, Cambridge, MA tail kinematics. We measured denticle morphology on the caudal fin of three mature 02138. Email: [email protected] and two embryo common thresher sharks (Alopias vulpinus), and we compared thresher tail denticles to those of eleven other shark species. Using surface Funding information National Oceanic and Atmospheric profilometry, we quantified 3D-denticle patterning and texture along the tail of Administration, Grant/Award Number: threshers (27 regions in adults, and 16 regions in embryos). We report that tails of NA16NMF4270231; National Science Foundation, Grant/Award Numbers: IOS- thresher embryos have a membrane that covers the denticles and reduces surface 1354593, GRF DGE-1144152; Office of Naval roughness. In mature thresher tails, surfaces have an average roughness of 5.6 μm Research, Grant/Award Numbers: N00014-09-1-0352, N000141410533 which is smoother than some other pelagic shark species, but similar in roughness to blacktip, porbeagle, and bonnethead shark tails.
    [Show full text]
  • Population Structure and Biology of Shortfin Mako, Isurus Oxyrinchus, in the South-West Indian Ocean
    CSIRO PUBLISHING Marine and Freshwater Research http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/MF13341 Population structure and biology of shortfin mako, Isurus oxyrinchus, in the south-west Indian Ocean J. C. GroeneveldA,E, G. Cliff B, S. F. J. DudleyC, A. J. FoulisA, J. SantosD and S. P. WintnerB AOceanographic Research Institute, PO Box 10712, Marine Parade 4056, Durban, South Africa. BKwaZulu-Natal Sharks Board, Private Bag 2, Umhlanga Rocks 4320, South Africa. CFisheries Management, Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Private Bag X2, Rogge Bay 8012, South Africa. DNorwegian College of Fishery Science, University of Tromsø, NO-9037, Tromsø, Norway. ECorresponding author. Email: [email protected] Abstract. The population structure, reproductive biology, age and growth, and diet of shortfin makos caught by pelagic longliners (2005–10) and bather protection nets (1978–2010) in the south-west Indian Ocean were investigated. The mean fork length (FL) of makos measured by observers on longliners targeting tuna, swordfish and sharks was similar, and decreased from east to west, with the smallest individuals occurring near the Agulhas Bank edge, June to November. Nearly all makos caught by longliners were immature, with equal sex ratio. Makos caught by bather protection nets were significantly larger, males were more frequent, and 93% of males and 55% of females were mature. Age was assessed from band counts of sectioned vertebrae, and a von Bertalanffy growth model fitted to sex-pooled length-at-age data predicted a À1 birth size (L0) of 90 cm, maximum FL (LN) of 285 cm and growth coefficient (k) of 0.113 y .
    [Show full text]
  • Porbeagle Shark Lamna Nasus
    Porbeagle Shark Lamna nasus Lateral View (♀) Ventral View (♀) COMMON NAMES APPEARANCE Porbeagle Shark, Atlantic Mackerel Shark, Blue Dog, Bottle-nosed • Heavily built but streamlined mackerel shark. Shark, Beaumaris Shark, Requin-Taupe Commun (Fr), Marrajo • Moderately long conical snout with a relatively large eyes. Sardinero (Es), Tiburón Sardinero (Es), Tintorera (Es). • Large first dorsal fin with a conspicuous white free rear tip. SYNONYMS • Second dorsal fin and anal fin equal-sized and set together. Squalus glaucus (Gunnerus, 1758), Squalus cornubicus (Gmelin, 1789), • Lunate caudal fin with strong keel and small secondary keel. Squalus pennanti (Walbaum, 1792), Lamna pennanti (Desvaux, 1851), Squalus monensis (Shaw, 1804), Squalus cornubiensis (Pennant, 1812), • Dorsally dark blue to grey with no patterning. Squalus selanonus (Walker, 1818), Selanonius walkeri (Fleming, 1828), • Ventrally white. Lamna punctata (Storer, 1839), Oxyrhina daekyi (Gill, 1862), Lamna • Maximum length of 365cm, though rarely to this size. NE MED ATL philippi (Perez Canto, 1886), Lamna whitleyi (Phillipps, 1935). DISTRIBUTION The Porbeagle Shark is a large, streamlined mackerel shark with a In the northern conical snout and powerful body. The first dorsal fin is large and hemisphere, the originates above or slightly behind the pectoral fins. It has a free rear Porbeagle Shark tip which is white. The second dorsal fin is tiny and is set above the occurs only in the anal fin, to which it is comparable in size. The caudal fin is strong and North Atlantic and lunate with a small terminal notch. The caudal keel is strong and, Mediterranean, uniquely for the northeast Atlantic, a smaller secondary caudal keel is whilst in the present.
