4.11.1 Elasmobranch Fishes

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

4.11.1 Elasmobranch Fishes 4.11 [Other species which are not deep water or highly migratory] 4.11.1 Elasmobranch fishes Approximately 145 chondrichthyan species are listed as occurring in European waters (Table 4.11.1.1; Bailly et al., 2001), though this includes many species that are found either in the Mediterranean, or that have northerly records in the NE Atlantic off either Northwest Africa or Madeira (i.e. south of ICES Division IX). Many of these species are deep-water species for which the biology is poorly known. 2-958 ICES Advice 2004, ACFM/ACE Report Table 4.11.1.1 List of chondrichthyan fishes reported to occur in European seas (following Bailly et al., 2001). Common name Latin name 1 Sharpnose sevengill shark Heptranchias perlo 2 Bluntnose sixgill shark Hexanchus griseus 3 Bigeye sixgill shark Hexanchus nakamurai 4 Frilled shark Chlamydoselachus anguineus 5 Whale shark Rhincodon typus 6 Nurse shark Ginglymostoma cirratum 7 Sant tiger shark Carcharias taurus 8 Smalltooth sand tiger Odontaspis ferox 9 Bigeye sand tiger Odontaspis noronhai 10 Goblin shark Mitsukurina owstoni 11 Great white shark Carcharodon carcharias 12 Shorfin mako Isurus oxyrinchus 13 Longfin mako Isurus paucus 14 Porbeagle shark Lamna nasus 15 Basking shark Cetorhinus maximus 16 Bigeye thresher Alopias superciliosus 17 Thresher shark Alopias vulpinus 18 Apristurus aphyodes 19 Iceland catshark Apristurus laurussonii 20 Ghost catshark Apristurus manis 21 Smalleye catshark Apristurus microps 22 Largenose catshark Apristurus nasutus 23 Atlantic sawtail catshark Galeus atlanticus 24 Blackmouthed dogfish Galeus melastomus 25 Mouse catshark Galeus murinus 26 Lesser-spotted dogfish Scyliorhinus canicula 27 Nurse hound Scyliorhinus stellaris 28 False catshark Pseudotriakis microdon 29 Barbeled hound shark Leptocharias smithii 30 Tope shark Galeorhinus galeus 31 Starry smooth hound Mustelus asterias 32 Smooth hound Mustelus mustelus 33 Blackspot smooth hound Mustelus punctulatus 34 Atlantic weasel shark Paragaleus pectoralis 35 Bignose shark Carcharhinus altimus 36 Spinner shark Carcharhinus brevipinna 37 Silky shark Carcharhinus falciformis 38 Galapagos shark Carcharhinus galapagensis 39 Finetooth shark Carcharhinus isodon 40 Bull shark Carcharhinus leucas 41 Blacktip shark Carcharhinus limbatus 42 Oceanic whitetip shark Carcharhinus longimanus 43 Blacktip reef shark Carcharhinus melanopterus 44 Dusky shark Carcharhinus obscurus 45 Sandbar shark Carcharhinus plumbeus 46 Night shark Carcharhinus signatus 47 Tiger shark Galeocerdo cuvier 48 Lemon shark Negaprion brevirostris 49 Blue shark Prionace glauca 50 Milk shark Rhizoprionodon acutus ICES Advice 2004, ACFM/ACE Report 2-959 51 Scalloped hammerhead Sphyrna lewini 52 Great hammerhead Sphyrna mokarran 53 Smalleye hamerhead Sphyrna tudes 54 Smooth hammerhead Sphyrna zygaena 55 Black dogfish Centroscyllium fabricii 56 Great lantern shark Etmopterus princeps 57 Smooth lantern shark Etmopterus pusillus 58 Velvet belly Etmopterus spinax 59 Portuguese dogfish Centroscymnus coelolepis 60 Longnose velvet dogfish Centroscymnus crepidater 61 Shortnose velvet dogfish Centroscymnus cryptacanthus 62 Azores dogfish Scymnodalatias garricki 63 Scymnodon obscurus 64 Knifetooth dogfish Scymnodon ringens 65 Greenland shark Somniosus microcephalus 66 Little sleeper shark Somniosus rostratus 67 Angular roughshark Oxynotus centrina 68 Sailfin roughshark Oxynotus paradoxus 69 Kitefin shark Dalatias licha 70 Spined pygmy shark Squaliolus laticaudus 71 Gulper shark Centrophorus granulosus 72 Lowfin gulper shark Centrophorus lusitanicus 73 Leafscale gulper shark Centrophorus squamosus 74 Centrophorus uyato 75 Birdbeak dogfish Deania calcea 76 Rough longnose dogfish Deania hystricosa 77 Arrowhead