DOCSLIB.ORG

MACKERAL SHARKS Order Lamniformes Compagno, 1973C, J.Linn

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
MACKERAL SHARKS Order Lamniformes Compagno, 1973C, J.Linn click for previous page - 212 - 8. ORDER LAMNIFORMES - MACKERAL SHARKS Order Lamniformes Compagno, 1973c, J.Linn.Soc.(Zool.), 53 Suppl. 1:37 p. Synonymy : Order Asterospondyli: Gill, 1893 (in part); Fowler, 1941 (in part); Smith, 1949 (in part). Order Asterospondyli, Suborder Galei: Jordan & Evermann, 1896 (in part). Superorder Carcharhini, Order Squatinidae, Suborder Squaloidei: Glikman, 1967 (in part, for Cetorhinidae). Order Carcharhiniformes: Ross & Lindberg, 1971 (in part, for Cetorhinidae). Suborder Carchariina: Fowler, 1967 (in part). "Group" Carcharoidei: Garman, 1913 (in part). Order Euselachii, Suborder Galeoidei: Blot, 1969 (in part). Order Galea, Suborder Isurida: White, 1936, 1937 (in part). Suborder Galei: Gill, 1872 (in part), Jordan, 1923 (in part). Order Galeiformes, Suborder Isuroidea: Arambourg & Bertin, 1958 (in part). Suborder Galeiformes: Lozano y Rey, 1928 (in part); Budker & Whitehead, 1971 (in part). Suborder Galeoidea: Romer, 1945, 1966 (in part), Bigelow & Schroeder, 1948 (in part); Norman, 1966 (in part). "Division" Galeoidei: Regan, 1906 (in part). Suborder Galeoidei: Engelhardt, 1913 (in part). Order Isuriformes: Chu & Wen, 1979. "Group" Isuroidei: Garman, 1913 (in part). Suborder Lamnae, Order Odontaspida: Glikman, 1967 (in part, except for Cetorhinidae). Order Lamniformes: Ross & Lindberg, 1971 (in part, except for Cetorhinidae), Applegate, 1974. Order Lamniformes, Suborder Lamnoidei: Berg, 1940 (in part); Berg & Svedovidov, 1955 (in part), Patterson, 1967 (in part). Suborder Lamniformes: Bertin, 1939 (in part). Suborder Lamnina: Matsubara, 1955 (in part). Order Lamncidea, suborder Galeoidea: Schultz & Stern, 1948 (in part). Suborder Lamnoidei: Lindberg, 1971 (in part); Nelson, 1976 (in part). Suborder Scylloidei: Goodrich, 1909 (in part). Suborder Squali: Gill, 1862 (in part). Diagnostic Features : Trunk cylindrical and not raylike. Head conical to cylindrical and not laterally expanded; 5 pairs of gill slits present on sides of head, either entirely in front of pectoral bases or with the last two above the pectoral bases; spiracles usually present and very small, well behind the eyes; nostrils without barbels, circumnarial grooves, or nasoral grooves, well separated from eyes, with anterior nasal flaps not expanded and far from mouth; eyes lateral or slightly dorsolateral on head, without nictitating lower eyelids; snout very short and bluntly rounded to long and conical or flattened, usually not bladelike and not formed as a rostral saw with lateral teeth and vertral barbels; mouth moderately large to very large, strongly arched, extending well behind eyes; labial furrows short or absent, when present on lower jaw; teeth usually well differentiated along jaws, with enlarged anterior teeth, a gap or small intermediate teeth separating the anterior teeth from the lateral teeth in the upper jaw, but with posterior teeth not enlarged. Two dorsal fins, without spines, the first with its origin over the interspace between pectoral and pelvic bases or over the pectoral bases; pectoral fins moderate-sized to large but not raylike, without triangular anterior lobes; pelvic fins small to moderately large, with vent continuous with their inner margins; anal fin present; caudal fin with a long dorsal lobe but with ventral lobe varying from long (but shorter than the dorsal lobe) to absent; vertebral axis raised into the dorsal caudal lobe. Intestinal valve of ring type. Key to Families 1a. Snout greatly elongated and flattened, forming a dagger-like blade. No pre- caudal pits Ventral caudal lobe absent Anal fin broadly rounded (Fig. 1) - Goblin sharks ............................... Family Mitsukurinidae Mitsukurina Fig.1 1b. Snout very short to