DOCSLIB.ORG

Status of the U.S

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Status of the U.S STATUS OF THE U.S. WEST COAST FISHERIES FOR HIGHLY MIGRATORY SPECIES THROUGH 2008 STOCK ASSESSMENT AND FISHERY EVALUATION OCTOBER 2009 PACIFIC FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL 7700 NE AMBASSADOR PLACE, SUITE 101 PORTLAND, OREGON 97220 WWW.PCOUNCIL.ORG Cover illustration by Roy Allen, Southwest Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, La Jolla, California Printed: October 27, 2009 Prepared by the Pacific Fishery Management Council in conjunction with the National Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest Region under National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration award number NA05NMF4410008. ii Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 The Fishery Management Plan ..................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Purpose of the SAFE Report ......................................................................................................... 1 1.3 The Management Cycle ................................................................................................................ 2 1.4 Highly Migratory Species Management Team ............................................................................. 2 1.5 Council Highly Migratory Species Activities, September 2008-June 2009 ................................. 3 2.0 Description of the Fisheries .............................................................................................................. 7 2.1 Commercial Fisheries ................................................................................................................... 7 2.1.1 California .............................................................................................................................. 7 2.1.1.1 Surface Hook-and-Line Fishery for Albacore .................................................................... 7 2.1.1.2 Coastal Purse Seine Fishery for Yellowfin, Skipjack, and Bluefin Tunas .......................... 8 2.1.1.3 Harpoon Fishery for Swordfish .......................................................................................... 9 2.1.1.4 Drift Gillnet Fishery for Swordfish and Shark.................................................................. 11 2.1.1.5 High Seas Longline Fishery for Swordfish ....................................................................... 15 2.1.2 Oregon ................................................................................................................................. 15 2.1.2.1 Surface Hook-and-Line Fishery for Albacore .................................................................... 15 2.1.3 Washington ......................................................................................................................... 17 2.2 Description of West Coast Recreational Fisheries ...................................................................... 18 2.2.1 California ............................................................................................................................ 18 2.2.2 Oregon ........................................................................................................................................ 21 2.2.3 Washington ......................................................................................................................... 23 2.3 Highly Migratory Species taken in Non-HMS Fisheries ............................................................ 24 2.3.1 California ............................................................................................................................ 24 2.3.2 Oregon ................................................................................................................................. 24 2.3.3 Washington ......................................................................................................................... 25 2.4 Non HMS FMP Fisheries of Importance to the West Coast ............................................................. 25 3.0 Regulations Currently In Place ....................................................................................................... 27 3.1 Summary of the HMS FMP Management Measures and Regulations ....................................... 27 3.1.1 Summary of the Regulatory Changes to the HMS FMP ..................................................... 27 3.1.2 HMS Commercial Gear ...................................................................................................... 29 3.1.3 HMS Recreational Gear ...................................................................................................... 29 3.1.4 Landings and Gear Use Regulations ................................................................................... 30 3.1.5 Incidental Landings ............................................................................................................. 31 3.1.6 Status of HMS Permits ........................................................................................................ 31 3.1.7 HMS Data Collection .......................................................................................................... 32 3.1.8 Observer Requirements ....................................................................................................... 33 3.1.9 U.S. Pacific Albacore Logbook and HMS Permits Compliance Check for 2008 ............... 34 3.1.9.1 Enforcement of Regulations ............................................................................................. 34 3.1.9.2 Compliance Check ............................................................................................................ 34 3.1.10 Changes in State HMS Regulations .................................................................................... 34 3.2 Protected Resources Regulations ................................................................................................ 35 3.3 International Regulatory Aspects of the HMS FMP ................................................................... 36 3.3.1 The Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission ................................................................ 36 3.3.1.1 An Update of IATTC Resolutions .................................................................................... 