dogfish Deania profundorum 78 Spurdog Squalus acanthias 79 Longnose spurdog Squalus blainvillei 80 Shortnose spurdog Squalus megalops 81 Bramble shark Echinorhinus brucus 82 Sawback angel shark Squatina aculeata 83 Smoothback angel shark Squatina oculata 84 Angel shark Squatina squatina 85 Smalltooth sawfish Pristis pectinata 86 Common sawfish Pristis pristis 87 Electric ray Torpedo nobiliana 88 Marbled electric ray Torpedo marmorata 89 Common electric ray Torpedo torpedo 90 Blackchin guitarfish Rhinobatos cemiculus 91 Common guitarfish Rhinobatos rhinobatos 92 Arctic skate Amblyraja hyperborea 93 Jensen's skate Amblyraja jenseni 94 Thorny skate/Starry ray Amblyraja radiata 95 Pallid skate Bathyraja pallida 96 Richardson's skate Bathyraja richardsoni 97 Spinetail skate Bathyraja spinicauda 98 Common skate Dipturus batis 99 Sailray Dipturus linteus 100 Norwegian skate Dipturus nidarosiensis 101 Long-nose skate Dipturus oxyrinchus 102 Sandy ray Leucoraja circularis 2-960 ICES Advice 2004, ACFM/ACE Report 103 Shagreen ray Leucoraja fullonica 104 Maltese skate Leucoraja melitensis 105 Cuckoo ray Leucoraja naevus 106 Krefft's skate Malacoraja kreffti 107 Prickled skate Malacoraja spinacidermis 108 Blue pygmy skate Neoraja caerulea 109 African skate Raja africana 110 Atlantic starry skate Raja asterias 111 Blonde ray Raja brachyura 112 Thornback ray Raja clavata 113 Madeira skate Raja maderensis 114 Smalleyed ray Raja microocellata 115 Brown ray Raja miraletus 116 Spotted ray Raja montagui 117 Speckled skate Raja polystigma 118 Rough skate Raja radula 119 Rondelet's skate Raja rondeleti 120 Undulate ray Raja undulata 121 Deepwater skate Rajella bathyphila 122 Bigelow's skate Rajella bigelowi 123 Round skate Rajella fyllae 124 Mid-Atlantic skate Rajella kukujevi 125 White skate Rostroraja alba 126 Roughtail stingray Dasyatis centroura 127 Common stingray Dasyatis pastinaca 128 Tortonese's stingray Dasyatis tortonesei 129 Pelagic stingray Dasyatis violacea 130 Leopars stingray Himantura uarnak 131 Round fantail stingray Taeniura grabata 132 Spiny butterfly ray Gymnura altavela 133 Eagle ray Myliobatis aquila 134 Bull ray Pteromylaeus bovinus 135 Lusitanean cownose ray Rhinoptera marginata 136 Manta Manta birostris 137 Giant devil ray Mobula mobular 138 Sicklefin devil ray Mobula tarapacana 139 Rabbit fish Chimaera monstrosa 140 Small-eyed rabbitfish Hydrolagus affinis 141 Large-eyed rabbitfish Hydrolagus mirabilis 142 Hydrolagus pallidus 143 Smallspine spookfish Harriotta haeckeli 144 Narrownose chimaera Harriotta raleighana 145 Spearnose chimaera Rhinochimaera atlantica ICES Advice 2004, ACFM/ACE Report 2-961 Stock status Assessment of the status of deepwater sharks and of pelagic sharks is particularly difficult owing to a lack of species- specific catch data and the straddling and/or highly migratory nature of these stocks. A summary of information on individual species is provided below. Many species of sharks and rays are characterized by life history strategies characterised by long life-spans, high age at maturity, and slow growth. Experience shows that species with such conservative life history strategies can be depleted very quickly and that recovery will be slow. Regeneration and growth are so slow that abundance does not increase in the depleted populations in the short or medium term. Most, though not all elasmobranchs in the ICES area, have exhibited declines under pressure of exploitation. Those with conservative life-histories have shown the strongest declines. Data Fisheries data for elasmobranchs in the ICES area are very poor. Many species are landed and reported using generic categories. Some species are landed and identified by species, for example spurdog. But landings data for this species are confused by the practice of combining spurdogs with other species in