moderately elon- gated, conical to flattened and broadly rounded but not bladelike. Precaudal pits and ventral caudal lobe present. Anal fin angular 2a. Snout very short and broadly rounded in dorscventral view. Mouth greatly enlarged, terminal on head. Teeth very small, numerous, over 50 rows in each jaw half, and not differentiated into anteriors, laterals, and symphy- seals; no intermediates or inter- Megachasma Fig.2 mediate gap in upper jaw. Internal gill openings with papillose gillrakers (Fig. 2) - Megamouth sharks ..................... Family Megachasmidae - 213 - 2b. Snout longer and narrowly to broadly parabolic in dorsoventral view. Mouth small to moderately large, subterminal on head. Teeth larger, less nume- rous, and less than 50 rows in each jaw half, and differentiated into anteriors, laterals and often symphyseals (symphyseals absent in some species); upper jaw with intermediate teeth or an interme- diate gap between anterior and lateral teeth. Inter- nal gill openings without rakers 3a. Caudal fin about as long as rest of shark. Last two gill openings above pectoral fin base (Fig. 3) -Thresher sharks ................................... Family Alopidae Alopias Fig.3 3b. Caudal fin much shorter than rest of shark. All gill openings in front of pectoral fin base 4a. Caudal fin asymmetrical, not lunate, ventral caudal lobe short, preventral caudal margin much shorter than dorsal caudal margin. Caudal peduncle without lateral keels or with weak ones 5a. Eyes relatively small, body stout. Anal fin broad-based, not pivoting. Caudal peduncle with an upper pre- caudal pit but without a lower pit or lateral keels. Gill openings not Eugomphodus Fig.4 extending onto dorsal surface of head (Fig. 4) - Sand tiger sharks ................. Family Odontaspididae 5b. Eyes very large, body slender. Anal fin narrow-based, pivoting. Caudal peduncle with both upper and lower precaudal pits and low lateral keels on each side. Gill openings extending onto dorsal sur- face of head (Fig. 5) - Crocodile Pseudocarcharias Fig.5 sharks ......... Family Pseudocarchariidae 4b. Caudal fin nearly symmetrical and lunate, with a long ventral lobe and preventral caudal margin nearly as long as dorsal caudal margin. Caudal peduncle with very strong lateral keels 6a. Teeth relatively few, enlarged and bladelike, with less than 40 rows in each jaw. Gill openings large but not extending onto dorsal surface of head; internal gill openings Isurus Fig.6 without gillrakers (Fig. 6) - Mackerel sharks .......... Family Lamnidae 6b. Teeth numerous, minute, hooked and not bladelike, with over 150 rows in each jaw. Gill openings extremely large, extending onto dorsal surface of head; internal gill openings with prominent gillrakers formed from modified dermal den- ticles (Fig. 7) - Basking sharks ..................... Family Cetorhinidae Cetorhinus Fig.7 - 214 - 8.1 FAMILY ODONTASPIDIDAE Müller & Henle, 1839 ODONT Family Odontaspides Müller & Henle, 1839, Syst.Beschr.Plagiost., pt. 2:73.. Family Odontaspididae (correction of Odontaspides) placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology (Name no. 3B5) and Odontaspides placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology (Name no. 414) by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, Opinion 723 (1965). Synonymy : Subfamily Triglochidini Bonaparte, 1838 (Family Squalidae). FAO Names : En - Sand tiger sharks; Fr - Requins de sable; Sp - Solrayos, Toros. Field Marks : Large sharks, with conical to slightly depressed, pointed snouts, long mouths extending behind eyes, small eyes without nictitating eyelids, moderately long gill openings, large teeth with slender cusps and lateral cusplets, small intermediate teeth separating anterior and lateral teeth in the upper jaw, two large dorsal fins and an anal fin, small pectoral fins, a compressed caudal peduncle without keels but with an upper precaudal pit, and an