37 3.3.2 Western and Central Pacific Fishery Commission .............................................................. 39 3.3.3 The U.S.-Canada Albacore Treaty ...................................................................................... 40 3.4 Bycatch and Other Monitored Species ........................................................................................ 41 4.0 Statistical Summaries of Catch, Revenue, and Effort ..................................................................... 43 iii 4.1 Commercial Fisheries ................................................................................................................. 43 4.2 Recreational Fisheries ............................................................................................................... 117 5.0 Updated Status of the Highly Migratory Species Management Unit Species ............................... 131 5.1 Control Rules for Management ................................................................................................. 131 5.2 Recent and Projected Assessment Schedule ............................................................................. 133 5.3 Conclusions from 2008 Pacific HMS stock assessments .......................................................... 133 5.3.1 Albacore ............................................................................................................................ 133 5.3.1.1 Albacore (NPO) .............................................................................................................. 133 5.3.1.2 Albacore (WCPO) ........................................................................................................... 134 5.3.2 Bigeye Tuna ...................................................................................................................... 134 5.3.2.1 Bigeye Tuna (EPO) ......................................................................................................... 134 5.3.2.2 Bigeye Tuna (WCPO) ..................................................................................................... 134 5.3.3 Skipjack Tuna ................................................................................................................... 135 5.3.3.1 Skipjack Tuna (EPO) ...................................................................................................... 135 5.3.3.2 Skipjack Tuna (WCPO) .................................................................................................. 135 5.3.4 Yellowfin Tuna ................................................................................................................. 136 5.3.4.1 Yellowfin Tuna (EPO) .................................................................................................... 136 5.3.4.2 Yellowfin Tuna (WCPO) ................................................................................................ 136 5.3.5 Bluefin Tuna ..................................................................................................................... 137 5.3.5.1 Bluefin Tuna (NPO) .......................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Forage Fish Management Plan
    Oregon Forage Fish Management Plan November 19, 2016 Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Marine Resources Program 2040 SE Marine Science Drive Newport, OR 97365 (541) 867-4741 http://www.dfw.state.or.us/MRP/ Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife 1 Table of Contents Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 4 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 6 Purpose and Need ..................................................................................................................................... 6 Federal action to protect Forage Fish (2016)............................................................................................ 7 The Oregon Marine Fisheries Management Plan Framework .................................................................. 7 Relationship to Other State Policies ......................................................................................................... 7 Public Process Developing this Plan .......................................................................................................... 8 How this Document is Organized .............................................................................................................. 8 A. Resource Analysis ....................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Feeding Habits of the Common Thresher Shark (Alopias Vulpinus) Sampled from the California-Based Drift Gill Net Fishery, 1998-1 999
    PRETI ET AL.: FEEDING HABITS OF COMMON THRESHER SHARK CalCOFl Rep., Vol. 42, 2001 FEEDING HABITS OF THE COMMON THRESHER SHARK (ALOPIAS VULPINUS) SAMPLED FROM THE CALIFORNIA-BASED DRIFT GILL NET FISHERY, 1998-1 999 ANTONELLA PRETI SUSAN E. SMITH AND DARLENE A. RAMON California Department of Fish and Game National Marine Fisheries Service, NOM 8604 La Jolla Shores Dnve Southwest Fisheries Science Center La Jolla, California 92037 P.O. Box 271 sharksharkshark@hotniail coni La Jolla, California 92038 ABSTRACT (Compagno 1984). It is epipelagic, gregarious, and cos- The diet of common thresher shark (Alopius vulpinus) mopolitan, and in the northeastern Pacific seems to be from US. Pacific Coast waters was investigated by means most abundant within 40 miles of shore (Strasburg 1958). of frequency of occurrence, gravimetric and numerical Its known range extends from Clarion Island, Mexico, methods, and calculating the geometric index of im- north to British Columbia; it is common seasonally from portance (GII) of prey taxa taken from stoniachs col- mid-Baja California, Mexico, to Washington state.' It lected by fishery observers from the California-based is the leading commercial shark taken in California, drift gill net fishery. Sampling was done from 16 August where it is highly valued in the fresh fish trade (Holts et 1998 to 24 January 1999, a time when the California al. 1998). It is also sought by recreational anglers for its Current was undergoing rapid change from El Niiio to fighting ability as well as food value, especially in south- La Niiia conhtions. Of the 165 stomachs examined, 107 ern California.
