Gulf of Mexico Science Volume 24 Article 13 Number 1 Number 1/2 (Combined Issue)

2006 Review: Sharks, Skates, and Rays of the Gulf of Mexico: A Field Guide by Glenn R. Parsons Steve Branstetter National Marine Fisheries Service

DOI: 10.18785/goms.2401.13 Follow this and additional works at: https://aquila.usm.edu/goms

Recommended Citation Branstetter, S. 2006. Review: Sharks, Skates, and Rays of the Gulf of Mexico: A Field Guide by Glenn R. Parsons. Gulf of Mexico Science 24 (1). Retrieved from https://aquila.usm.edu/goms/vol24/iss1/13

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by The Aquila Digital Community. It has been accepted for inclusion in Gulf of Mexico Science by an authorized editor of The Aquila Digital Community. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Branstetter: Review: Sharks, Skates, and Rays of the Gulf of Mexico: A Field G

BOOK REVIEW

Gulf of M•·xiro Srimre, 2006(1/2), pp. !J0-93 © 2006 by the :Marine Environmental Sciences something about sharks and rays, they also are Consortium of Alabama entertained with some of Parsons' personal and lighthearted anecdotes, gleaned from his Sharhs, Skates, and Rays of the Gulf of J\!Iexico: A years of experience as a shark researcher. I was Field Guide. 2006. Glenn R. Parsons, University a graduate student at Dauphin Island Sea Lab Press of Mississippi, Jackson, Mississippi 39211. at the same time as Dr. Parsons, so I am famil­ 165 pages. vVeb address: www.upress.state.ms. iar with (and was involved in) many of his an­ us. Flexibind, ISBN l-57806-827-4, US$ 25. ecdotes. A couple of really good ones are miss­ ing. Oh ... and before I get too far into the Sharks and rays fascinate the general public. review, as a photographic contributor to this Perhaps it is the general "primitive" nature of volume, I cannot pass up the opportunity to these creatures; they represent a holdover use an 'inside joke', and say, "These are not from prehistoric times. More likely, it is the my best slides!" perceived concern that people have about be­ I noted several editing or typographical er­ ing bitten by a shark or stung by a ray. vVhat­ rors in this first edition, but will only mention ever their reason, people congregate around some with the intent to clarif)' an error. the shark tanks and ray-touching pools at pub­ It doesn't matter if an end user of a field lic aquaria. People gawk at the large sharks and guide is trying to identif)' flowers, fish, or rays hung up for public display at coastal fish­ ducks; there is a need to understand the basic ing tournaments. terminology and attributes of the specimens in Although shark fishing is not nearly as pop­ question. The anatomy section is short but pro­ ular today as it was in the heydays of the 1970s and 1980s, when dedicated shark tournaments vides a basic background of shark and ray anat­ flourished along the Atlantic coast from New omy. It is must reading for those who are not York to Texas, the sport is still popular. Cap­ familiar with sharks and rays. Not only is it gen­ tures of large sharks (and rays) still make good erally informative, but many of the terms are fodder for newspaper stories. And yet, many used later in the identification keys, and the people do not know what sharks (or rays) they species accounts depend on an understanding are catching, or viewing. of these terms by the reader. There are a cou­ This problem exists, in part, because shark ple of missing terms that would have been and ray taxonomy is not a field that is easy to helpful for the reader. Once the reader gets translate into general terms. Many of the spe­ back to the species accounts, terms used to de­ cies are very simila1~ and accurate identifica­ scribe teeth, such as "erect" and "oblique," tion requires detailed examination and an un­ are used without much explanation. The "in­ derlying understanding of anatomy. Accurate sertion" and "axil" of the pectoral fins are identification may require careful scrutiny of terms that also could have been defined in the the teeth, or precise morphometic compari­ introductory material. sons of the specimens in question. Such de­ In my opinion, the "How to use this book" tailed examinations are not really applicable to section (pages 6-8) would be more appropri­ a large fish thrashing alongside the boat. ate if it occurred later in the book. The 3-page Fishermen's guides are not new; simple but section describes how to use a dichotomous effective and useful taxonomic field guides go key, and then launches into the first key, which back at least as far as the 1960s, and numerous will let the user determine if the animal in ones have been developed over the years. question is (1) a shark, (2) a skate or ray, or Glenn Parsons' new contribution-Sharks, (3) one of the three species (angel shark, gui­ Skates, and Rays of the Gull of Mexico: A Field tarfish, sawf1sh) that, based on body shape, Guidr~takes a step forward in this chronology seem like they've been placed in the wrong of field guides, and does so in a light and easy­ subgroup. The key directs the user to family­ to-read tone. Unlike most of its predecessors, level keys farther back in the book. I can see the guide contains good color photographs of where the user would have difficulty finding most of the species, and it points out some of this little introductory key, sandwiched be­ the more easily discernible characteristics to tween the introduction and 40 subsequent pag­ help an angler identif)' the fish, even if it is left es of text covering a variety of topics including in the water for subsequent release. a general overview of the Gulf of Mexico, shark In using this guide, end users not only learn and ray biology, shark fishing, shark fisheries,