asymmetrical caudal fin with a strong but short ventral lobe. Diagnostic Features : Trunk compressed-cylindrical and moderately stout. Head short, much shorter than trunk, snout short to moderately long, pointed and conical to slightly depressed, not greatly elongated, flattened and bladelike; eyes small to moderately large; mouth large, ventral on head; gill openings moderately large, not extending onto dorsal surface of head, all anterior to pectoral fin bases; no gillrakers on internal gill slits; teeth large, anteriors narrow and awl-like but laterals moderately compressed and bladelike, less than 60 rows in either jaw; two or three rows of large anterior teeth on each side of upper jaw, three in lower, the uppers separated from the upper lateral teeth by one of five rows of small intermediate teeth or a gap. First dorsal fin large, moderately high, erect and angular; second dorsal and anal fins about as large as first dorsal or somewhat smaller, with broad, nonpivoting bases, pectoral fins moderately long and broad, much shorter than head in adults; pelvic fins large, nearly or quite as large as first dorsal fin; caudal fin not lunate, upper lobe moderately long, less than half as long as rest of shark, lower lobe short but strong. Upper precaudal pit present, caudal peduncle compressed and without keels. Habitat, Distribution and Biology : Odontaspids are tropical to cool-temperate, inshore and deepwater sharks with a wide geographic distribution in virtually all seas, in continental and insular waters from the surf zone to the outer shelves and down the slopes to possibly 1600 m. All the known species are of large size (to at least 360 cm). These sharks are relatively slow but active littoral and epibenthic swimmers. They feed on a wide variety of bony fishes, other sharks, rays, squids and bottom crustaceans. Development is ovoviviparous, without a yolk-sac placenta but with
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Order LAMNIFORMES ODONTASPIDIDAE Sand Tiger Sharks Iagnostic Characters: Large Sharks
    click for previous page Lamniformes: Odontaspididae 419 Order LAMNIFORMES ODONTASPIDIDAE Sand tiger sharks iagnostic characters: Large sharks. Head with 5 medium-sized gill slits, all in front of pectoral-fin bases, Dtheir upper ends not extending onto dorsal surface of head; eyes small or moderately large, with- out nictitating eyelids; no nasal barbels or nasoral grooves; snout conical or moderately depressed, not blade-like;mouth very long and angular, extending well behind eyes when jaws are not protruded;lower labial furrows present at mouth corners; anterior teeth enlarged, with long, narrow, sharp-edged but unserrated cusps and small basal cusplets (absent in young of at least 1 species), the upper anteriors separated from the laterals by a gap and tiny intermediate teeth; gill arches without rakers; spiracles present but very small. Two moderately large high dorsal fins, the first dorsal fin originating well in advance of the pelvic fins, the second dorsal fin as large as or somewhat smaller than the first dorsal fin;anal fin as large as second dorsal fin or slightly smaller; caudal fin short, asymmetrical, with a strong subterminal notch and a short but well marked ventral lobe. Caudal peduncle not depressed, without keels; a deep upper precaudal pit present but no lower pit. Intestinal valve of ring type, with turns closely packed like a stack of washers. Colour: grey or grey-brown to blackish above, blackish to light grey or white, with round or oval dark spots and blotches vari- ably present on 2 species. high dorsal fins upper precaudal eyes without pit present nictitating eyelids intestinal valve of ring type Habitat, biology, and fisheries: Wide-ranging, tropical to cool-temperate sharks, found inshore and down to moderate depths on the edge of the continental shelves and around some oceanic islands, and in the open ocean.