    [Show full text]
  • 4 Thresher Shark, Alopias Vulpinus
    4 Thresher Shark, Alopias vulpinus Thresher shark, Alopias vulpinus. Photo credit: Dale Sweetnam. History of the Fishery The common thresher shark, Alopias vulpinus, is the most common commercially landed shark in California. They are primarily caught using large mesh drift gill nets and hook and line gear, but are also caught incidentally with small mesh gill nets and harpoon. Prior to 1977, all sharks were reported in one market category and not separated by species, and it is assumed threshers were caught as bycatch in gears at levels similar or greater than today. The first significant fishery for thresher sharks began the late 1970s to early 1980s when drift gill net fishers began to target them close to the southern California coastline. The fishery expanded rapidly and, because of overfishing concerns, the California Department of Fish and Game (Department) as mandated by the State Legislature began an observer program, monitored landings and implemented a logbook program. A limited entry permit program for drift gill net gear was initiated in 1982, with permits issued to fishers rather than boats to prevent false inflation in value. The drift gill net fishery for thresher sharks peaked in 1981 when 113 Status of the Fisheries Report 2008 4-1 drift gill net boats landed nearly 600 tons (544 metric tons). However, total landings using all gears were highest the following year with a total of more than 1700 tons (1542 metric tons) taken by all gears (Figure 4-1). 2000 1500 1000 Landings (short tons) (short Landings 500 0 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 Year Figure 4-1.
    [Show full text]
  • Use of Productivity and Susceptibility Indices to Determine the Vulnerability of a Stock: with Example Applications to Six U.S
    Use of productivity and susceptibility indices to determine the vulnerability of a stock: with example applications to six U.S. fisheries. Wesley S. Patrick1, Paul Spencer2, Olav Ormseth2, Jason Cope3, John Field4, Donald Kobayashi5, Todd Gedamke6, Enric Cortés7, Keith Bigelow5, William Overholtz8, Jason Link8, and Peter Lawson9. 1NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, 1315 East- West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910; 2 NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service, Alaska Fisheries Science Center, 7600 Sand Point Way, Seattle, WA 98115; 3NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, 2725 Montlake Boulevard East, Seattle, WA 98112; 4NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest Fisheries Science Center, 110 Shaffer Road, Santa Cruz, CA 95060; 5NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service, Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center, 2570 Dole Street, Honolulu, HI 96822; 6NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Science Center, 75 Virginia Beach Drive, Miami, FL 33149; 7NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Science Center, 3500 Delwood Beach Road, Panama City, FL 32408; 8NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, 166 Water Street, Woods Hole, MA 02543; 9NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, 2030 South Marine Science Drive, Newport, OR 97365. CORRESPONDING AUTHOR: Wesley S. Patrick, NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, 1315 East-West
    [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]
  • Atlantic Sharks at Risk
    RESEARCH SERIES JUNE 2008 Risk Assessment Prompts No-Take Recommendations for Shark Species ATLANTIC SHARKS AT RISK SummARY OF AN EXPERT WORKING GROup REPORT: Simpfendorfer, C., Heupel M., Babcock, E., Baum, J.K., Dudley, S.F.J., Stevens, J.D., Fordham, S., and A. Soldo. 2008. Management Recommendations Based on Integrated Risk Assessment of Data-Poor Pelagic Atlantic Sharks. POpuLATIONS OF MANY of the world’s pelagic, or open ocean, shark and ray species are declining. Like most sharks, these species are known to be susceptible to overfishing due to low reproductive rates. Pelagic longline fisheries for tuna and swordfish catch significant numbers of pelagic sharks and rays and shark fisheries are also growing due to declines in traditional target species and the rising value of shark fins and meat. Yet, a lack of data has prevented scientists from conducting reliable population assessments for most pelagic shark and ray species, hindering effective management actions. Dr. Colin Simpfendorfer and the Lenfest Ocean Program convened an international expert working group to estimate the risk of overfishing for twelve species caught in Atlantic pelagic longline fisheries under the jurisdiction of the International Commission for the Conserva- tion of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT). The scientists conducted an integrated risk assessment designed for data-poor situations for these sharks and rays. Their analysis indicated that bigeye thresher, shortfin mako and longfin mako sharks had the highest risk of overfishing while many of the other species had at least moderately high levels of risk. Based on these results, the scientists developed recommendations for limiting or prohibiting catch for the main pelagic shark and ray species taken in ICCAT fisheries.