Published by The Aquila Digital Community, 2006 1 Gulf of Mexico Science, Vol. 24 [2006], No. 1, Art. 13 BOOK REVIEW 91

and the requisite section on shark attacks. Nev­ points were conspicuous by their absence. On ertheless, most users will probably not need to pages 32-33, Parsons states, in regard to spe­ figure out if the specimen is a shark or a ba­ cies that may not be harvested or kept by rec­ toid. reational or commercial fishermen under the It is often said that an author should write current management regime: "Sharks that about what he knows best, and the text often should not be taken in the Gulf of Mexico are reflects the author's familiarity with the north­ the white shark, dusky shark, sandbar shark, central and eastern Gulf of Mexico. Appropri­ and great hammerhead shark." This statement ately, the section "Major Features and Habi­ is incorrect; the list of species protected by the tats" leads off with a good overview of the federal fishery management plan does not in­ dominant feature of the Gulf of Mexico: the clude the sandbar or great hammerhead Mississippi River. However, discussions of the sharks. Sandbar sharks are a major recreational physical and biological environment of the large-shark target along the east coast of the Gulf of Mexico west of the Mississippi River are United States, and they represent the most limited. Discussion of the extensive and highly common target species in the highly regulated productive Louisiana coastline is a single tack­ commercial fisheries as well. Along the same on sentence at the end of a paragraph about lines, on page 33, a short paragraph regarding Mobile Bay and Mississippi Sound. The coast federal and state shark fishery management of Texas and the Mexican coast are described would have been appropriate here. On the fed­ in a brief three-sentence paragraph. The lack eral level, recreational and commercial shark of discussion of half the Gulf of Mexico is even fishing has been tightly managed since the more apparent given that the next page or so mid-1990s, and shark stocks of the Atlantic describes Florida's Gulf coast, detailing several coast are recovering from overfishing. Finally, geographic and ecological areas. although I agree wholeheartly with his warning The sections on shark and ray biology are on page 42: "NEVER try to remove the hook well done, providing the reader with pertinent from a live shark ... ,"I was surprised there was information regarding these interesting crea­ no mention made of the several types of de­ tures. The short "Shark Fact vs. Fiction" dis­ hooking devices available on the market today. pels many of the misconceptions about sharks, Oh, and just for the record; the smalltooth saw­ especially about shark attacks. There is an ex­ fish was added to the Endangered Species List planation of the multiple rows of teeth (always in 2002, not 1993 (page 48). a fascination to the general public) and the The rest of the book is devoted to the family­ denticles. The author is careful to make a and species-level keys, with an informative one­ point that most sharks and rays are opportu­ page account for each species. Developing an nistic feeders, preying mostly on fish and in­ easy-to-use taxonomic key for the general pub­ vertebrates-not humans. The discussion of re­ lic is difficult. In the past, when teaching stu­ production in this group of fishes is very good. dents to use a dichotomous key, I often tried The author makes it clear that all species have to drive home a point by exaggerating that internal fertilization, and that early develop­ they could force an oak tree through a fish key ment is internal (unlike most bony fishes), and if they were not careful. Successful identifica­ may include such evolved processes as placen­ tion of the fish in question first requires the tation, followed by live birth (most sharks and user to get the specimen into the right family stingrays). There is a basic overview of sharks' (or other higher level of taxonomy). This sim­ and rays' multiple sensory abilities (smell, ple step should not be overlooked, with the sight, electroreception, etc.)-not too much, end user simply moving directly to species-level nor too detailed, but sufficient to provide the identification. For the shark section, the guide reader with a basic understanding on how provides a relatively simple and efficient set of these creatures sense their environn1ent. characters that quickly gets the user into the Between the shark biology and ray biology correct family-level groups of sharks. The di­ sections are more "human-related" topics, in­ chotomies (and sometimes trichotomies) tend cluding the mandatory shark attack infonna­ to sort out the "oddball" species quickly with tion, with a focus on shark fishing. There is such options as information on current shark fisheries, shark management, and a brief "how to fish for a) "dorsal fin spines present: dogfishes" sharks" discussion. This section also contains b) "single dorsal fin: 6- and 7-gill sharks" the majority of the anecdotes relating the au­ or (leaving the most common pattern from thor's personal experiences. One comment in which to proceed onward): this section caught my eye, and a couple of c) "twu dorsal fins with no spines: go to #5." https://aquila.usm.edu/goms/vol24/iss1/13 2 DOI: 10.18785/goms.2401.13 Branstetter: Review: Sharks, Skates, and Rays of the Gulf of Mexico: A Field G 92 GULF OF MEXICO SCIENCE, 2006, VOL. 24(1/2)