    [Show full text]
  • 2014 Fishing Year
    ATLANTIC STATES MARINE FISHERIES COMMISSION REVIEW OF THE INTERSTATE FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR COASTAL SHARKS 2014 FISHING YEAR Prepared by the Plan Review Team Approved by the Spiny Dogfish & Coastal Sharks Management Board August 2016 Table of Contents I. Status of the Fishery Management Plan .......................................................................... 2 II. Status of the Stock and Assessment Advice ..................................................................... 4 III. Status of the Fishery ....................................................................................................... 6 VI. Implementation of FMP Compliance Requirements for 2014 ..................................... 27 VII. PRT Recommendations ................................................................................................. 29 1 I. Status of the Fishery Management Plan Date of FMP Approval: August 2008 Amendments None Addenda Addendum I (September 2009) Addendum II (May 2013) Addendum III (October 2013) Management Unit: Entire coastwide distribution of the resource from the estuaries eastward to the inshore boundary of the EEZ States With Declared Interest: Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida Active Boards/Committees: Coastal Shark Management Board, Advisory Panel, Technical Committee, and Plan Review Team a) Goals and Objectives The Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Coastal Sharks (FMP) established the following
    [Show full text]
  • States' Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Laws Hunting, Fishing, and Wildlife
    University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture An Agricultural Law Research Project States’ Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Laws Hunting, Fishing, and Wildlife Florida www.NationalAgLawCenter.org States’ Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Laws Hunting, Fishing, and Wildlife STATE OF FLORIDA 68B-44.002 FAC Current through March 28, 2020 68B-44.002 FAC Definitions As used in this rule chapter: (1) “Finned” means one or more fins, including the caudal fin (tail), are no longer naturally attached to the body of the shark. A shark with fins naturally attached, either wholly or partially, is not considered finned. (2) “Shark” means any species of the orders Carcharhiniformes, Lamniformes, Hexanchiformes, Orectolobiformes, Pristiophoriformes, Squaliformes, Squatiniformes, including but not limited to any of the following species or any part thereof: (a) Large coastal species: 1. Blacktip shark -- (Carcharhinus limbatus). 2. Bull shark -- (Carcharhinus leucas). 3. Nurse shark -- (Ginglymostoma cirratum). 4. Spinner shark -- (Carcharhinus brevipinna). (b) Small coastal species: 1. Atlantic sharpnose shark -- (Rhizoprionodon terraenovae). 2. Blacknose shark -- (Carcharhinus acronotus). 3. Bonnethead -- (Sphyrna tiburo). 4. Finetooth shark -- (Carcharhinus isodon). (c) Pelagic species: 1. Blue shark -- (Prionace glauca). 2. Oceanic whitetip shark -- (Carcharhinus longimanus). 3. Porbeagle shark -- (Lamna nasus). 4. Shortfin mako -- (Isurus oxyrinchus). 5. Thresher shark -- (Alopias vulpinus). (d) Smoothhound sharks: 1. Smooth dogfish -- (Mustelus canis). 2. Florida smoothhound (Mustelus norrisi). 3. Gulf smoothhound (Mustelus sinusmexicanus). (e) Atlantic angel shark (Squatina dumeril). (f) Basking shark (Cetorhinus maximus). (g) Bigeye sand tiger (Odontaspis noronhai). (h) Bigeye sixgill shark (Hexanchus nakamurai). (i) Bigeye thresher (Alopias superciliosus). (j) Bignose shark (Carcharhinus altimus). (k) Bluntnose sixgill shark (Hexanchus griseus). (l) Caribbean reef shark (Carcharhinus perezii).
    [Show full text]
  • The Sharks of North America