    [Show full text]
  • Thresher Sharks Common Thresher Alopias Vulpinus Bigeye Thresher Alopias Superciliosus Pelagic Thresher Alopias Pelagicus
    Fact sheet for the 11th Meeting of the Conference of the Parties (CoP11) to the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS) Thresher Sharks Common Thresher Alopias vulpinus Bigeye Thresher Alopias superciliosus Pelagic Thresher Alopias pelagicus Proposed action Inclusion on CMS Appendix II Proponents European Union NAOO/SWFSC Overview Thresher Sharks, wide-ranging, largely oceanic species found in warm and temperate seas, make up one of the world’s most vulnerable and threatened shark families. These highly migratory, low-productivity species are at risk in many regions due to demand for their valuable meat and fins, as well as incidental take in a variety of fisheries. Despite some regional prohibitions, global Thresher Shark mortality is under-reported and largely unmanaged. Including the genus (Alopias) in CMS Appendix II could bolster compliance with existing protections and facilitate international cooperation toward more comprehensive national and regional conservation measures, thereby enhancing the chances for sustainable use. SHARK ADVOCATES INTERNATIONAL Fact sheet for the 11th Meeting of the Conference of the Parties (CoP11) to the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS) Biology and Distribution common in the global trade driven by Asian demand for Thresher Sharks are characterized by long, scythe-like tails shark fin soup. Threshers are fished by recreational anglers in that account for half their body length. High-order predators, many countries, including the US, Canada, United Kingdom, they use their tails to corral, disorient, and stun schooling fishes Italy, South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand. In a few and pelagic invertebrates. The largest species – Common places, like Philippines, Thresher Sharks are key attractions for Threshers – can grow to six meters in length (nearly 20 feet).