categories such as dogfish and hounds or various dogs . ICES is still in the process of disaggregating these generic sharks categories. Ray and skate landings data are mostly generic, though a few countries collect species-specific information. The generic data for each area must be disaggregated using market-sampling. Such sampling is now being carried out in EU countries under the Data Collection Regulation. In most areas, 4 or 5 ray species comprise the catches. Historical data will be more problematic to split. Particular problems arise with pelagic sharks, mainly caught in tuna and billfish fisheries. For this group, none of the main fishing countries collect species-specific data, nor even data that could allow identification of landings as pelagic sharks. The use of the category n.e.i. sharks not elsewhere identified is widespread for pelagic sharks. For mako and blue sharks, ICES is only a small part of the stock area and efforts at assessment have been by ICCAT. However, the lack of complete catch, landings or dead discards data has hampered these efforts. There is in particular a lack of data from the ICES area for these pelagic sharks. In the case of deepwater sharks, the data quality is also poor. The particular problem here is the use, by many countries, of sharks not elsewhere identified category. A few countries have species-specific landings data, though fewer have all their deepwater shark landings so classified. Some countries do have a category for deepwater sharks, separated from pelagic or demersal forms. But it is still difficult to disaggregate these by species (there are two main commercially exploited deepwater species). It is planned that, by 2005, ICES will have disaggregated all elasmobranch catch data into species categories and by species, as far as possible. Catch quotas only exist for rays and skates in the North Sea, and for non-EU vessels targeting some species such as porbeagle, spurdog and basking shark in EU waters. The accuracy of the landings data
Recommended publications
  • Chapter 11 the Biology and Ecology of the Oceanic Whitetip Shark, Carcharhinus Longimanus
    Chapter 11 The Biology and Ecology of the Oceanic Whitetip Shark, Carcharhinus longimanus Ramón Bonfi l, Shelley Clarke and Hideki Nakano Abstract The oceanic whitetip shark (Carcharhinus longimanus) is a common circumtropical preda- tor and is taken as bycatch in many oceanic fi sheries. This summary of its life history, dis- tribution and abundance, and fi shery-related information is supplemented with unpublished data taken during Japanese tuna research operations in the Pacifi c Ocean. Oceanic whitetips are moderately slow-growing sharks that do not appear to have differential growth rates by sex, and individuals in the Atlantic and Pacifi c Oceans seem to grow at similar rates. They reach sexual maturity at approximately 170–200 cm total length (TL), or 4–7 years of age, and have a 9- to 12-month embryonic development period. Pupping and nursery areas are thought to exist in the central Pacifi c, between 0ºN and 15ºN. According to two demographic metrics, the resilience of C. longimanus to fi shery exploitation is similar to that of blue and shortfi n mako sharks. Nevertheless, reported oceanic whitetip shark catches in several major longline fi sheries represent only a small fraction of total shark catches, and studies in the Northwest Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico suggest that this species has suffered signifi cant declines in abundance. Stock assessment has been severely hampered by the lack of species-specifi c catch data in most fi sheries, but recent implementation of species-based reporting by the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) and some of its member countries will provide better data for quantitative assessment.