    THE SHARKS OF NORTH AMERICA JOSE I. CASTRO COLOR ILLUSTRATIONS BY DIANE ROME PEEBLES OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS CONTENTS Foreword, by Eugenie Clark v Mosaic gulper shark, Centrophorus tesselatus 79 Preface vii Little gulper shark, Centrophorus uyato 81 Acknowledgments ix Minigulper, Centrophorus sp. A 84 Slender gulper, Centrophorus sp. B 85 Introduction 3 Birdbeak dogfish, Deania calcea 86 How to use this book 3 Arrowhead dogfish, Deaniaprofundorum 89 Description of species accounts 3 Illustrations 6 Family Etmopteridae, The Black Dogfishes Glossary 7 and Lanternsharks 91 Bibliography 7 Black dogfish, Centroscyllium fabricii 93 The knowledge and study of sharks 7 Pacific black dogfish, Centroscyllium nigrum 96 The shark literature 8 Emerald or blurred lanternshark, Etmopterus bigelowi 98 Lined lanternshark, Etmopterus bullisi 101 Broadband lanternshark, Etmopterus gracilispinis 103 A KEY TO THE FAMILIES OF Caribbean lanternshark, Etmopterus hillianus 105 NORTH AMERICAN SHARKS 11 Great lanternshark, Etmopterusprinceps 107 Fringefin lanternshark, Etmopterus schultzi 110 SPECIES ACCOUNTS 19 Green lanternshark, Etmopterus virens 112 Family Chlamydoselachidae, The Frill Shark 21 Family Somniosidae, The Sleeper Sharks 115 Frill shark, Chlamydoselachus anguineus 22 Portuguese shark, Centroscymnus coelolepis 117 Roughskin dogfish, Centroscymnus owstoni 120 Family Hexanchidae, The Cowsharks 26 Velvet dogfish, Zameus squamulosus \T1 Sharpnose sevengill, or perlon shark, Heptranchias Greenland shark, Somniosus microcephalus 124 perlo 28 Pacific sleeper
    [Show full text]
  • Common Name Scientific Name Bycatch Pounds Bycatch Ratio Pounds Ratio Landings Total Notes
    Figure 7.4.1b PACIFIC ISLANDS REGION FISH BYCATCH BY STOCKS AND SPECIES (2014) Species bycatch ratio = total regional bycatch of a species / (total regional landings of the species + total regional bycatch of the species). Landings data were not available at the stock level. Bycatch ratio cells are left blank when landings = 0. DEAD BYCATCH DEAD BYCATCH COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME BYCATCH POUNDS BYCATCH RATIO POUNDS RATIO LANDINGS TOTAL NOTES ALBACORE Albacore - North Pacific Thunnus alalunga 8,572.70 5,837.20 Albacore - South Pacific Thunnus alalunga 29,380.00 28,457.50 Albacore - landings Thunnus alalunga <0.01 <0.01 3,779,936.00 ALBACORE (Subtotal) 37,952.70 34,294.70 3,779,936.00 BIGEYE SAND TIGER SHARK Bigeye sand tiger shark Odontaspis noronhai 345.20 345.20 Bigeye sand tiger shark - landings BIGEYE SAND TIGER SHARK (Subtotal) 345.20 345.20 0.00 BIGEYE THRESHER Bigeye thresher Alopias superciliosus 1,353,344.30 336,237.90 a Bigeye thresher - landings BIGEYE THRESHER (Subtotal) 1,353,344.30 336,237.90 0.00 BIGEYE TUNA Bigeye tuna - Pacific Thunnus obesus 251,708.80 63,149.60 Bigeye tuna - landings Thunnus obesus 0.02 <0.01 13,727,193.00 BIGEYE TUNA (Subtotal) 251,708.80 63,149.60 13,727,193.00 BILLFISHES (GROUP) Billfishes (group) Istiophoridae 59,987.70 52,111.60 Billfishes (group) - landings Istiophoridae BILLFISHES (GROUP) (Subtotal) 59,987.70 52,111.60 0.00 BLACK GEMFISH Black gemfish Nesiarchus nasutus 1,127.20 455.00 Black gemfish - landings BLACK GEMFISH (Subtotal) 1,127.20 455.00 0.00 BLACK MACKEREL Black mackerel Scombrolabrax
    [Show full text]
  • 181 Quick Contact Reference
    GULF STATES MARINE FISHERIES COMMISSION Rules and Regulations: Officers’ Pocket Guide 2010-2011 June 2010 GSMFC No. 181 Quick Contact Reference Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 24 Hour Communications (888) 404-3922 Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Department of Marine Resources 24-Hour Contact Numbers: Mobile County Enforcement (251) 476-1256 Baldwin County Enforcement (251) 968-7576 Mississippi Department of Marine Resources Marine Patrol (800) 294-5551 (228) 523-4134 Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Enforcement (800) 442-2511 (225) 765-2440 Texas Parks and Wildlife Department General Information (Mon-Fri 8-5) (800) 792-1112. Operation Game Thief (800) 792-4263 24 hour communications (512) 389-4848 (Austin) (281) 842-8100 (Houston) NOAA Office of Law Enforcement Southeast Division (727) 824-5344 United States Coast Guard National Command Center (Emergencies ONLY) (800) DAD-SAFE / (202) 372-2100 LA, New Orleans District Eight Command Center (504) 589-6225 AL, Mobile Sector Mobile Command Center (251) 441-6215 ext 6211 FL, St. Petersburg Sector St. Petersburg Command Center (727) 824-7506 TX, Corpus Christi Sector Corpus Christi Command Center (361) 939-6393 ext 6349 TX, Houston Sector Houston-Galveston Command Center (713) 671-5133 TABLE OF CONTENTS FLORIDA Commercial 1 Recreational 4 ALABAMA Commercial 6 Recreational 7 MISSISSIPPI Commercial 8 Recreational 9 LOUISIANA Commercial 11 Recreational 13 TEXAS Commercial 15 Recreational 16 FEDERAL Commercial 17 Recreational 19 WILDLIFE COMPACT MEMBER STATES 21 FEDERAL PERMITS GUIDE 22 FLORIDA Commercial Size and Possession Limits MINIMUM NUMBER OF FISH SPECIES LENGTH IN BAG/POSSESSION INCHES Ballyhoo (halfbeaks, Dependent on method of harvest balao, and silver stripe No size limit and gear halfbeaks) 500 lbs/person/day or Black Drum 14 - 24 TL 500 lbs/vessel/day Blue Crab 5 total width 12 FL Bluefish Size limit applies No limit.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 66 / Monday, April 7, 1997 / Rules and Regulations