    [Show full text]
  • Casgy09002.Pdf
    UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO Movement patterns, habitat preferences, and fisheries biology of the common thresher shark (Alopias vulpinus) in the Southern California Bight A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in Marine Biology by Daniel Patrick Cartamil Committee in charge: Professor Jeffrey B. Graham, Chair Professor David M. Checkley Professor Philip A. Hastings Professor Cleridy E. Lennert Professor Richard H. Rosenblatt Professor David S. Woodruff 2009 i IGNATURE PAGE The dissertation of Daniel Patrick Cartamil is approved, and it is acceptable in quality and form for publication on microfilm and electronically: ________________________________________ ________________________________________ ________________________________________ ________________________________________ ________________________________________ Chair University of California, San Diego 2009 iii EPIGRAPH “The swordfish swimmes under the whale, and pricketh him upward. The thresher keepeth above him, and with a mighty great thing like unto a flail, hee so bangeth the whale, that hee will roare as though it thundered, and doth give him such blowes with his weapon, that you would think it to be the crake of a great shot” Block Island fisherman, 1609 iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Signature Page .......................................................................................................... iii Epigraph ...................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Elasmobranchs (Sharks and Rays): a Review of Status, Distribution and Interaction with Fisheries in the Southwest Indian Ocean
    See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/277329893 Elasmobranchs (sharks and rays): a review of status, distribution and interaction with fisheries in the Southwest Indian Ocean CHAPTER · JANUARY 2015 READS 81 2 AUTHORS, INCLUDING: Jeremy J Kiszka Florida International University 52 PUBLICATIONS 389 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE Available from: Jeremy J Kiszka Retrieved on: 16 October 2015 OFFSHORE FISHERIES OF THE SOUTHWEST INDIAN OCEAN: their status and the impact on vulnerable species OCEANOGRAPHIC RESEARCH INSTITUTE Special Publication No. 10 Rudy van der Elst and Bernadine Everett (editors) The Investigational Report series of the Oceanographic Research Institute presents the detailed results of marine biological research. Reports have appeared at irregular intervals since 1961. All manuscripts are submitted for peer review. The Special Publication series of the Oceanographic Research Institute reports on expeditions, surveys and workshops, or provides bibliographic and technical information. The series appears at irregular intervals. The Bulletin series of the South African Association for Marine Biological Research is of general interest and reviews the research and curatorial activities of the Oceanographic Research Institute, uShaka Sea World and the Sea World Education Centre. It is published annually. These series are available in exchange for relevant publications of other scientific institutions anywhere in the world. All correspondence in this regard should be directed to: The Librarian Oceanographic Research Institute PO Box 10712 Marine Parade 4056 Durban, South Africa OFFSHORE FISHERIES OF THE SOUTHWEST INDIAN OCEAN: their status and the impact on vulnerable species Rudy van der Elst and Bernadine Everett (editors) South African Association for Marine Biological Research Oceanographic Research Institute Special Publication No.
    [Show full text]
  • Recreational Shark Fishing Limits
    Recreational Shark Limits New York State Marine & Coastal District Before Going Fishing, You Must: 1. Register with the NYS Recreation Marine Fishing Registry: • Call 1-866-933-2257 or visit https://decals.dec.ny.gov/DECALSCitizenWeb 2. Check the current fishing regulations in effect! For the most updated information: • Call (631) 444-0430 or visit https://www.dec.ny.gov/outdoor/7894.html 3. For fishing information in federal waters, contact NMFS Fisheries Information Line, visit • https://hmspermits.noaa.gov/ or call 888-872-8862 DAILY SPECIES MINIMUM SIZE POSSESSION LIMIT Tiger, Blacktip, Bull, Lemon, Nurse, Spinner, Blue, 54 inches fork Oceanic whitetip, Porbeagle, Common Thresher length (1) One shark per vessel per trip, Male: 71 inches except that one Shortfin mako Female: 83 inches additional Atlantic fork length (1) Sharpnose and one Allowed additional Sharks Great hammerhead, Scalloped hammerhead, 78 inches fork Bonnethead may be Smooth hammerhead length (1) taken and possessed per angler per trip. Atlantic sharpnose, Bonnethead, Finetooth No size limit Smooth dogfish, Spiny dogfish No size limit Any number Atlantic angel, Basking, Blacknose, Bigeye sand tiger, Bigeye sixgill, Bigeye thresher, Bignose, Take or Take or Prohibited Bluntnose Sixgill, Caribbean sharpnose, Dusky, Possession Possession Sharks Galapagos, Longfin mako, Narrowtooth, Night, Prohibited (2) Prohibited (2) Reef, Sand tiger, Sandbar, Sharpnose Sevengill, Smalltail, Whale, White (1) Fork length means the straight-line measurement of a fish from the tip of the