The largest section of the guide covers the eastern Gulf of Mexico, with little reference to gray/requiem sharks (Family Carcharhinidae), the northwestern (Texas and Louisiana west of which is the most common group in the region the Mississippi River) and southwestern (Mex­ (except for the skates, which are not well cov­ ico) Gulf of Mexico. Even if a user off Corpus ered in this volume). The author is fairly suc­ Christi, TX, correctly applied the guide's key cessful at highlighting distinguishing charac­ to a specimen in question, he would be left ters to sort the many similar species in this fam­ wondering if the species occurred off the Tex­ ily. as coast. I did note a few problems with the carchar­ A few details need to be cleaned up in any hinid key. The Galapagos shark is not included subsequent editions for the requiem shark spe­ in the key or species accounts. This species is cies accounts. For one, the northern limit of known, albeit rare, from the Florida Keys. It the bignose shark is not Florida; the bignose deserves inclusion, considering species such as shark seasonally ranges north along the east smalleye hammerheads and six-gill sharks are coast as far as New Jersey and New York, similar included. The species key does not include two to many other requiem sharks. I found it a of the species included in the species accounts: stretch to suggest (page 62) possible hybridiza­ the Caribbean reef and small tail sharks. Carib­ tion between spinner and blacktip sharks; they bean reef sharks are not uncommon in the are not that similar in their genetic makeup. Florida Keys, and smalltail sharks could be tak­ The dusky shark (page 69) does not need to en off Texas. Without including them in the be added to the list of prohibited species that key, a Caribbean reef shark might be misiden­ cannot be landed; it is a founding member of tified as a dusky or other similar ridge back spe­ the list. cies. I suspect a small tail shark would most like­ As far as the hammerhead sharks go, the key ly be misidentified as an Atlantic sharpnose and species accounts are quite easy to use, and shark. Unfortunately, one of the first charac­ the few species present in the Gulf of Mexico ters used in the ridgeback portion of the gray/ are distinct enough to be readily identified. I requiem shark key is tooth shape. In the au­ do note the author omitted any reference to thor's defense, off the top of my head, I am the characteristic mottling on the caudal pe­ not sure what I would offer as a substitute. Al­ duncle of the smooth hammerhead. This is the though the illustrations on page 55 will help only hammerhead to possess such coloring. quickly separate two ridgeback species (silky The character would be good corroboration and night sharks), the subtle differences in for end users trying to identiry a fish in the tooth shape between 3b (silky shark) and 3c water, where the presence or absence of a me­ (sandbar, dusky, and bignose sharks) may not dial notch along the leading edge of the head be so obvious, especially if the shark is alive. might be in question. Lastly, as a longtime student of blacktip and Users would be hard pressed to have gotten spinner sharks, I also note an error in the key to the short Hexanchidae key in error, espe­ (#13b) in reference to the blacktip shark's anal cially if they can count to seven. Unfortunately, fin being tipped in black. I realize blacktip there appears to be an editorial error in the sharks MAY have a black-tipped anal fin, but in species accounts, where the biological infor­ the western Atlantic, this occurs only rarely. In mation regarding the seven-gill shark is copied contrast, the anal fins of all adolescent and and duplicated for the six-gill shark. Should an adult spinner sharks are distinctly tipped in angler actually catch a large six-gill shark, (s)he black (young juvenile spinner sharks have no could quickly believe they had a world record black tips on the fins at all). Such a definitive specimen. statement in the key itself could lead the user The rest of the shark species accounts wrap to misidentif)' a spinner shark as a blacktip up the smaller groups found in Gulf waters shark. such as mackerel sharks, sandtigers, dogfishes, Overall, the species accounts for the requi­ whale sharks, and smoothhounds. The author em sharks are well done, providing users with chose to include only one of the 20 or so dog­ sufficient additional information to make an fishes known in the Gulf of Mexico. For the informed decision in regard to the specimen purposes of this guide, that is probably best; before them. The only drawback I note is the most are found in relatively deep water, and limited discussion of the occurrence of these are not likely to wind up on the average an­ species in the western Gulf of Mexico. Similar gler's hook. A couple of comments are war­ to the geographical descriptions of the Gulf of ranted in regard to the section on sand tiger Mexico in the introductory text, the focus in sharks. The author does not include an ac­ the species accounts is the north-central and count for the ragged tooth shark ( Ontasj;is je1~

