DOCSLIB.ORG

Fur Seals and Sea Lions (Otariidae): Identification of Species and Taxonomic Review

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Fur Seals and Sea Lions (Otariidae): Identification of Species and Taxonomic Review Systematics and Biodiversity 1 (3): 339–439 Issued 16 February 2004 DOI: 10.1017/S147720000300121X Printed in the United Kingdom C The Natural History Museum Fur seals and sea lions (Otariidae): identification of species and taxonomic review Sylvia Brunner Australian Marine Mammal Research Centre, University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems, GPO Box 284, Canberra City, ACT 2601, Australia ∗ University of Alaska Museum, 907 Yukon Drive, Fairbanks AK 99775, United States submitted December 2002 accepted May 2003 Contents Abstract 340 Introduction 340 Materials and methods 343 Results 344 Description of species: sea lions Steller sea lion – Eumetopias jubatus 345 Southern sea lion – Otaria byronia 352 Australian sea lion – Neophoca cinerea 354 Hooker’s sea lion – Phocarctos hookeri 354 California sea lion – Zalophus californianus californianus 357 Galapagos sea lion – Zalophus californianus wollebaeki 357 Japanese sea lion – Zalophus californianus japonicus 360 Description of species: fur seals Northern fur seal – Callorhinus ursinus 360 Antarctic fur seal – Arctocephalus gazella 363 Subantarctic fur seal – Arctocephalus tropicalis 363 New Zealand fur seal – Arctocephalus forsteri 366 South African fur seal – Arctocephalus pusillus pusillus 366 Australian fur seal – Arctocephalus pusillus doriferus 368 Guadalupe fur seal – Arctocephalus townsendi 370 Galapagos fur seal – Arctocephalus galapagoensis 370 South American fur seal – Arctocephalus australis 371 Juan Fernandez fur seal – Arctocephalus philippii 374 A comparison of subspecies Arctocephalus pusillus 374 Zalophus californianus 374 Arctocephalus australis 375 The Otariidae 377 Discussion 378 References 384 Appendices I Summary details of specimens 386 II Univariate statistics for male and female otariids 405 ∗Correspondence address 339 340 Sylvia Brunner Abstract The standard anatomical descriptions given to identify species of the family Otariidae (fur seals and sea lions), particularly those for the genus Arctocephalus, have been largely inconclusive. Specimens of some species conformed more to the description of others, overlapping in many identifying characteristics. Recent re-examination of the genetic basis of taxonomic diversity within otariids required matching by comprehensive new studies of skull morphometry based on large sample sizes, to provide a sound basis for re-appraisal of species limits in the family. The typical skull morphology of otariids fall into two general characteristics: a short, mesocephalic skull observed primarily in the fur seals and a more dolichocephalic skull common in most sea lions. Subfamily separation of otariid seals was not supported. Instead, a separation of genus, species and subspecies was proposed, with re-arrangement of taxonomy at the levels of genus, species and subspecies. Arctocephalus australis, A. forsteri and A. galapagoensis appeared congeneric, with only subspecific differences in morphology. Arctocephalus townsendi and A. philippii appeared congeneric, yet were morphologically divergent from the remaining Arctocephalus. Skulls of Zalophus californianus japonicus were significantly different from those of Z. c. californianus and Z. c. wollebaeki, and were considered a separate species of Zalophus. ...in no family of mammals, probably, have more diversities of opinion been expressed by zoologists, both with respect to the number of species in the family and their arrangement in genera and subfamilies, than in the Otariidae. (Turner, 1888) Key words otariid, fur seal, sea lion, taxonomy, description, morphometrics, skull, species, subspecies Introduction ‘Otariinae’ Otaria ´ In many treatments, the Pinnipedia are a suborder of Carnivora Peron, 1816 byronia and divided into three families: Odobenidae or walruses, the (de Blainville, 1820) Eumetopias Phocidae or true seals and the Otariidae or eared seals (Rand, Gill, 1866 jubatus 1956; King, 1983). The family Otariidae are commonly sep- (Schreber, 1776) Neophoca arated into the subfamilies Otariinae, the sea lions and Arcto- Gray, 1866 cinerea ´ cephalinae, the fur seals, based on the presence (in fur seals) (Peron, 1816) Phocarctos or absence (in sea lions) of abundant underfur. This distinc- Gray, 1844 hookeri tion is dubious, as abundant secondary hairs may have evolved (Gray, 1844) Zalophus twice in the history of the Otariidae or may have been retained Gill, 1866 californianus randomly as a primitive feature of marine mammals