Migratory Patterns and Habitat Use of the Sand Tiger Shark
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Shark Cartilage, Cancer and the Growing Threat of Pseudoscience
[CANCER RESEARCH 64, 8485–8491, December 1, 2004] Review Shark Cartilage, Cancer and the Growing Threat of Pseudoscience Gary K. Ostrander,1 Keith C. Cheng,2 Jeffrey C. Wolf,3 and Marilyn J. Wolfe3 1Department of Biology and Department of Comparative Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland; 2Jake Gittlen Cancer Research Institute, Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, Pennsylvania; and 3Registry of Tumors in Lower Animals, Experimental Pathology Laboratories, Inc., Sterling, Virginia Abstract primary justification for using crude shark cartilage extracts to treat cancer is based on the misconception that sharks do not, or infre- The promotion of crude shark cartilage extracts as a cure for cancer quently, develop cancer. Other justifications represent overextensions has contributed to at least two significant negative outcomes: a dramatic of experimental observations: concentrated extracts of cartilage can decline in shark populations and a diversion of patients from effective cancer treatments. An alleged lack of cancer in sharks constitutes a key inhibit tumor vessel formation and tumor invasions (e.g., refs. 2–5). justification for its use. Herein, both malignant and benign neoplasms of No available data or arguments support the medicinal use of crude sharks and their relatives are described, including previously unreported shark extracts to treat cancer (6). cases from the Registry of Tumors in Lower Animals, and two sharks with The claims that sharks do not, or rarely, get cancer was originally two cancers each. Additional justifications for using shark cartilage are argued by I. William Lane in a book entitled “Sharks Don’t Get illogical extensions of the finding of antiangiogenic and anti-invasive Cancer” in 1992 (7), publicized in “60 Minutes” television segments substances in cartilage. -
Sharks for the Aquarium and Considerations for Their Selection1 Alexis L
FA179 Sharks for the Aquarium and Considerations for Their Selection1 Alexis L. Morris, Elisa J. Livengood, and Frank A. Chapman2 Introduction The Lore of the Shark Sharks are magnificent animals and an exciting group Though it has been some 35 years since the shark in Steven of fishes. As a group, sharks, rays, and skates belong to Spielberg’s Jaws bit into its first unsuspecting ocean swim- the biological taxonomic class called Chondrichthyes, or mer and despite the fact that the risk of shark-bite is very cartilaginous fishes (elasmobranchs). The entire supporting small, fear of sharks still makes some people afraid to swim structure of these fish is composed primarily of cartilage in the ocean. (The chance of being struck by lightning is rather than bone. There are some 400 described species of greater than the chance of shark attack.) The most en- sharks, which come in all different sizes from the 40-foot- grained shark image that comes to a person’s mind is a giant long whale shark (Rhincodon typus) to the 2-foot-long conical snout lined with multiple rows of teeth efficient at marble catshark (Atelomycterus macleayi). tearing, chomping, or crushing prey, and those lifeless and staring eyes. The very adaptations that make sharks such Although sharks have been kept in public aquariums successful predators also make some people unnecessarily since the 1860s, advances in marine aquarium systems frightened of them. This is unfortunate, since sharks are technology and increased understanding of shark biology interesting creatures and much more than ill-perceived and husbandry now allow hobbyists to maintain and enjoy mindless eating machines. -
SHARKS (From Page 24) There Are Close to 500 Species of Sharks
SHARKS (from page 24) There are close to 500 species of sharks worldwide, Wetherbee Blue shark. These oceanic sharks are long and skinny and said. They range in size from the 8-inch dwarf dogshark to the 60- can grow to be 13 feet in length and weigh 450 pounds. These foot whale shark. Their habitat ranges from coastal areas to the “beautiful” sharks are excellent swimmers. Mating between males open ocean, from Arctic waters to tropical seas, from surface and females is waters to abyssal depths. violent, as the males often bite Spiny and smooth dogfish. Despite sharing the same surname, the females. To these two coastal shark species aren’t closely related. Dogfish withstand the get their violence of name mating, the because female's skin is they often three times as thick as that of their male counterparts. Although travel and not good to eat, blues are the world’s most fished shark species. hunt in They are harvested for their fins, skin, tails and flesh. Their teeth packs. Both and jaws are also harvested for commercial uses. species migrate into the area in the warmer months, and a few remain Mako shark. This oceanic species is one of the fastest fish in through the winter. They have little teeth, and can grow to be 5 the ocean, with speeds up to 40 mph or so. They also are a feet long. Spiny dogfish can arch their backs and inject venom popular seafood into predators from their dorsal spines. Thousands are harvested worldwide. They can annually for use in U.K. -