    [Show full text]
  • Sharks in Crisis: a Call to Action for the Mediterranean
    REPORT 2019 SHARKS IN CRISIS: A CALL TO ACTION FOR THE MEDITERRANEAN WWF Sharks in the Mediterranean 2019 | 1 fp SECTION 1 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Written and edited by WWF Mediterranean Marine Initiative / Evan Jeffries (www.swim2birds.co.uk), based on data contained in: Bartolí, A., Polti, S., Niedermüller, S.K. & García, R. 2018. Sharks in the Mediterranean: A review of the literature on the current state of scientific knowledge, conservation measures and management policies and instruments. Design by Catherine Perry (www.swim2birds.co.uk) Front cover photo: Blue shark (Prionace glauca) © Joost van Uffelen / WWF References and sources are available online at www.wwfmmi.org Published in July 2019 by WWF – World Wide Fund For Nature Any reproduction in full or in part must mention the title and credit the WWF Mediterranean Marine Initiative as the copyright owner. © Text 2019 WWF. All rights reserved. Our thanks go to the following people for their invaluable comments and contributions to this report: Fabrizio Serena, Monica Barone, Adi Barash (M.E.C.O.), Ioannis Giovos (iSea), Pamela Mason (SharkLab Malta), Ali Hood (Sharktrust), Matthieu Lapinksi (AILERONS association), Sandrine Polti, Alex Bartoli, Raul Garcia, Alessandro Buzzi, Giulia Prato, Jose Luis Garcia Varas, Ayse Oruc, Danijel Kanski, Antigoni Foutsi, Théa Jacob, Sofiane Mahjoub, Sarah Fagnani, Heike Zidowitz, Philipp Kanstinger, Andy Cornish and Marco Costantini. Special acknowledgements go to WWF-Spain for funding this report. KEY CONTACTS Giuseppe Di Carlo Director WWF Mediterranean Marine Initiative Email: [email protected] Simone Niedermueller Mediterranean Shark expert Email: [email protected] Stefania Campogianni Communications manager WWF Mediterranean Marine Initiative Email: [email protected] WWF is one of the world’s largest and most respected independent conservation organizations, with more than 5 million supporters and a global network active in over 100 countries.
    [Show full text]
  • Extinction Risk and Conservation of the World's Sharks and Rays
    RESEARCH ARTICLE elife.elifesciences.org Extinction risk and conservation of the world’s sharks and rays Nicholas K Dulvy1,2*, Sarah L Fowler3, John A Musick4, Rachel D Cavanagh5, Peter M Kyne6, Lucy R Harrison1,2, John K Carlson7, Lindsay NK Davidson1,2, Sonja V Fordham8, Malcolm P Francis9, Caroline M Pollock10, Colin A Simpfendorfer11,12, George H Burgess13, Kent E Carpenter14,15, Leonard JV Compagno16, David A Ebert17, Claudine Gibson3, Michelle R Heupel18, Suzanne R Livingstone19, Jonnell C Sanciangco14,15, John D Stevens20, Sarah Valenti3, William T White20 1IUCN Species Survival Commission Shark Specialist Group, Department of Biological Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, Canada; 2Earth to Ocean Research Group, Department of Biological Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, Canada; 3IUCN Species Survival Commission Shark Specialist Group, NatureBureau International, Newbury, United Kingdom; 4Virginia Institute of Marine Science, College of William and Mary, Gloucester Point, United States; 5British Antarctic Survey, Natural Environment Research Council, Cambridge, United Kingdom; 6Research Institute for the Environment and Livelihoods, Charles Darwin University, Darwin, Australia; 7Southeast Fisheries Science Center, NOAA/National Marine Fisheries Service, Panama City, United States; 8Shark Advocates International, The Ocean Foundation, Washington, DC, United States; 9National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, Wellington, New Zealand; 10Global Species Programme, International Union for the Conservation