and are (Lesson, 1828) californianus indicative of a shallow-water adaptation to conserve body heat (Lesson, 1828) wollebaeki in an aquatic environment (Repenning et al., 1971). (Sivertsen, 1953) japonicus Although most researchers today recognize there is little (Peters, 1866) ‘Arctocephalinae’ substance for a subfamilial split of the Otariidae, subfamilial Callorhinus recognition still appears in the literature. For instance, Rice Gray, 1859 ursinus (1998, p. 22) stated that “...studies showed that all the living (Linnaeus, 1758) Arctocephalus species [of otariids] fall into two monophyletic groups which Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire and Cuvier, 1824 australis many authors recognize as subfamilies: Arctocephalinae for (Zimmerman, 1783) australis the fur-seals, and Otariinae for the sea-lions”. The two groups (Zimmerman, 1783) gracilis of otariids are also referred to commonly as fur seals and sea (Nehring, 1887) galapagoensis lions. To address the issue of subfamilies, a morphometric Heller, 1904 gazella comparison of the two groups is made in this study. (Peters, 1875) forsteri The southern fur seals are placed in the genus Arctoceph- (Lesson, 1828) tropicalis alus that currently comprises eight extant species, whereas the (Gray, 1872) pusillus northern fur seal, Callorhinus ursinus, is classified as a separ- (Schreber, 1776) pusillus ate, monotypic genus. The sea lions comprise five monotypic (Schreber, 1776) doriferus genera. (Wood Jones, 1925) philippii The most widely accepted nomenclature for the Otariidae (Peters, 1886) townsendi is described below, and is based primarily on King (1983). (Merriam, 1897) Rice (1998) introduced some changes to the taxonomy in his systematic review of marine mammals; these are currently not The standard anatomical descriptions given to identify as widely accepted as that of King (1983), and are reviewed in species of otariids, particularly those for the genus Arcto- this study. cephalus, have been largely inconclusive. Specimens of some Identification and taxonomy of otariid seals 341 species conform more to the description of others, overlapping the number exceeded 50, most of which proved to be syn- in many identifying characteristics (King, 1983). The prob- onyms (Sivertsen, 1954). Peron´ (1816)1 first identified the lems of identification lie primarily in the original taxonomic eared seals under the genus Otaria. The eared seals were then studies that were based on small sample sizes, sex and age raised to the rank of family by Brookes (1828), under the name bias, and misidentified specimens. Allen (1880, p. 227) stated Otariadae. This classification was not generally adopted until that “...of about fifty synonyms pertaining to the Eared Seals, 1866, when it was revised by Gill (when introducing the name probably two-thirds have been based, directly or indirectly, Otariidae) and used immediately by Gray and subsequently upon differences dependent on sex and age, and the rest upon by most researchers (Allen, 1880). Gray, Turner and others the defective descriptions of these animals by travellers ...”. had previously considered the Eared Seals a subfamily of the Morphometric studies on species of Arctocephalus have Phocidae for which Gray, at different times, used the names rarely focused on more than one or two species at a time, Otariina and Arctocephalina, the latter also being adopted for making any comparative studies difficult. King (1983) stated the name of the group by Turner in 1848 (Allen, 1880). that species of Arctocephalus are so widely dispersed over the Allen (1870) divided the Otariidae into two groups, world that it has always been difficult to get reasonable num- Trichophocinae for the sea lions and Oulophocinae for the bers of specimens of each species, and to assemble enough fur seals, alluding to their pelage. Von Boetticher (1934) re- skulls in one place for comparative analyses. Repenning et al. jected Allen’s names and identified the sea lion and fur seal (1971) analysed a significant number of skulls but were able groups with the names of their included genera. He also added a to access only a small number of mixed age and sex of some third category: the ‘mitte-robben Phocarctinae’ to contain only species available at that time (e.g. A. townsendi, A. philippii, P. hookeri, presumed to possess pelage intermediate between A. gazella, Z. c. japonicus), basing their results on the fur seals and sea lions (Scheffer, 1958). these. Sivertsen (1954) had only one specimen each of Gray (1869) divided the family into five tribes, Otari- A. philippii and A. townsendi that he used to separate these from ina, Callorhinina, Arctocephalina, Zalophina and Eumetopina, the Arctocephalus as a distinct genus, Arctophoca. Repenning primarily with reference to the number of postcanines (PCs) et al. (1971) used a larger sample size (11 A. townsendi and five and the position of the posterior pair. He also separated these A. philippii) although their samples included both sexes and tribes into two ‘sections’, based on the posterior extension of contained at least five subadults and three juveniles.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Spotted Seals, Phoca Largha, in Alaska