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. -
Report on the Status of Mediterranean Chondrichthyan Species
United Nations Environment Programme Mediterranean Action Plan Regional Activity Centre For Specially Protected Areas REPORT ON THE STATUS OF MEDITERRANEAN CHONDRICHTHYAN SPECIES D. CEBRIAN © L. MASTRAGOSTINO © R. DUPUY DE LA GRANDRIVE © Note : The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this document do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of UNEP concerning the legal status of any State, Territory, city or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of their frontiers or boundaries. © 2007 United Nations Environment Programme Mediterranean Action Plan Regional Activity Centre for Specially Protected Areas (RAC/SPA) Boulevard du leader Yasser Arafat B.P.337 –1080 Tunis CEDEX E-mail : [email protected] Citation: UNEP-MAP RAC/SPA, 2007. Report on the status of Mediterranean chondrichthyan species. By Melendez, M.J. & D. Macias, IEO. Ed. RAC/SPA, Tunis. 241pp The original version (English) of this document has been prepared for the Regional Activity Centre for Specially Protected Areas (RAC/SPA) by : Mª José Melendez (Degree in Marine Sciences) & A. David Macías (PhD. in Biological Sciences). IEO. (Instituto Español de Oceanografía). Sede Central Spanish Ministry of Education and Science Avda. de Brasil, 31 Madrid Spain [email protected] 2 INDEX 1. INTRODUCTION 3 2. CONSERVATION AND PROTECTION 3 3. HUMAN IMPACTS ON SHARKS 8 3.1 Over-fishing 8 3.2 Shark Finning 8 3.3 By-catch 8 3.4 Pollution 8 3.5 Habitat Loss and Degradation 9 4. CONSERVATION PRIORITIES FOR MEDITERRANEAN SHARKS 9 REFERENCES 10 ANNEX I. LIST OF CHONDRICHTHYAN OF THE MEDITERRANEAN SEA 11 1 1. -
Body Length Estimation of Neogene Macrophagous Lamniform Sharks (Carcharodon and Otodus) Derived from Associated Fossil Dentitions
Palaeontologia Electronica palaeo-electronica.org Body length estimation of Neogene macrophagous lamniform sharks (Carcharodon and Otodus) derived from associated fossil dentitions Victor J. Perez, Ronny M. Leder, and Teddy Badaut ABSTRACT The megatooth shark, Otodus megalodon, is widely accepted as the largest mac- rophagous shark that ever lived; and yet, despite over a century of research, its size is still debated. The great white shark, Carcharodon carcharias, is regarded as the best living ecological analog to the extinct megatooth shark and has been the basis for all body length estimates to date. The most widely accepted and applied method for esti- mating body size of O. megalodon was based upon a linear relationship between tooth crown height and total body length in C. carcharias. However, when applying this method to an associated dentition of O. megalodon (UF-VP-311000), the estimates for this single individual ranged from 11.4 to 41.1 m. These widely variable estimates showed a distinct pattern, in which anterior teeth resulted in lower estimates than pos- terior teeth. Consequently, previous paleoecological analyses based on body size esti- mates of O. megalodon may be subject to misinterpretation. Herein, we describe a novel method based on the summed crown width of associated fossil dentitions, which mitigates the variability associated with different tooth positions. The method assumes direct proportionality between the ratio of summed crown width to body length in eco- logically and taxonomically related fossil and modern species. Total body lengths were estimated from 11 individuals, representing five lamniform species: Otodus megal- odon, Otodus chubutensis, Carcharodon carcharias, Carcharodon hubbelli, and Carcharodon hastalis. -
Sand Tiger − Carcharias Taurus Overall Vulnerability Rank = High