    [Show full text]
  • NPOA Sharks Booklet.Indd
    National Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks (NPOA-Sharks) November 2013 South Africa Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Private Bag X2, Rogge Bay, 8012 Tel: 021 402 3911 Fax: +27 21 402 3364 www.daff.gov.za Design and Layout: FNP Communications and Gerald van Tonder Photographs courtesy of: Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF), Craig Smith, Charlene da Silva, Rob Tarr Foreword South Africa’s Exclusive Economic Zone is endowed with a rich variety of marine living South Africa is signatory to the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries – voluntarily agreed to by members of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) – and, as such, is committed to the development and implementation of National Plans of Action (NPOAs) as adopted by the twenty-third session of the FAO Committee on Fisheries in February 1999 and endorsed by the FAO Council in June 1999. Seabirds – aimed at reducing incidental catch and promoting the conservation of seabirds Fisheries and now regularly conducts Ecological Risk Assessments for all the commercial practices. Acknowledging the importance of maintaining a healthy marine ecosystem and the possibility of major detrimental effects due to the disappearance of large predators, South from the list of harvestable species. In accordance with international recommendations, South Africa subsequently banned the landing of a number of susceptible shark species, including oceanic whitetip, silky, thresher and hammerhead sharks. improves monitoring efforts for foreign vessels discharging shark products in its ports. To ensure long-term sustainability of valuable, but biologically limited, shark resources The NPOA-Sharks presented here formalises and streamlines ongoing efforts to improve conservation and management of sharks caught in South African waters.
    [Show full text]
  • First Record of Swimming Speed of the Pacific Sleeper Shark Somniosus
    Journal of the Marine First record of swimming speed of the Pacific Biological Association of the United Kingdom sleeper shark Somniosus pacificus using a baited camera array cambridge.org/mbi Yoshihiro Fujiwara , Yasuyuki Matsumoto, Takumi Sato, Masaru Kawato and Shinji Tsuchida Original Article Research Institute for Global Change (RIGC), Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology (JAMSTEC), 2-15 Yokosuka, Kanagawa 237-0061, Japan Cite this article: Fujiwara Y, Matsumoto Y, Sato T, Kawato M, Tsuchida S (2021). First record of swimming speed of the Pacific Abstract sleeper shark Somniosus pacificus using a baited camera array. Journal of the Marine The Pacific sleeper shark Somniosus pacificus is one of the largest predators in deep Suruga Biological Association of the United Kingdom Bay, Japan. A single individual of the sleeper shark (female, ∼300 cm in total length) was 101, 457–464. https://doi.org/10.1017/ observed with two baited camera systems deployed simultaneously on the deep seafloor in S0025315421000321 the bay. The first arrival was recorded 43 min after the deployment of camera #1 on 21 July 2016 at a depth of 609 m. The shark had several remarkable features, including the Received: 26 July 2020 Revised: 14 April 2021 snout tangled in a broken fishing line, two torn anteriormost left-gill septums, and a parasitic Accepted: 14 April 2021 copepod attached to each eye. The same individual appeared at camera #2, which was First published online: 18 May 2021 deployed at a depth of 603 m, ∼37 min after it disappeared from camera #1 view. Finally, the same shark returned to camera #1 ∼31 min after leaving camera #2.