    Spotted Seals, Phoca largha, in Alaska Item Type article Authors Rugh, David J.; Shelden, Kim E. W.; Withrow, David E. Download date 09/10/2021 03:34:27 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/1834/26448 Spotted Seals, Phoca largha, in Alaska DAVID J. RUGH, KIM E. W. SHELDEN, and DAVID E. WITHROW Introduction mine the abundance, distribution, and lar), a 2-month difference in mating sea­ stock identification of marine mammals sons (effecting reproductive isolation), Under the reauthorization of the Ma­ that might have been impacted by com­ the whitish lanugo on newborn P largha rine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) mercial fisheries in U.S. waters (Bra­ that is shed in utero in P vitulina, dif­ in 1988, and after a 5-year interim ex­ ham and DeMaster1). For spotted seals, ferences in the adult pelage of P largha emption period ending September 1995, Phoca largha, there were insufficient and P vitulina, and some differences in the incidental take of marine mammals data to determine incidental take lev­ cranial characteristics (Burns et aI., in commercial fisheries was authorized els. Accordingly, as a part of the MMAP, 1984). However, hybridization may if the affected populations were not ad­ the NMFS National Marine Mammal occur, based on evidence from morpho­ versely impacted. The Marine Mammal Laboratory (NMML) conducted a study logical intermediates and overlaps in Assessment Program (MMAP) of the of spotted seals in Alaska. The objec­ range (Bums et aI., 1984). As such, dif­ National Marine Fisheries Service tives of this study were to: I) provide a ferentiation of these two species in the (NMFS), NOAA, provided funding to review of literature pertaining to man­ field is very difficult.
    [Show full text]
  • Monk Seals in Post-Classical History
    Monk Seals in Post-Classical History The role of the Mediterranean monk seal (Monachus monachus) in European history and culture, from the fall of Rome to the 20th century William M. Johnson Mededelingen No. 39 2004 NEDERLANDSCHE COMMISSIE VOOR INTERNATIONALE NATUURBESCHERMING Mededelingen No. 39 i NEDERLANDSCHE COMMISSIE VOOR INTERNATIONALE NATUURBESCHERMING Netherlands Commission for International Nature Protection Secretariaat: Dr. H.P. Nooteboom National Herbarium of the Netherlands Rijksuniversiteit Leiden Einsteinweg 2 Postbus 9514, 2300 RA Leiden Mededelingen No. 39, 2004 Editor: Dr. H.P. Nooteboom PDF edition 2008: Matthias Schnellmann Copyright © 2004 by William M. Johnson ii MONK SEALS IN POST-CLASSICAL HISTORY The role of the Mediterranean monk seal (Monachus monachus) in European history and culture, from the fall of Rome to the 20th century by William M. Johnson Editor, The Monachus Guardian www.monachus-guardian.org email: [email protected] iii iv TABLE OF CONTENTS MONK SEALS IN POST-CLASSICAL HISTORY ......................................................III ABSTRACT ......................................................................................................................... VII ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................ VII MONK SEALS IN POST-CLASSICAL HISTORY ..............................................................................1 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE SPECIES ......................................................................1
    [Show full text]
  • Exploitation of Fur Seals and Sea Lions from Australian, New Zealand and Adjacent Subantarctic Islands During the Eighteenth, Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries
    Exploitation of fur seals and sea lions from Australian, New Zealand and adjacent subantarctic islands during the eighteenth, nineteenth and twentieth centuries John K. Ling P.O. Box 271, Clare, South Australia 5459 ABSTRACT Details of skin cargoes of fur seal Arctocephalus spp. and sea lion Neophoca cinerea and Phocarctos hookeri, originating from southern Australia, New Zealand and the adjacent subantarctic islands in the lath, 19th and 20th centuries have been collated from several secondary historicsl sources. These sources quoted quantities of skins in terms of actual tallied numbers, as untallied "cargoes" or as casks, sacks or bundles. Untallied cargoes were Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/australian-zoologist/article-pdf/31/2/323/1473420/az_1999_036.pdf by guest on 30 September 2021 converted into numbers by averaging tallied cargoes; and casks, sacks and bundles were arbitrarily deemed to contain 40, 20 and 5 skins respectively. Annual and total yields of skins are presented for ten separate areas in the region: Bass Strait, King Island, Kangaroo Island. Western Australia, New Zealand, Bounty Islands, Auckland Islands, Antipodes Islands. Campbell Island and Macquarie island. At least 1 367 000 fur seal skins were harvested between 1792 and 1948149 in the whole of the Australasian region. More than 1309 000 skins - 96% of the total - were taken up to 1830. Records indicate that only about 4 100 Neophoca and 5 800 Phocarctos were obtained from their respective areas. These figures must be regarded as minimal, as it is likely thatmany cargoes were obtained by English, American and French vessels and shipped directly to European or Asian markets.
    [Show full text]
  • List of Marine Mammal Species and Subspecies Written by The
    List of Marine Mammal Species and Subspecies Written by the Committee on Taxonomy The Ad-Hoc Committee on Taxonomy , chaired by Bill Perrin, has produced the first official SMM list of marine mammal species and subspecies. Consensus on some issues was not possible; this is reflected in the footnotes. This list will be revisited and possibly revised every few months reflecting the continuing flux in marine mammal taxonomy. This list can be cited as follows: “Committee on Taxonomy. 2009. List of marine mammal species and subspecies. Society for Marine Mammalogy, www.marinemammalscience.org, consulted on [date].” This list includes living and recently extinct species and subspecies. It is meant to reflect prevailing usage and recent revisions published in the peer-reviewed literature. Author(s) and year of description of the species follow the Latin species name; when these are enclosed in parentheses, the species was originally described in a different genus. Classification and scientific names follow Rice (1998), with adjustments reflecting more recent literature. Common names are arbitrary and change with time and place; one or two currently frequently used in English and/or a range language are given here. Additional English common names and common names in French, Spanish, Russian and other languages are available at www.marinespecies.org/cetacea/ . The cetaceans genetically and morphologically fall firmly within the artiodactyl clade (Geisler and Uhen, 2005), and therefore we include them in the order Cetartiodactyla, with Cetacea, Mysticeti and Odontoceti as unranked taxa (recognizing that the classification within Cetartiodactyla remains partially unresolved -- e.g., see Spaulding et al ., 2009) 1.
    [Show full text]
  • List of Marine Mammal Species and Subspecies
    List of Marine Mammal Species and Subspecies Introduction The Committee on Taxonomy, chaired by Patricia Rosel, produced the first official Society for Marine Mammalogy list of marine mammal species and subspecies in 2010. Consensus on some issues has not been possible; this is reflected in the footnotes. The list is updated at least annually. The current version was updated in May 2020. This list can be cited as follows: “Committee on Taxonomy. 2019. List of marine mammal species and subspecies. Society for Marine Mammalogy, www.marinemammalscience.org, consulted on [date].” This list includes living and recently extinct (within historical times) species and subspecies. It is meant to reflect prevailing usage and recent revisions published in the peer-reviewed literature. Classification and scientific names follow Rice (1998), with adjustments reflecting more recent literature. Author(s) and year of description of each taxon follow the Latin (scientific) species name; when these are enclosed in parentheses, the taxon was originally described in a different genus. The Committee annually considers and evaluates new, peer-reviewed literature that proposes taxonomic changes. The Committee’s focus is on alpha taxonomy (describing and naming taxa) and beta taxonomy primarily at lower levels of the hierarchy (subspecies, species and genera), although it may evaluate issues at higher levels if deemed necessary. Proposals for new, taxonomically distinct taxa require a formal, peer-reviewed study and should provide robust evidence that some subspecies or species criterion was met. For review of species concepts, see Reeves et al. (2004), Orr and Coyne (2004), de Queiroz (2007), Perrin (2009) and Taylor et al.
