Bravo Mahmood!

Mahmood is Prof. Dr. Mahmood Shivji of the Guy Harvey Research Institute and the Save our Seas Shark Center, both at Nova.

He's the guy who gets all of our DNA samples and you may have heard of him in relation to his recent discovery of a forensic tool (the actual paper is here) to pinpoint the geographical origin of the fins of endangered Scalloped Hammerheads from the Hong Kong Shark fin market.
This is how Reuters covered it.



Now Mahmood has posted this brilliant video about what happens in the lab once they have taken a small sample of the fins. Shame that there's no embedding feature.

Anyway, a big Kudos for the discovery and congrats for having produced a compelling piece about GSI and the need for Shark Conservation.
Bravo!

Tracking Oceanic Whitetips!

Sorry for the silence.
We're currently incredibly busy, not least with getting the Great Fiji Shark Count under way, and time is just simply slipping away. Talking of which, please do check out the list of participants: if you haven't already done so, book with one of them.
Those are the businesses who truly care about Sharks in Fiji.

Anyway, Mahmood is tracking OWTs from Cayman.
You can read about the details here and here but above all, you can peruse this stellar interactive tracking tool.
This is as good as it gets - kudos!

Incidentally, Mahmood is about to start publishing his first findings about the global Bull Shark genome research to which we have been contributing samples for several years - keep watching this space!

Seychelles - it was a Bull Shark!

Toothy Bull by Sasha.

As so often, Patric has been spot on.
Something was indeed rotten in the state of the Seychelles.
Turns out that the Shark that fatally struck a tourist was not a foreign GW but a local Bull Shark. Gotta love the Shark experts who made the wrong ID - so much for unmistakably!

Story here.
Kudos to Mahmood for providing the correct answers.

The learning curve however appears to be flat.
Despite of Mr. Cliff's totally botched diagnosis, it now appears that the Authorities will continue to rely on "expert" advice from SA's infamous KNZSB and are planning to set up shark nets. As for the ludicrous claim that those would be tailor made (presumably to catch only Bull Sharks), read this.

A whole lotta Bull!

Wow - that's one mighty big Bull Shark!

But ours are bigger! :)
With the exception of the enormous Nyami Nyami (but how, exactly was she measured - length-over-all by bending down the tail?), people in the know tell me that Fiji's Bulls are substantially bigger than anything they've seen anywhere else, especially in the Caribbean. Which of course begs the question, what will Mahmood reveal once he publishes his findings about the Bull Shark genome and the possibility, or not, of distinct populations?
Keep watching this space as I hear that the roll-out may be imminent!

As always, kudos to Neil for the brilliant outreach!
And, you may want to amuse yourself and read the comments, among which
Wow, trolling the internet must be a great way to spend your time in between, Matsurbating to naked pics of your mom while covering yourself in spray cheese.
Wow indeed! :)

But have you seen this?
Bull sharks "have the most testosterone of any animal on the planet, so that should tell you a little something," Hammerschlag said.

Indeed it does!
It tells us that even the most prominent researchers are not immune to parroting urban legends! :)
Regular readers may remember that this particular piece of pseudoscience has been thoroughly debunked by Christie Wilcox of then Observations of a Nerd (and now Science Sushi) - but if not, here is that post in all of its glorious analytical deconstruction!
Enjoy!

79 new Sharks?

Jimmy's Emma - a different species than our Scarface? Great pic by Jim Abernethy.

Not at all!
Trust the journos to parrot the same erroneous information without ever bothering to consult the source! Even the abstract specifies clearly that the analysis comprises approx. 574 Elasmobranchs and that it has identified 38 potentially new species of Sharks and 41 potentially new Rays.
Be it as it may, that's a whole lotta new species - maybe!

The gist?
David has already posted this great review pointing out that if confirmed by further in-depth analysis, the results will have important consequences for conservation, especially for those species that are already classified as threatened with extinction.
Personally, being very much a lumper, I look at these findings with great skepticism - but then again, my taxonomy guru teaches me that the best definition of a species is what a good systematist says it is, so who am I to argue!