    [Show full text]
  • Morphological and Mitochondrial DNA Divergence Validates Blackmouth, Galeus Melastomus, and Atlantic Sawtail Catsharks, Galeus Atlanticus,Asseparatespecies
    Journal of Fish Biology (2007) 70 (Supplement C), 346–358 doi:10.1111/j.1095-8649.2007.01455.x, available online at http://www.blackwell-synergy.com Morphological and mitochondrial DNA divergence validates blackmouth, Galeus melastomus, and Atlantic sawtail catsharks, Galeus atlanticus,asseparatespecies R. CASTILHO*†, M. FREITAS*, G. SILVA*, J. FERNANDEZ-CARVALHO‡ AND R. COELHO‡ *Biodiversity and Conservation Group, CCMAR, University of Algarve, Campus de Gambelas, 8005-139 Faro, Portugal and ‡Coastal Fisheries Research Group, CCMAR, University of Algarve, Campus de Gambelas, 8005-139 Faro, Portugal (Received 30 August 2006, Accepted 17 January 2007) A total of 60 morphometric traits and nucleotide sequences of the entire mtDNA NADH dehydrogenase subunit 2 (ND2) gene [1047 base pair (bp)] in 23 individuals of blackmouth, Galeus melastomus, and 13 individuals of sawtail catsharks, Galeus atlanticus, caught in Southern Portugal, were examined to test the validity of these two taxa. These sharks closely resemble each other, have overlapping geographical ranges and are difficult to identify by morphological characters. Non-metric multidimensional scaling of morphometric variables indicates a clear separation between the two species, with 10 characters each contributing 2Á12–2Á45% of the total variability between species. Maximum likelihood, parsimony and neighbour-joining trees revealed two major mtDNA haplotype clades, corresponding to the two species, with an average corrected sequence divergence between them of 3Á39 Æ 0Á56%. Within species divergences between haplotypes averaged 0Á27 Æ 0Á18% in G. melastomus and 0Á12 Æ 0Á08% in G. atlanticus. A total of 35 diagnostic nucleotide site differences and four restriction fragment length polymorphism recognition sites in the ND2 gene can be used to distinguish the two species.
    [Show full text]
  • AC26 Inf. 1 (English Only / Únicamente En Inglés / Seulement En Anglais)
    AC26 Inf. 1 (English only / únicamente en inglés / seulement en anglais) CONVENTION ON INTERNATIONAL TRADE IN ENDANGERED SPECIES OF WILD FAUNA AND FLORA ____________ Twenty-sixth meeting of the Animals Committee Geneva (Switzerland), 15-20 March 2012 and Dublin (Ireland), 22-24 March 2012 RESPONSE TO NOTIFICATION TO THE PARTIES NO. 2011/049, CONCERNING SHARKS The attached information document has been submitted by the Secretariat at the request of PEW, in relation to agenda item 16*. * The geographical designations employed in this document do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the CITES Secretariat or the United Nations Environment Programme concerning the legal status of any country, territory, or area, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The responsibility for the contents of the document rests exclusively with its author. AC26 Inf. 1 – p. 1 January 5, 2012 Pew Environment Group Response to CITES Notification 2011/049 To Whom it May Concern, As an active international observer to CITES, a member of the Animals Committee Shark Working Group, as well as other working groups of the Animals and Standing Committees, and an organization that is very active in global shark conservation, the Pew Environment Group submits the following information in response to CITES Notification 2011/049. We submit this information in an effort to ensure a more complete response to the request for information, especially considering that some countries that have adopted proactive new shark conservation policies are not Parties to CITES. 1. Shark species which require additional action In response to Section a) ii) of the Notification, the Pew Environment Group submits the following list of shark species requiring additional action to enhance their conservation and management.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 a Petition to List the Oceanic Whitetip Shark