    [Show full text]
  • CCS Study EMS 90-0058 Migration of Northern Fur Seal (Callorhinus
    CCS Study EMS 90-0058 Migration of northern fur seal (Callorhinus ursinus) pups in the Bering Sea. Final Report. Timothy J. Ragen and Paul K. Dayton Scripps Institution of Oceanography University of California, San Diego La Jolla, California 92093 September 1990 Minerals Management SeNice Department of the Interior Alaska CCS Region 949 East 366th Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99508-4302 Purchase Order No. <~ --.-J ● Migration of northern fur seal (Callorhinus ursinus) pups in the Bering Sea. Final Report. Timothy J. Ragen and Paul K. Dayton Scripps Institution of Oceanography University of California, San Diego La Jolla, California 92093 September 1990 This study was funded in part by the Alaska Outer Continental Shelf Region of the Minerals Management Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C., under Purchase Order No. 12523. This report has been reviewed by the Minerals Management Service and has been approved for publication. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the view and policies of the Service, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. AUTHORS AND RESPONSIBILITIES This report was written by Timothy J. Ragen, under the supervision of Paul K. Dayton. Dr. Ragen and George A. Antonelisr Jr., National Marine Mammal Laboratory, conducted the field portion of this study. ● Migration of northern fur seal (Callorhinus ursims) pups in the Bering Sea. Final Report. Table of Contents Introduction . 1 Methods . 8 Results . , . , . , . 11 Discussion . 17 Summary . 31 References . 33 MIG~TION OF NORTHERM FUR SEAL ( CALLORHINUS URSINUS) PUPS IN TEE BERING SEA INTRODUCTION The northern fur seal (Callorhinus ursinus) is arguably the most extensively studied marine mammal in the world.
    [Show full text]
  • 56. Otariidae and Phocidae
    FAUNA of AUSTRALIA 56. OTARIIDAE AND PHOCIDAE JUDITH E. KING 1 Australian Sea-lion–Neophoca cinerea [G. Ross] Southern Elephant Seal–Mirounga leonina [G. Ross] Ross Seal, with pup–Ommatophoca rossii [J. Libke] Australian Sea-lion–Neophoca cinerea [G. Ross] Weddell Seal–Leptonychotes weddellii [P. Shaughnessy] New Zealand Fur-seal–Arctocephalus forsteri [G. Ross] Crab-eater Seal–Lobodon carcinophagus [P. Shaughnessy] 56. OTARIIDAE AND PHOCIDAE DEFINITION AND GENERAL DESCRIPTION Pinnipeds are aquatic carnivores. They differ from other mammals in their streamlined shape, reduction of pinnae and adaptation of both fore and hind feet to form flippers. In the skull, the orbits are enlarged, the lacrimal bones are absent or indistinct and there are never more than three upper and two lower incisors. The cheek teeth are nearly homodont and some conditions of the ear that are very distinctive (Repenning 1972). Both superfamilies of pinnipeds, Phocoidea and Otarioidea, are represented in Australian waters by a number of species (Table 56.1). The various superfamilies and families may be distinguished by important and/or easily observed characters (Table 56.2). King (1983b) provided more detailed lists and references. These and other differences between the above two groups are not regarded as being of great significance, especially as an undoubted fur seal (Australian Fur-seal Arctocephalus pusillus) is as big as some of the sea lions and has some characters of the skull, teeth and behaviour which are rather more like sea lions (Repenning, Peterson & Hubbs 1971; Warneke & Shaughnessy 1985). The Phocoidea includes the single Family Phocidae – the ‘true seals’, distinguished from the Otariidae by the absence of a pinna and by the position of the hind flippers (Fig.