    [Show full text]
  • Fishes-Of-The-Salish-Sea-Pp18.Pdf
    NOAA Professional Paper NMFS 18 Fishes of the Salish Sea: a compilation and distributional analysis Theodore W. Pietsch James W. Orr September 2015 U.S. Department of Commerce NOAA Professional Penny Pritzker Secretary of Commerce Papers NMFS National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Kathryn D. Sullivan Scientifi c Editor Administrator Richard Langton National Marine Fisheries Service National Marine Northeast Fisheries Science Center Fisheries Service Maine Field Station Eileen Sobeck 17 Godfrey Drive, Suite 1 Assistant Administrator Orono, Maine 04473 for Fisheries Associate Editor Kathryn Dennis National Marine Fisheries Service Offi ce of Science and Technology Fisheries Research and Monitoring Division 1845 Wasp Blvd., Bldg. 178 Honolulu, Hawaii 96818 Managing Editor Shelley Arenas National Marine Fisheries Service Scientifi c Publications Offi ce 7600 Sand Point Way NE Seattle, Washington 98115 Editorial Committee Ann C. Matarese National Marine Fisheries Service James W. Orr National Marine Fisheries Service - The NOAA Professional Paper NMFS (ISSN 1931-4590) series is published by the Scientifi c Publications Offi ce, National Marine Fisheries Service, The NOAA Professional Paper NMFS series carries peer-reviewed, lengthy original NOAA, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, research reports, taxonomic keys, species synopses, fl ora and fauna studies, and data- Seattle, WA 98115. intensive reports on investigations in fi shery science, engineering, and economics. The Secretary of Commerce has Copies of the NOAA Professional Paper NMFS series are available free in limited determined that the publication of numbers to government agencies, both federal and state. They are also available in this series is necessary in the transac- exchange for other scientifi c and technical publications in the marine sciences.
    [Show full text]
  • Insights from New Cestodes of the Crocodile Shark, Pseudocarcharias
    Journal of Helminthology Insights from new cestodes of the crocodile shark, Pseudocarcharias kamoharai cambridge.org/jhl (Lamniformes: Pseudocarchariidae), prompt expansion of Scyphyophyllidum and formal Research Paper synonymization of seven phyllobothriidean Cite this article: Caira JN, Jensen K, Hayes C, – Ruhnke TR (2020). Insights from new cestodes genera at last! of the crocodile shark, Pseudocarcharias kamoharai (Lamniformes: Pseudocarchariidae), prompt expansion of J.N. Caira1 , K. Jensen2 ,C.Hayes1 and T.R. Ruhnke3 Scyphyophyllidum and formal synonymization – of seven phyllobothriidean genera at last!. 1Department of Ecology & Evolutionary Biology, University of Connecticut, 75 N Eagleville Road, Unit 3043, Storrs, Journal of Helminthology 94, e132, 1–25. Connecticut 06269-3043, USA; 2Department of Ecology & Evolutionary Biology, Biodiversity Institute, University of https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022149X20000036 Kansas, 1200 Sunnyside Avenue, Lawrence, Kansas 66045, USA and 3Department of Biology, West Virginia State Received: 13 September 2019 University, Institute, West Virginia 25112-1000, USA Revised: 16 November 2019 Accepted: 7 January 2020 Abstract Key words: Three new cestode species are described from the crocodile shark (Pseudocarcharias Phyllobothriidea; new species; phylogeny; kamoharai) in Ecuador. All three were examined with light and scanning electron microscopy. elasmobranch; cestode; synonymies The unique combination of morphological features in one of the new species prompted Author for correspondence: formal investigation of the non-monophyly of Paraorygmatobothrium relative to the J.N. Caira, E-mail: [email protected] morphologically similar genera Doliobothrium, Guidus, Marsupiobothrium, Nandocestus, Orectolobicestus, Ruhnkecestus and Scyphophyllidium. Sequence data generated for part of the 28S rDNA gene were subjected to maximum likelihood (ML) analysis. The resulting tree led to the synonymization of six of these seven genera with Scyphophyllidium, and trans- fer of their species to the latter genus.
    [Show full text]