But what does that mean for us Shark divers?
Having finally found the time to read through the whole 263 pages, here are the results for some of the most commonly encountered Sharks, in the same order as presented in the paper. It's obviously a subjective selection and readers with a particular interest in other species may find them in the paper that analyzes about half of the species that are currently being recognized.

• Silky, C. falciformis.
  One single species, with Atlantic and Pacific sub-populations.


• Blue, P. glauca.
  One single species, possibly not warranting an independent monotypic genus


• Grey Reef, C. amblyrhynchos.
  Now this is a really interesting one, as the authors are resurrecting the infamous C. wheeleri, or (short-nosed) Blacktail Reef Shark, essentially the Grey Reef from the Red Sea and also the Maldives etc.
  wheeleri can be distinguished by the white upper margin of the first dorsal fin and shorter snout, and by the fact that apparently, it never displays any of the typical agonistic behavior. It was thus once considered to be an own species but then lumped together with was then C. menisorrah (the Grey Reef from the Pacific) into the Indopacific C. amblyrhynchos.
  Here at Shark Reef, we see Grey Reefies with and without white tips and with varying snout lengths, meaning that I continue to remain highly skeptical that these are indeed different species.


• Silvertip, C. albimarginatus.
  One single species with possible sub-populations.


• Galapagos and Dusky, C. galapagensis and obscurus.
  The paper comes to the surprising conclusion that these may well be one and the same species, with the Galapagos merely representing the oceanic form of the Dusky that is confined to continental shelves and adjacent pelagic waters, but with sub-population from the Western North Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico. Very interesting!


• Oceanic Whitetip, C. longimanus.
  One single species although the samples were not sufficiently representative of its distribution.


• Caribbean Reef, C. perezi.
  Very much unsurprisingly, one single species.


• Blacktip, C. limbatus.
  Latest since the discovery of hybrids with C. tilstoni, the Australian Blacktip, this whole group including C. amblyrhynchoides, the Graceful Shark needs to be re-examined. Limbatus appears be at least two species, the Western Atlantic C. limbatus proper and then C. cf. limbatus (possibly C. pleurotaeniae) from the Indo-Pacific and Eastern Atlantic.
  Yes it's complicated!


• Blacktip Reef, C. melanopterus.
  Possibly two species, one being from the Red Sea.


• Bull, C. leucas.
  Possibly three species: C. leucas from the Western Atlantic, C. cf. leucas 1 from Asia and C. cf. leucas 2 from South Africa.
  This really comes as no surprise in view of the possibly record Bull caught in the Breede River, and as we're always hearing that our animals are substantially bigger than those from the Caribbean.
  But this may not even be the whole story: I hear that Mahmood is finally about to publish his own findings that include the specimens we have collected in Fiji, so keep watching this space!


• Sandbar and Bignose, C. plumbeus and altimus.
  Possibly two species, one Indo-Pacific Sandbar C. cf. plumbeus (possibly C. japonicus) and then one Atlantic Sandbar C. plumbeus that however clusters with all specimens of the morphologically totally distinct Bignose!
  Talk about a taxonomic clusterfuck - literally!


• Reef Whitetip, T. obesus.
  One single species.


• Sicklefin Lemon and Lemon, N. acutidens and brevirostris.
  One single species each.


• Scalloped Hammerhead, S. lewini.
  At least two possible species, S. lewini 1 from the Atlantic and Western Indian Ocean and S. lewini 2 from the Pacific, with possibly further cryptic sub-clusters at species level as e.g. reported here.


• Great Hammerhead, S. mokarran.
  Possibly two species, S. mokarran 1 from the Atlantic and S. mokarran 2 from the Indopacific.


• Tiger, G. cuvier.
  Possibly two species, G. cuvier from the Indopacific and G. cf. cuvier (possibly G. arcticus) from the Atlantic.


• Shortfin and Longfin Mako, I. oxyrinchus and paucus.
  One single species each.


• Great White, C, carcharias.
  One single species, however featuring an Atlantic/Indian Ocean and a Pacific sub-population - but then again, read this about the Mediterranean GWs!


• Zebra, S. fasciatum.
  One single species.