Published by The Aquila Digital Community, 2006 3 Gulf of Mexico Science, Vol. 24 [2006], No. 1, Art. 13 BOOK REVIEW 93

ox); this species was recorded from Mexican tification. It is not that they are identical; but waters in 1995, so it is as least as common as it is easier to distinguish them if you have both the bigeye sand tiger, which is also known in at hand. The clear photographs included in the western north Atlantic from a single spec­ this guide will help the user identify these two imen caught off Texas. One statement did common inshore stingray species. It is unfor­ catch my eye in regard to the sand tiger: "The tunate that no good photos were available for sand tiger has a second dorsal well ahead of the pelagic stingray; the tvw I've seen were the pelvic fins." I'm not sure what this state­ nearly black. The one print photo I had of a ment should be, and there is no statement for specimen (reported in this journal by me long ago) was lost at some point, or I would have the other species in opposition to it. But, as offered it to the author. One character of the written, is not correct. I assume it should read pelagic stingray not mentioned in this text is "The sand tiger has the second dorsal fin well the extremely long whip-like tail; the tail may behind the pelvic fins.", and it would be in be two or more times the disc width. As with opposition to "The second dorsal fin is located the deepwater dogfishes, the author chose to above the pelvic fins." for the bigeye sand tiger not include many of the deepwater skates in (and ragged tooth shark). I was surprised there this volume. The average user of this guide is was no mention of the sand tiger's unusual more likely to only encounter two of these spe­ habit of swallowing air to achieve neutral buoy­ cies (clearnose and roundel skates), and they ancy. are easily distinguished. The family-level key to the skates and rays, All in all, this compact field guide, which based on general body shape, is very straight­ should fit easily into a tackle box, is a good forward and should not confuse a user. The resource that will help fishermen identif)' their author is careful to make it clear throughout shark and ray catches (or sightings) in the Gulf the book that sawfishes and guitarfishes, al­ of Mexico. Along the way, they have the op­ though they resemble sharks, are really ba­ portunity to learn something about this fasci­ toids. The species key to the various stingrays, nating group of creatures. Although it might not be the best reference source for a serious and the species descriptions, are quite ade­ elasmobranch student, the guide still deserves quate for users to identif)' these species. The a place on their bookshelves as well. key quickly separates two of the most common species: the Atlantic stingray and the bluntnose STEVE BRANSTETTER, Southeast Regional Ojjice, stingray. These two rays are known to cause NationallVImine Fisheries Service, 263 13th Av­ even experienced biologists problems in iden- enue South, St. Petersbu1g, Flmida 33701.

https://aquila.usm.edu/goms/vol24/iss1/13 4 DOI: 10.18785/goms.2401.13