    A Petition to List the Oceanic Whitetip Shark (Carcharhinus longimanus) as an Endangered, or Alternatively as a Threatened, Species Pursuant to the Endangered Species Act and for the Concurrent Designation of Critical Habitat Oceanic whitetip shark (used with permission from Andy Murch/Elasmodiver.com). Submitted to the U.S. Secretary of Commerce acting through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the National Marine Fisheries Service September 21, 2015 By: Defenders of Wildlife1 535 16th Street, Suite 310 Denver, CO 80202 Phone: (720) 943-0471 (720) 942-0457 [email protected] [email protected] 1 Defenders of Wildlife would like to thank Courtney McVean, a law student at the University of Denver, Sturm college of Law, for her substantial research and work preparing this Petition. 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 4 II. GOVERNING PROVISIONS OF THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT ............................................. 5 A. Species and Distinct Population Segments ....................................................................... 5 B. Significant Portion of the Species’ Range ......................................................................... 6 C. Listing Factors ....................................................................................................................... 7 D. 90-Day and 12-Month Findings ........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • © Iccat, 2007
    A5 By-catch Species APPENDIX 5: BY-CATCH SPECIES A.5 By-catch species By-catch is the unintentional/incidental capture of non-target species during fishing operations. Different types of fisheries have different types and levels of by-catch, depending on the gear used, the time, area and depth fished, etc. Article IV of the Convention states: "the Commission shall be responsible for the study of the population of tuna and tuna-like fishes (the Scombriformes with the exception of Trichiuridae and Gempylidae and the genus Scomber) and such other species of fishes exploited in tuna fishing in the Convention area as are not under investigation by another international fishery organization". The following is a list of by-catch species recorded as being ever caught by any major tuna fishery in the Atlantic/Mediterranean. Note that the lists are qualitative and are not indicative of quantity or mortality. Thus, the presence of a species in the lists does not imply that it is caught in significant quantities, or that individuals that are caught necessarily die. Skates and rays Scientific names Common name Code LL GILL PS BB HARP TRAP OTHER Dasyatis centroura Roughtail stingray RDC X Dasyatis violacea Pelagic stingray PLS X X X X Manta birostris Manta ray RMB X X X Mobula hypostoma RMH X Mobula lucasana X Mobula mobular Devil ray RMM X X X X X Myliobatis aquila Common eagle ray MYL X X Pteuromylaeus bovinus Bull ray MPO X X Raja fullonica Shagreen ray RJF X Raja straeleni Spotted skate RFL X Rhinoptera spp Cownose ray X Torpedo nobiliana Torpedo
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • Updated Checklist of Marine Fishes (Chordata: Craniata) from Portugal and the Proposed Extension of the Portuguese Continental Shelf
    European Journal of Taxonomy 73: 1-73 ISSN 2118-9773 http://dx.doi.org/10.5852/ejt.2014.73 www.europeanjournaloftaxonomy.eu 2014 · Carneiro M. et al. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. Monograph urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:9A5F217D-8E7B-448A-9CAB-2CCC9CC6F857 Updated checklist of marine fishes (Chordata: Craniata) from Portugal and the proposed extension of the Portuguese continental shelf Miguel CARNEIRO1,5, Rogélia MARTINS2,6, Monica LANDI*,3,7 & Filipe O. COSTA4,8 1,2 DIV-RP (Modelling and Management Fishery Resources Division), Instituto Português do Mar e da Atmosfera, Av. Brasilia 1449-006 Lisboa, Portugal. E-mail: [email protected], [email protected] 3,4 CBMA (Centre of Molecular and Environmental Biology), Department of Biology, University of Minho, Campus de Gualtar, 4710-057 Braga, Portugal. E-mail: [email protected], [email protected] * corresponding author: [email protected] 5 urn:lsid:zoobank.org:author:90A98A50-327E-4648-9DCE-75709C7A2472 6 urn:lsid:zoobank.org:author:1EB6DE00-9E91-407C-B7C4-34F31F29FD88 7 urn:lsid:zoobank.org:author:6D3AC760-77F2-4CFA-B5C7-665CB07F4CEB 8 urn:lsid:zoobank.org:author:48E53CF3-71C8-403C-BECD-10B20B3C15B4 Abstract. The study of the Portuguese marine ichthyofauna has a long historical tradition, rooted back in the 18th Century. Here we present an annotated checklist of the marine fishes from Portuguese waters, including the area encompassed by the proposed extension of the Portuguese continental shelf and the Economic Exclusive Zone (EEZ). The list is based on historical literature records and taxon occurrence data obtained from natural history collections, together with new revisions and occurrences.
    [Show full text]