Sand Tiger − Carcharias taurus Overall Vulnerability Rank = High Biological Sensitivity = High Climate Exposure = High Data Quality = 79% of scores ≥ 2 Expert Data Expert Scores Plots Scores Quality (Portion by Category) Carcharias taurus Low Moderate Stock Status 3.1 1.8 High Other Stressors 1.8 1.8 Very High Population Growth Rate 3.8 2.6 Spawning Cycle 1.8 2.4 Complexity in Reproduction 1.8 1.8 Early Life History Requirements 1.0 3.0 Sensitivity to Ocean Acidification 1.0 2.4 Prey Specialization 1.3 2.8 Habitat Specialization 1.3 3.0 Sensitivity attributes Sensitivity to Temperature 1.3 3.0 Adult Mobility 1.0 3.0 Dispersal & Early Life History 1.0 3.0 Sensitivity Score High Sea Surface Temperature 3.9 3.0 Variability in Sea Surface Temperature 1.0 3.0 Salinity 2.8 3.0 Variability Salinity 1.2 3.0 Air Temperature 1.0 3.0 Variability Air Temperature 1.0 3.0 Precipitation 1.0 3.0 Variability in Precipitation 1.0 3.0 Ocean Acidification 4.0 2.0 Exposure variables Variability in Ocean Acidification 1.0 2.2 Currents 2.1 1.0 Sea Level Rise 1.2 1.5 Exposure Score High Overall Vulnerability Rank High Sand Tiger (Carcharias taurus) Overall Climate Vulnerability Rank: High (76% certainty from bootstrap analysis). Climate Exposure: High. Two exposure factors contributed to this score: Ocean Surface Temperature (3.9) and Ocean Acidification (4.0). Sand Tiger Shark are pelagic but associate with benthic habitats. Biological Sensitivity: High. Two attributes scored above 3.0: Population Growth Rate (3.8) and Stock Status (3.1). -
Reproduction and Embryonic Development of the Sand Tiger Shark, Odontaspis Taurus (Rafinesque)
FAU Institutional Repository http://purl.fcla.edu/fau/fauir This paper was submitted by the faculty of FAU’s Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute. Notice: ©1983 NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service. This manuscript is available at http://fisherybulletin.nmfs.noaa.gov/index.html and may be cited as: Gilmore, R. G., Dodrill, J. W., & Linley, P. A. (1983). Reproduction and embryonic development of the sand tiger shark, Odontaspis taurus (Rafinesque). Fishery Bulletin, 8(2), 201‐225. REPRODUCTION AND EMBRYONIC DEVELOPMENT OF THE SAND TIGER SHARK, ODONTASPIS TAURUS (RAFINESQUE)1 R. GRANT GILMORE" JON W. DODRILL', AND PATRICIA A. LINLEY' ABSTRACT The capture of one ripe male, 191.5 cm TL, and 26 pregnant female, 236.6-274.3 cm TL, sand tiger sharks, Odontaspis taurus, from the east-central coast of Florida from 1946 to 1980 has permitted examination of early reproductive activity and embryonic development in this species. Variations in ovulation rates and oviducal gland activity produce six distinct egg capsule types at varying times during gestation. Some egg capsules produced during early gestation contain only ovalbumin and/or mucus while others contain several fertilized ova. As gestation proceeds, more capsules contain unfertilized ova and ovulation rates increase. These latter capsules serve principally as food for the surviving embryo. Sixty-two embryos, 13-1,060 mm TL, provided information on intrauterine development which allowed classification ofseven developmental periods basedon gestation time, embryonic anatomy, posture, activity, and source of nutrition. Initially, embryos 13-18.5 mm TL obtain nutrition from internal coelomic yolk sup plies during a period of early tissue differentiation. -
Two New Species of Litobothrium Dailey, 1969 (Cestoda
Systematic Parasitology 48: 159–177, 2001. 159 © 2001 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands. Two new species of Litobothrium Dailey, 1969 (Cestoda: Litobothriidea) from thresher sharks in the Gulf of California, Mexico, with redescriptions of two species in the genus P. D. Olson1;2 &J.N.Caira2 1Parasitic Worms Division, Department of Zoology, The Natural History Museum,Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, UK 2Department of Ecology & Evolutionary Biology, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT 06269-3043, USA Accepted for publication 5th June, 2000 Abstract As part of a survey of the metazoan parasites of elasmobranchs of the Gulf of California, Mexico, the spiral intestines of 10 pelagic thresher sharks Alopias pelagicus and one bigeye thresher shark A. superciliosus were examined for tapeworms. Eight of the A. pelagicus specimens examined were found to host Litobothrium amplifica and L. daileyi. Both tapeworm species are redescribed based on examination of this new material with light and scanning electron microscopy, and the ranges of most of the measurements for these species are expanded; scanning electron micrographs and detailed illustrations and measurements of their segment anatomy are presented for the first time. An argument is made that the identification of the original host specimens of these species was in error and that A. pelagicus is likely to be the correct original host. In addition, L. nickoli n. sp., a third species in the genus hosted by A. pelagicus, was found in three of the 10 individual hosts examined. This species differs from all six known Litobothrium species in the form of the pseudosegments of the scolex, the anterior two being essentially non-cruciform, while the latter three are distinctly cruciform. -
The Cast of SHARKS