    16648 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 66 / Monday, April 7, 1997 / Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE shark fisheries, the status of the shark percent or higher commercial quota stocks, the proposed management reduction for large coastal sharks as a National Oceanic and Atmospheric measures, and the anticipated effects of minimum measure to rebuild the large Administration the proposed management measures coastal shark population. Other were discussed in the preamble to the commentors, including one state and 50 CFR Part 678 proposed rule (61 FR 67295, December several commercial fishermen's [Docket No. 961211348-7065-03; I.D. 20, 1996) and are not repeated here. associations, questioned the 092396B] The framework provisions of the FMP effectiveness of the quota reduction allow the Assistant Administrator (AA) and/or strenuously opposed the quota RIN 0648±AH77 to make adjustments in specified reduction and stated that the scientific Atlantic Shark Fisheries; Quotas, Bag management measures in order to data, upon which the 1996 Stock Limits, Prohibitions, and Requirements achieve the FMP's objectives of Evaluation Workshop (SEW) final report preventing overfishing, and increasing is based, are incomplete, flawed, and/or AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries the benefits of shark resources to the biased. Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and nation while reducing waste. This Comment: Stock assessment results Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), action is being taken by the AA under indicate that large coastal sharks remain Commerce. authority of the framework provisions of overfished and that rebuilding has not ACTION: Final rule. the FMP and consistent with the begun. Demographic analyses show that provisions of 305(c) of the Magnuson- effective fishing mortality needs to be SUMMARY: NMFS issues this final rule to Stevens Act.
    [Show full text]
  • The Shark Tagger 1998
    THE SHARK TAGGER 199Qc,si:JilvtMARY 1998 Overview • 7,411 fish tagged, 721 recaptured • Time at liberty records set for reef, This was an extremely successful year of biological field blacknose and bigeye thresher sharks studies for the staff of the Apex Predators Program (APP) in conjunction with numerous biologists and fishermen. The • Long distance tiger shark returns research included a longline survey of the Atlantic coast (see • Atlantic and Gulf longline surveys page 15) and joint studies such as the Cooperative Shark Tagging Program (CSTP) and a new coast-wide pupping and • COASTSPAN update nursery grounds initiative (see Page 17). Many thanks to all • Sandbar shark tracking participants whose collaborative efforts led to outstanding results • Putting the Bite on Sharks - parasite in 1998. studies Tags • 'Management plan update • Feature shark - Tiger Members of the Cooperative Shark Tagging Program tagged and released 7,411 fish including 38 species of shar.ks (4%), handline (2%), and released free swimming (4%). Tags and. rays and 13 species of teleosts (Table 1). Ninety-one were returned from fishermen and scientists representing the percent of the releases were accounted for by 11 species of following 18 nationalities: United States, Spain, Venezuela, shark: blue (49%); sandbar (21%); tiger (4%), shortfin mako, Canada, Portugal, Japan, Cuba, Mexico, Taiwan, Brazil, Italy, blacktip, Atlantic sharpnose (3% each); bonnethead, dusky (2% England, Canary Islands, St. Lucia, Trinidad, Tobago, Grenada, e~ch); porbeagle, spinner, and nurse shark (1% each). This and Guadeloupe. bnngs the total number of tagged fish to over 155,000 tagged since 1962. Anglers tagged the majority of fish (62%; 37 species) Blue Sharks (532 Returns) followed .by.