• Whale, R. typus.
  Probably one species.


• Nurse, G. cirratum.
  Probably two species, G. cirratum from the Western Atlentic and then G. cf. cirratum (the Pacific Nurse Shark) from Baja as suggested by Castro.

And of the Rays

• Manta, Manta birostris.
  The authors appear unconvinced of Andrea's resurrection of M. alfredi - but for once, having witnessed the obvious difference both in appearance and behavior between the Pelagic and Reef Mantas, I'm totally sold on the fact that there are at least these two species.


• Spotted Eagle Rays, Aetobatus spp
  Will White has revised the Genus and come up with various species, i.e. the original Spotted Eagle Ray A. narinari from the Western Atlantic, the Whitespotted Eagle Ray A. ocellatus from the Indo-West Pacific, the Pacific Whitespotted Eagle Ray A. laticeps for Baja, the Longheaded Eagle Ray A. flagellum from India and Borneo and finally, an undescribed fifth possible species from Vietnam.

Of course, I remain generally unconvinced.
I'm an avid conchologist and have witnessed how the Cowries, once grouped within the genus Cypraea, have been subdivided into ever more genera, species, sub-species and races, this very much to the detriment of my wallet and to the delight of the traders. There it is business and here, I fear, much of it is excessive scrutiny.

Granted, I probably don't know what I'm talking about.
But to me, if two Sharks look and behave very much the same, let alone interbreed and produce fertile "hybrids" like C. tilstoni and C. limbatus, they are one and the same Shark.
But speciation is of course a gradual process, and the boundaries between species can thus be extremely fuzzy. As a consequence, the threshold of what constitutes a "species" will always be the result of convention rather than the "truth" - meaning that I'm both right and wrong! :)

What I find more compelling are the biogeographic aspects.
Apart from the strict endemics and the truly global pelagic species like the Blue, most Sharks are situated between the two and there exist distinct regional populations that may or may not be considered distinct species.
One such notable region is clearly the Atlantic where there are already a few Sharks featuring corresponding sister species in the Indopacific, like the Nurse/Tawny, the Lemon/Sicklefin and the Caribbean/Grey Reef Sharks. Other such regions are the Middle East, South-East Asia and Australia.

Long story short?
Whatever the ultimate definition of whether those local populations are species, sub-species, races or whatever, those distinct genetic pools warrant further investigation. And alas, they also warrant specific local management and conservation measures, meaning that the task at hand has certainly become even more daunting.

But a Tiger remains a Tiger remains a Tiger!

A Fiji Bull Shark?

Carcharhinus dakuwaqa? Quite possibly!
Click for detail - and I mean it!

I knew it!
Not only are our bulls huge and the most incredible collection of charismatic, intelligent sharks on the planet, they may well be a totally unique population - if not more than that!
This was revealed last week at the AES meeting.

From the poster.

Global Population Genetic Structure and Parentage Analysis of the
Bull Shark (Carcharhinus leucas)

C. Testerman1, J. Brunnschweiler2, M. Heithaus3, S. Gulak4, J. Werry5, R. Jabado6, C. Jones7, and M. Shivji1

1Save Our Seas Shark Center USA and Guy Harvey Research Institute, Nova Southeastern University, Dania Beach, FL, USA, 2ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland, 3Florida International University, North Miami, FL, USA, 4National Marine Fisheries Service, Panama City, FL, 5Ocean and Coast Research, QLD, Australia, 6United Arab Emirates University, Al Ain, UAE, 7University of Aberdeen, UK

Project Synopsis

The bull shark (Carcharhinus leucas) is a globally distributed, large coastal shark that occurs in marine, estuarine and freshwater habitats.
It has been assessed as near threatened by the IUCN, is caught in recreational and commercial fisheries throughout its range, and shows evidence of recent declines in the Gulf of Mexico. Regional population studies have reported mitochondrial but not nuclear differentiation between the western North and South Atlantic (Karl et al., 2011) and among juvenile C. leucas sampled in river systems across northern Australia (Tillett et al., 2012).