    [Show full text]
  • Thresher Sharks (Alopias Spp.) in Subareas 10 and 12, Divisions 7.C–K and 8.D–E, and in Subdivisions 5.B.1, 9.B.1, and 14.B.1 (Northeast Atlantic)
    ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort Oceanic Northeast Atlantic ecoregion Published 4 October 2019 Thresher sharks (Alopias spp.) in subareas 10 and 12, divisions 7.c–k and 8.d–e, and in subdivisions 5.b.1, 9.b.1, and 14.b.1 (Northeast Atlantic) ICES advice on fishing opportunities ICES advises that when the precautionary approach is applied, there should be zero catch in each of the years 2020–2023. Stock development over time No information is available to inform on the current stock status of either common thresher shark (Alopias vulpinus) or bigeye thresher shark (A. superciliosus). Landings data for the entire stock area are uncertain for both species. Stock and exploitation status ICES cannot assess the stock and exploitation status relative to maximum sustainable yield (MSY) and precautionary approach (PA) reference points, because the reference points are undefined. Thresher sharks (Alopias spp.) in the Northeast Atlantic. State of the stocks and fishery relative to reference points. Table 1 Catch scenarios The ICES framework for category 6 stocks (ICES, 2012) was applied. For stocks without information on abundance or exploitation, ICES considers that a precautionary reduction of catches should be implemented unless there is ancillary information clearly indicating that the current level of exploitation is appropriate for the stock. Discarding is known to take place, but ICES cannot quantify the corresponding catch. Discard survival, which may occur, has also not been fully estimated. Table 2 Thresher sharks (Alopias spp.) in the Northeast Atlantic. Basis for the catch scenario. Recent advised catch 0 Discard rate Unknown Precautionary buffer Not applied - Catch advice 0 % Advice change * 0% * Advice value for 2020–2023 relative to the advice for 2016–2019 issued in 2015.
    [Show full text]
  • Ore Bin / Oregon Geology Magazine / Journal
    State of Oregon The ORE BIN· Department of Geology Volume 34,no. 10 and Mineral Industries 1069 State Office BI dg. October 1972 Portland Oregon 97201 FOSSil SHARKS IN OREGON Bruce J. Welton* Approximately 21 species of sharks, skates, and rays are either indigenous to or occasionally visit the Oregon coast. The Blue Shark Prionace glauca, Soup-fin Shark Galeorhinus zyopterus, and the Dog-fish Shark Squalus acanthias commonly inhabit our coastal waters. These 21 species are represented by 16 genera, of which 10 genera are known from the fossi I record in Oregon. The most common genus encountered is the Dog-fish Shark Squalus. The sharks, skates, and rays, (all members of the Elasmobranchii) have a fossil record extending back into the Devonian period, but many major groups became extinct before or during the Mesozoic. A rapid expansion in the number of new forms before the close of the Mesozoic gave rise to practically all the Holocene families living today. Paleozoic shark remains are not known from Oregon, but teeth of the Cretaceous genus Scapanorhyn­ chus have been collected from the Hudspeth Formation near Mitchell, Oregon. Recent work has shown that elasmobranch teeth occur in abundance west of the Cascades in marine Tertiary strata ranging in age from late Eocene to middle Miocene (Figures 1 and 2). All members of the EIasmobranchii possess a cartilaginous endoskeleton which deteriorates rapidly upon death and is only rarely preserved in the fossil record. Only under exceptional conditions of preservation, usually in a highly reducing environment, will cranial or postcranial elements be fossilized.
    [Show full text]