    [Show full text]
  • Preliminary Analysis of Crocodile Shark (Pseudocarcharias Kamoharai) Distribution and Abundance Trends in Pelagic Longline Fisheries
    DRAFT IOTC-2008-WPEB-09 IOTC Working Party on Environment and Bycatch (WPEB) Bangkok, Thailand 20-22 October, 2008 Preliminary analysis of crocodile shark (Pseudocarcharias kamoharai) distribution and abundance trends in pelagic longline fisheries by Evgeny V. Romanov(1)*, Peter Ward(2), Juan C. Levesque(3), Emma Lawrence(2) 1 IRD, UR 109 THETIS, Centre de Recherche Halieutique Mediterraneenne et Tropicale Avenue Jean Monnet – BP 171, 34203 Sete Cedex, France (*corresponding author) 2 Fisheries and Marine Sciences Program, Bureau of Rural Sciences, GPO Box 858, Canberra 2600, Australia. 3 Geo-Marine, Inc., Environmental Division, Marine Science Department, 2201 Avenue K, Suite A2, Plano, TX 75074, USA. * Corresponding author, e-mail: [email protected] , Tel : +33 (0)4 99 57 32 05, Fax : +33 (0)4 99 57 32 95 DRAFT 2 ABSTRACT Crocodile shark (Pseudocarcharias kamoharai) has a broad distribution across the world’s oceans, but is a rare catch in most commercial fisheries. In some geographic areas, crocodile shark is an abundant bycatch of pelagic longline fisheries. Limited crocodile shark biological and fishery information is available to date. We analyzed worldwide pelagic longline fishery observer and research cruise survey data (1950- 2005) to estimate crocodile shark abundance and distribution. Preliminary results suggested the highest crocodile shark catch rates were in the Indian Ocean. Off western Australia, crocodile sharks were one of the most frequently caught species. Results showed that in addition to ocean basin, target species, moon phase, season, bottom depth, gear fishing depth and deployment time significantly affected crocodile shark catches. In each fishery, encounters and catch rates increased with the number of years since exploitation commenced.
    [Show full text]
  • Reproductive Biology of Lamnoid Sharks
    FAU Institutional Repository http://purl.fcla.edu/fau/fauir This paper was submitted by the faculty of FAU’s Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute. Notice: ©1993 Springer. This manuscript is an author version with the final publication available at http://www.springerlink.com and may be cited as: Gilmore, R. G. (1993). Reproductive biology of lamnoid sharks. Environmental Biology of Fishes, 38(1‐3), 95‐114. doi:10.1007/BF00842907 Environmental Biology of Fishes 38: 95-114,1993. O 1993 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands. Reproductive biology of lamnoid sharks R. Grant Gilmore Division of Environmental, Coastal and Ocean Sciences, Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institution, 5600 US. 1 North, Fort Pierce, FL 34946, U.S.A. Received 31.1.1991 Accepted 1.3.1993 Key words: Embryonic development, Oophagy, Embryophagy, Adelphophagy, Migration, Elasmobranchs Synopsis The capture of recently inseminated or pregnant specimens of Carcharias taurus, Isuruspaucus, I. oxyrinchus, Alopias superciliosus and A. vulpinus has allowed new information to be obtained on the reproductive biol- ogy of these species. Oophagy and embryonic cannibalism (adelphophagy) have been documented in C. taurus, but only oophagy in other lamnoid species. The occurrence of up to nine embryos of similar size per uterus in Isurus and no indication of functional erect teeth in embryos leaves considerable doubt that embryo- phagy occurs in this genus. Considerable data has been collected on Carcharias taurus which allows a lamnoid reproductive model to be developed and tested, in spite of the obvious differences between the reproductive biology of this species and other lamnoids. Gonad structure, ovarian development, fertilization, early em- bryonic differentiation, embryonic nutrition and parturition, in C.