We expanded on these studies by evaluating the global population genetic structure of C. leucas using 12, bi-parentally inherited, nuclear microsatellite loci and a globally distributed set of 470 samples. Our microsatellite data revealed strong genetic differentiation between samples from the western North Atlantic (WNA) and Indo-Pacific (I-P). No population structuring was detected within WNA and Indian Ocean sampling sites.

Fig. 1. Species global distribution indicated in gold shading. Sampling locations with fewer than 10 samples were not included in the population-based differentiation statistical analyses (Fig. 2) but were included in the individual-based analyses (Figs. 3 & 4).
Click for detail!

Notably, however, samples from Fiji demonstrated statistically significant genetic structuring from the remaining locations sampled.

Fig. 2. Charcharhinus leucas genetic differentiation based on population-level statistical analyses. Colored shapes (ovals and square) represent genetically distinct populations. FST values (p = 0.0000) between each population pair are indicated by arrows. Sampling locations (indicated by circles) within each population are not genetically differentiated.
Click for detail!

Assignment testing (GeneClass2) showed evidence of a low-level of first generation migrants from the WNA and western Pacific among the southwest Indian Ocean samples, a surprising finding considering the strongly coastal nature of C. leucas. Finally, parentage analysis of 2 litters suggests that the species may be genetically polyandrous, although this hypothesis will need further testing with more litters.

Conclusions:

Individual and population level analyses are concordant in showing at least 3 genetically distinct populations:

• Western North Atlantic
• Indo-Australia
• Fiji

Fig. 3. pie charts indicate the average proportional membership coefficient of individuals in the 3 distinct lineages inferred from nuclear microsatellite genotypes by the program STRUCTURE. Pie chart sizes are roughly proportional to sample sizes.
Click for detail!

Three 1st generation migrants were identified, indicating contemporary movement from both the Atlantic and Pacific oceans into the Indian Ocean. Complex patterns of migration and population structure require coordinated regional management efforts.
Parentage analyses of 2 litters revealed multiple paternity in both litters.

So there you have it!
This is the result of many years of DNA sampling on Shark Reef whereby so far, we've been able to send more than 70 samples to Mahmood - and counting as there are other, more local aspects we would like to explore.

So, do we have a Fiji endemic?
Probably not at all, because nearby locations like e.g. Tonga and Samoa are very likely to harbor the same Sharks. But from everything we know, Fiji with its robust population of Bull Sharks may well be considered to be the epicenter of this genetic strain, meaning that it would be perfectly acceptable to call this the Fiji Bull Shark - and depending on whether this is a subspecies/race or even an own species: how does Carcharhinus leucas dakuwaqa or Carcharhinus dakuwaqa sound to you!

Anyway, is this mega cool, or what!

Tiger Shark Express!

Source - click for detail!

Go watch it!

I obviously haven't seen it.

But from what I can discern, it features the iconic Doc aka the Grand Mufti of Shark research, Guy Harvey and Mahmood - and for that reason alone I fully expect it to be nothing short of stellar!

Story here.

And here's the trailer - narrated by none other than Guy himself!

Enjoy!

More Shenanigans by the GTs!

We got ourselves a thief!

As you know we collect discarded Bull Shark teeth.
We had high hopes that they would shed light on the Sharks' exposure to fresh water but the results have been inconclusive and we've abandoned collecting them for science, the more as we continue to collect proper tissue samples for Mahmood's DNA forensics. Still, the Shark teeth remain a very hot commodity among our staff who hand them to selected customers, a rather clever strategy that may possibly translate into better tips but above all, into radiant smiles from the grateful pretty tahines.

Thing is, as of recent, the teeth supply has been disappointing.
Having suspected some kind of thievery, we've decided to install video surveillance - and BINGO : we've been finally able to capture the perpetrator in flagrante - yes it's none other than the murderer of those poor Sharksuckers, or possibly one of his equally sleazy cousins!
Check it out - click for detail.

TOTALLY busted!

A friend, incidentally one of the above mentioned tooth-owning tahines writes Why they would eat a shark tooth? Can they digest the tooth? The tooth is really sharp as well, I was playing with one and I still have the cut on my finger. Does it not cut the trevally's intestines?
Yes it probably will, especially one of those upper serrated teeth as the one depicted!
Talk about instant retribution!