The Cast of SHARKS EDUCATOR’S GUIDE 1 Introduction The Cast of SHARKS describes each species you will encounter in SHARKS, presenting some of its most important characteristics, such as average size, behavior (social, territorial, schooling, aggressive, gentle, etc.), fins, coloration, feeding habits, habitat, reproduction, potential danger to humans, endangered species. The Cast of SHARKS SAND TIGER SHARK ..........................................................................................................3 SILVERTIP SHARK ..............................................................................................................5 GIANT PACIFIC MANTA RAY..............................................................................................7 LARGE TOOTH SAWFISH ..................................................................................................9 GREAT WHITE SHARK ......................................................................................................11 SCALLOPED HAMMERHEAD..............................................................................................13 GREAT HAMMERHEAD SHARK ........................................................................................15 GRAY REEF SHARK ............................................................................................................16 WHALE SHARK ..................................................................................................................18 THE THEME SONG ............................................................................................................20 -
Spiny Dogfish (Squalus Acanthias)
Spiny Dogfish (Squalus acanthias) Family Squalidae, Dogfish sharks Common names: dogfish, sand shark Description: Spiny dogfish are gray to slate brown with a pale or white belly. They can be differentiated from other small sharks by a row of small white dots running along their sides. If these dots are faded or absent, which can happen with older dogfish, a distinctive single spine found in front of each of their two dorsal fins can be used as an additional identifying feature. The bodies of these fish are slender and their heads slope to a blunt snout. In size, adult females can reach lengths of 3 1/2 feet and weigh around 8 pounds, while males are normally smaller in size. Where found: inshore and offshore Similar Gulf of Maine species: smooth dogfish Remarks: Spiny dogfish are voracious eaters, preying on a variety of sea creatures, such as squid, shrimp and crabs, along with almost any species of fish that they can swallow. They mostly travel in large schools made of approximately equal size fish. These fish are known to winter in offshore waters and show up in the Gulf of Maine during the late spring or early summer. They are usually found in water depths ranging from surface waters to 600 feet. Records: MSSAR IGFA AllTackle World Record Fish Illustrations by: Roz Davis Designs, Damariscotta, ME (207) 5632286 With permission, the use of these pictures must state the following:Drawings provided courtesy of the Maine Department of Marine Resources Recreational Fisheries program and the Maine Outdoor Heritage Fund.. -
Common Sharks of the Northern Gulf of Mexico So You Caught a Sand Shark?
Common Sharks of the Northern Gulf of Mexico So you caught a sand shark? Estuaries are ecosystems where fresh and saltwater meet The northern Gulf of Mexico is home to several shark and mix. Estuaries provide nursery grounds for a wide species. A few of these species very closely resemble variety of invertebrate species such as oysters, shrimp, one another and are commonly referred to as and blue crabs along finfishes including croaker, red “sand sharks.” drum, spotted seatrout, tarpon, menhaden, flounder and many others. This infographic will help you quickly differentiate between the different “sand sharks” and also help you Because of this abundance, larger animals patrol coastal identify a few common offshore species. Gulf waters for food. Among these predators are a number of shark species. Sharpnose (3.5 ft) Blacknose (4ft) Finetooth (4ft) Blacktip (5ft) Maximum size of Human (avg. 5.5ft) . the coastal Spinner (6ft) sharks are Bull (8ft) depicted in scale Silky (9ft) Scalloped Hammerhead (10ft) Great Hammerhead (13ft) Maximum Adult Size Adult Maximum Tiger (15ft) 5 ft 10 ft 15 ft Blacktip shark Atlantic sharpnose shark Carcharhinus limbatus Rhizoprionodon terraenovae Spinner shark Easy ID: White “freckles” on the body Easy ID: Pointed snout, anal fin lacks a black tip Carcharhinus brevipinna Finetooth shark Blacknose shark Carcharhinus isodon Carcharhinus acronotus Easy ID: Black tip on anal fin present Easy ID: Distinct lack of black markings on fins, extremely pointed snout Easy ID: Distinct black smudge on the tip of the snout,