    [Show full text]
  • Complete List of Exempt Ray and Shark Species
    OREGON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLFE Shark and ray species exempt from wildlife trafficking prohibitions because they are subject to federal management plan The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) has developed a list of shark and ray species that are subject to a federal management plan and therefore exempt from the prohibitions of ORS 498.022 (Table 1). The North Pacific Fishery Management Council’s (NPFMC) Gulf of Alaska Groundfish (GOAGF) Fishery Management Plan (FMP) includes all shark species found in the management area. For this FMP, ODFW included those species of shark with reported distributions that overlap the GOA-GF management in Table 1. Several Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (WPFMC) Fishery Ecosystem Plans (FEPs) include entire taxonomic families, but individual species within those families may not occur in the fishery management area. For these family level listings, ODFW examined the distribution for each species within each family and included those that have reported distributions overlapping one or more WPFMC management areas in Table 1. Acronyms ASA – America Samoa Archipelago CAHMS – Consolidated Atlantic Highly Migratory Species GF – Groundfish GOAGF – Gulf of Alaska Groundfish HA – Hawaii Archipelago HMS – Highly Migratory Species MA – Marina Archipelago MAFMC – Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council MSA – Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act NPFMC – North Pacific Fishery Management Council ODFW – Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife ORS – Oregon Revised Statutes PFMC – Pacific Fishery Management Council PP – Pacific Pelagics PRIA – Pacific Remote Islands Area SD – Spiny Dogfish SoC – Secretary of State WPFMC – Western Pacific Fishery Management Council August 16, 2017 OREGON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLFE Table 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Colombo ESTUPIÑÁN-MONTAÑO1, Felipe GALVÁN-MAGAÑA2*, Ana HACOHEN-DOMENÉ3, and Jose F
    ACTA ICHTHYOLOGICA ET PISCATORIA (2016) 46 (3): 251–253 DOI: 10.3750/AIP2016.46.3.09 FIRST REPORTS OF SMALLTOOTH SAND TIGER SHARKS, ODONTASPIS FEROX (ELASMO- BRANCHII: LAMNIFORMES: ODONTASPIDIDAE), OFF THE CONTINENTAL ECUADOR Colombo ESTUPIÑÁN-MONTAÑO1, Felipe GALVÁN-MAGAÑA2*, Ana HACOHEN-DOMENÉ3, and Jose F. ESTUPIÑÁN-ORTÍZ1 1Fundación Alium Pacifi c, Santiago de Cali, Colombia 2Instituto Politécnico Nacional, Centro Interdisciplinario de Ciencias Marinas, La Paz, Baja California Sur, México 3Fundación Mundo Azul, Guatemala, Guatemala Estupiñán-Montaño C., Galván-Magaña F., Hacohen-Domené A., Estupiñán-Ortíz J.F. 2016. First reports of smalltooth sand tiger sharks, Odontaspis ferox (Elasmobranchii: Lamniformes: Odontaspididae), off the continental Ecuador. Acta Ichthyol. Piscat. 46 (3): 251–253. Abstract. The fi rst report of two smalltooth sand tiger sharks, Odontaspis ferox (Risso, 1810), off the continental Ecuador is presented herewith. The specimens were captured by the Ecuadorian fi shing fl eet and landed in Manta and Puerto López Canton, Ecuador. The juvenile female specimen was registered in November 2008 and the adult male in July 2009. Both of the specimens recorded extend the geographic range of distribution of O. ferox in the tropical eastern Pacifi c Ocean. Keywords: Ecuadorian biodiversity, range of distribution, new occurrence, Ecuadorian Pacifi c The industrial and artisanal fi sheries are important 2002), the Galapagos Islands, Ecuador (Acuña-Marrero economic activities in Ecuador. The city of Manta is the et al. 2013, Ritter and Compagno 2013), and Isla San fi shing port where the largest volumes of sharks are landed Ambrosio, Chile (Long et al. 2014). (almost 40 000 sharks each year). As many as 30 shark The presently described fi ndings constitute the fi rst species are caught off the country’s coast.
    [Show full text]