Serves them right for f... with the BAD boys!

Hic Rhodus hic salta!

Trash talking blog-dawgs out there, no less!
Wow! Would that by any chance be always polite and mellow moi???
My-oh-my!

Patric alerts me to this remarkable blog post by Eli.
The way that blog works, that post is now on top but will eventually disappear and you’ll have to search for November 29, 2010. I’ve said it before, the man is onto something! Anyway, good to have a reaction and to see that the issue is now firmly on the table!
And good fun, too!

So, let’s examine his views and compare them to my last post about Cat Island.

• Trickle-down economy, ie ecotourism and involvement of local stakeholders - check

• MPA, i.e. conservation - check.
  But, one has to look at the local circumstances. Here in Fiji, the reefs belong to government but are held in trust by the villages, and hence both entities can agree to set an area aside. No idea about the Bahamas but as I said, if the locals agree not to enable the killing of Sharks, they will be able to stop the local fishermen and at least enact de-facto conservation and enforcement – check.

• Marine Park fee - check.
  But only in exchange for conservation!

• Science - check.
  But, I believe that it has to be enacted from day one, at least in the form of a baseline count. And in this specific case: in view of the new protection of OWTs in the Atlantic (tho alas not in the Bahamas), how about helping the enforcement by getting in contact with Mahmood and establishing the genetic fingerprint of the Atlantic population by collecting DNA samples!

• Catch & release fishing - check.
  Yes it is not appealing but this is the real world

• Co-operation among operators - check

• Protocols – fail.
  Since I just know that yer gonna be reading this: Buddy I used to be like, if not worse than you but this is not about having fun anymore – this is now about commercial Shark diving and on top of that, the global media are instantaneous and will hone in on any mistakes we make and propagate the myth of the killer beast. Those stunts don’t dispel the myth, they just lead to more headlines of a brave (or stupid) man defying death and the like.
  Yes we hand feed, too, but in very different circumstances and above all, on our own dive, in highly controlled conditions, with animals we’ve known for years and above all, in a place where no other dive shops operate and where the animals have been conditioned to observe always exactly the same uniform and thus predictable routine - for them, not us!
  Over to the Oceanic Whitetips, there’s squillions of dive operators in the Red Sea with ample experience in diving with them and if you don’t believe me, use your own contacts and ask them what they thing about snorkeling with this species in baited conditions! Guess we’ll continue to disagree on this one and I’ll continue to talk trash for as long as we will.
  Nothing personal btw!

Governments?
Agree and disagree.
I may be fortunate but I’ve yet to meet a single fisheries official who does not support sustainable fisheries (but fisheries never-the-less! Global prohibition, as in CITES, is nothing but wishful thinking!) and the according conservation measures. Yes I hear that in some places corruption is rampant but then again, it’s mostly situated further up the food chain and can be tackled if one has the guts to speak up and expose it, the more as most countries dispose of the relevant laws.

The real problem is the politicians who shun any decision that may in any way alienate their constituency and who thus continue to impede any legislative measures.
Unfortunately, the true conservationists are merely a small minority of the votes, so we’ll have to continue coming up with unusual strategies - and correct, paying for conservation is one of them, especially in lesser developed countries.

Anyway, talk as always is cheap and the proof is in the pudding.
Now go do it, starting with flying over there and establishing a dialogue with the locals – and trust me, it won’t be easy! In the spirit of cooperation, you can get all the project papers, research data, proposals, cash flow etc from here which as you know is a great template – just write to the dive shop & we’ll mail it over.

Hic Insula Cattorum – hic salta!

Fishing for Sharks!

Never trust those scientists!

Especially Juerg!
Whilst I'm still pondering what to say, and what not to say, about our latest expedition to Fiji's Shark-infested rivers, he has jumped the gun, hijacked my exclusive scoop and posted a detailed description on his SOSF blog. Well, gee, thanks!
So much for my pondering!