    [Show full text]
  • Brucella Antibody Seroprevalence in Antarctic Seals (Arctocephalus Gazella, Leptonychotes Weddellii and Mirounga Leonina)
    Vol. 105: 175–181, 2013 DISEASES OF AQUATIC ORGANISMS Published September 3 doi: 10.3354/dao02633 Dis Aquat Org Brucella antibody seroprevalence in Antarctic seals (Arctocephalus gazella, Leptonychotes weddellii and Mirounga leonina) Silje-Kristin Jensen1,2,*, Ingebjørg Helena Nymo1, Jaume Forcada3, Ailsa Hall2, Jacques Godfroid1 1Section for Arctic Veterinary Medicine, Norwegian School of Veterinary Science, Stakkevollveien 23, 9010 Tromsø, Norway; member of the Fram Centre - High North Research Centre for Climate and the Environment, 9296 Tromsø, Norway 2Sea Mammal Research Unit, Scottish Oceans Institute, University of St. Andrews, St. Andrews KY16 8LB, UK 3British Antarctic Survey, Natural Environment Research Council, High Cross, Madingley Road, Cambridge CB3 0ET, UK ABSTRACT: Brucellosis is a worldwide infectious zoonotic disease caused by Gram-negative bac- teria of the genus Brucella, and Brucella infections in marine mammals were first reported in 1994. A serosurvey investigating the presence of anti-Brucella antibodies in 3 Antarctic pinniped spe- cies was undertaken with a protein A/G indirect enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (iELISA) and the Rose Bengal test (RBT). Serum samples from 33 Weddell seals Leptonychotes weddelli were analysed, and antibodies were detected in 8 individuals (24.2%) with the iELISA and in 21 (65.6%) with the RBT. We tested 48 southern elephant seal Mirounga leonina sera and detected antibodies in 2 animals (4.7%) with both the iELISA and the RBT. None of the 21 Antarctic fur seals Arctocephalus gazella was found positive. This is the first report of anti-Brucella antibodies in southern elephant seals. The potential impact of Brucella infection in pinnipeds in Antarctica is not known, but Brucella spp.
    [Show full text]
  • Biodiversity: the UK Overseas Territories. Peterborough, Joint Nature Conservation Committee
    Biodiversity: the UK Overseas Territories Compiled by S. Oldfield Edited by D. Procter and L.V. Fleming ISBN: 1 86107 502 2 © Copyright Joint Nature Conservation Committee 1999 Illustrations and layout by Barry Larking Cover design Tracey Weeks Printed by CLE Citation. Procter, D., & Fleming, L.V., eds. 1999. Biodiversity: the UK Overseas Territories. Peterborough, Joint Nature Conservation Committee. Disclaimer: reference to legislation and convention texts in this document are correct to the best of our knowledge but must not be taken to infer definitive legal obligation. Cover photographs Front cover: Top right: Southern rockhopper penguin Eudyptes chrysocome chrysocome (Richard White/JNCC). The world’s largest concentrations of southern rockhopper penguin are found on the Falkland Islands. Centre left: Down Rope, Pitcairn Island, South Pacific (Deborah Procter/JNCC). The introduced rat population of Pitcairn Island has successfully been eradicated in a programme funded by the UK Government. Centre right: Male Anegada rock iguana Cyclura pinguis (Glen Gerber/FFI). The Anegada rock iguana has been the subject of a successful breeding and re-introduction programme funded by FCO and FFI in collaboration with the National Parks Trust of the British Virgin Islands. Back cover: Black-browed albatross Diomedea melanophris (Richard White/JNCC). Of the global breeding population of black-browed albatross, 80 % is found on the Falkland Islands and 10% on South Georgia. Background image on front and back cover: Shoal of fish (Charles Sheppard/Warwick
    [Show full text]
  • Hunting and Social Behaviour of Leopard Seals (Hydrurga Leptonyx) at Seal Island, South Shetland Islands, Antarctica
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Publications, Agencies and Staff of the U.S. Department of Commerce U.S. Department of Commerce 1999 Hunting and social behaviour of leopard seals (Hydrurga leptonyx) at Seal Island, South Shetland Islands, Antarctica Lisa M. Hiruki National Marine Mammal Laboratory, Alaska Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, [email protected] Michael K. Schwartz National Marine Mammal Laboratory, Alaska Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Peter L. Boveng National Marine Mammal Laboratory, Alaska Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usdeptcommercepub Part of the Environmental Sciences Commons Hiruki, Lisa M.; Schwartz, Michael K.; and Boveng, Peter L., "Hunting and social behaviour of leopard seals (Hydrurga leptonyx) at Seal Island, South Shetland Islands, Antarctica" (1999). Publications, Agencies and Staff of the U.S. Department of Commerce. 151. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usdeptcommercepub/151 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the U.S. Department of Commerce at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Publications, Agencies and Staff of the U.S. Department of Commerce by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. J. Zool., Lond. (1999) 249, 97±109 # 1999 The Zoological Society of London Printed in the United Kingdom Hunting and social behaviour of leopard seals (Hydrurga leptonyx) at Seal Island, South Shetland Islands, Antarctica Lisa M. Hiruki*, Michael K. Schwartz{ and Peter L.
    [Show full text]
  • Fur Seals Do, but Sea Lions Don't – Cross Taxa Insights Into Exhalation
    Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B. article template Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B. doi:10.1098/not yet assigned Fur seals do, but sea lions don’t – cross taxa insights into exhalation during ascent from dives Sascha K. Hooker1*, Russel D. Andrews2, John P. Y. Arnould3, Marthán N. Bester4, Randall W. Davis5, Stephen J. Insley6,7, Nick J. Gales8, Simon D. Goldsworthy9,10, J. Chris McKnight1. 1Sea Mammal Research Unit, University of St Andrews, Fife, KY16 8LB, UK 2Marine Ecology and Telemetry Research, Seabeck, WA 98380, USA 3School of Life and Environmental Sciences, Deakin University, Burwood, Victoria 3125Australia 4Mammal Research Inst., University of Pretoria, Hatfield, 0028 Gauteng, South Africa 5Dept. Marine Biology, Texax A&M University, Galveston, TX 77553, USA 6Dept. Biology, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada, V8P 5C2 7Wildlife Conservation Society Canada, Whitehorse, YT, Canada, Y1A 0E9 8Australian Antarctic Division, Tasmania 7050, Australia 9South Australian Research and Development Institute, West Beach, SA 5024, Australia 10School of Biological Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia 5005, Australia SKH, 0000-0002-7518-3548; RDA, 0000-0002-4545-137X; JPYA, 0000-0003-1124-9330; MNB, 0000-0002-2265-764X; SJI, 0000-0003-3402-8418; SDG, 0000-0003-4988-9085; JCM, 0000-0002-3872-4886 Keywords: Otariid, Shallow-water blackout, Diving physiology, Gas management Summary Management of gases during diving is not well understood across marine mammal species. Prior to diving, phocid (true) seals generally exhale, a behaviour thought to assist with prevention of decompression sickness. Otariid seals (fur seals and sea lions) have a greater reliance on their lung oxygen stores, and inhale prior to diving.
    [Show full text]
  • Harbor Seal Species Profile Encyclopedia of Puget Sound June 9, 2014
    (Photograph by G. E. Davis) Harbor seal species profile Encyclopedia of Puget Sound June 9, 2014 Jacqlynn C. Zier and Joseph K. Gaydos* SeaDoc Society / UC Davis’ Karen C. Drayer Wildlife Health Center Orcas Island Office 942 Deer Harbor Road, Eastsound, WA 98245 *Corresponding author [email protected] Table of Contents Introduction ............................................................................................................. 3 Distribution .............................................................................................................. 3 Global .............................................................................................................................................................................. 3 Local ................................................................................................................................................................................ 3 1 Populations .............................................................................................................. 4 Genetic diversity ........................................................................................................................................................ 4 Population size ........................................................................................................................................................... 5 Longevity and survival ..........................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]