Lemme tell you, it has been an adventure!
From choosing the right bait (in Eroni's native Vanua Levu, the Shark fishermen swear by roast mongoose - and no, we did not try that!) to employing the right technique to choosing the correct tide, location and time of the day, it's been a lot of trial and even more error, as in nada de nada de nada!
I won't go into details but our valiant Victor, Eroni and Tumbi were finally successful after rigging up an elaborate longline and the mysterious "river Sharks" are pretty much confirmed as being juvenile Bulls! They are really tiny, with disproportionately big eyes and a characteristic black rim to the caudal fin that will disappear once they become adults, and my guess is that they could very well be this December's crop of newborns!
Is that cool, or what!

Now before anybody gets too excited.

Yes we fish for Sharks as we want to determine their pupping grounds in order to get them protected. We also want to get small tissue samples for Mahmood's groundbreaking genetic mapping.

Contrary to the behemoths that get severely hurt in the process as their body weight will crush their internal organs once they're out of the water, these very small Sharks can be safely landed and are being returned to the water within a few minutes after having been measured and sexed and after removal of a small fin clipping. All very fast, non-invasive and respectful!
OK?

As to Juerg, I guess I will forgive him- for now!
Especially since he's due next week and there's a rumor that he may be carrying some Vacherin Mont d'Or and Sprüngli Truffes du Jour - see below!
How could I possibly hold a grudge in view of that!

2010 - so far, fabulous!

The BAD team and Royalty - click on it!

Wow - what a start to the year!

Summer is traditionally Fiji's "slow"season - but I promise you, not for us!
Maybe because of the El Niño, the number of Bulls has been nothing short of spectacular, to the point where we've had to add a new category to our database, as in Too many to count: certainly more than 40 and very possibly, more than 50 Bull Sharks of all sizes on selected days! We now have more than 90 named individuals - and still counting!

Needless to say that Juerg is delighted!
He was here in February to essentially wrap up the first phase of the small scale movement research using acoustic monitoring and to start concentrating on our work in the rivers. Going forward, we will complement our DNA sampling for Mahmood with other research on the riverine life history of Bull Sharks, this involving acoustic transmitters and video. On Shark Reef, we continue sampling DNA but will only resume any tagging once we've addressed some technical matters.
But that's another story for another post - keep watching this space!

The traditional Fish count yielded another 30+ species.
This means that Shark Reef harbors more than 460 species - and believe it or not, this isn't the end of it! This time, we had the pleasure of hosting he of the squeaky voice (trust me, you DO want to open this link!), non other than the infamous Richard Pyle himself!

Richard is quite a guy - and he loves Sharks!



He is John's regular deep diving buddy and they and the Geek turned up with Poseidon Cis Lunar Mk6s, very nifty, small and user-friendly Nitrox rebreathers which are rated to 40m.
So far, I've been extremely wary of those gizmos but I must say that I'm impressed: despite of Richards best attempts at rigorous testing (and yes that would be a euphemism!) they did what they had to do and provided him with the correct gas mix throughout the dive. I hear that there will be a new model allowing for deeper dives and once that happens, I'll be the first one to buy one.
Very nice toys indeed!

Apart from the science, we hosted several film productions (with several more forthcoming), welcomed many diving journos and VIPs and initiated some truly ground breaking exciting conservation projects which we plan to roll out later this year. Some of them are BIG - and you're going to like them!

Other than that, we've been literally swamped - and yes, it's a great problem to have!
The immediate consequence has been that we now schedule afternoon coral dives on Shark diving days, this in order to accommodate a maximum of Shark aficionados on our two boats. It has also prompted us to hire more staff, purchase a second big compressor and add more rental gear.

Where we will not compromise, however, is on safety and quality.
We will continue to limit the number of divers on the Fiji Shark Dive to 20, this principally because of safety considerations but also, because we want our clients to have a first class experience as opposed to having to fight for space on a cattle dive. Likewise, we will not relax our procedures, especially not those concerning the separation of clients and animals - ambitious image hunters are once again reminded of the consequences this entails.

And finally, the BAD Boyz and Girls have turned six years old.
We were honored to celebrate in the company of Ron and Valerie who have been staunch supporters of the Fiji Shark Project since its inception.

And the adventure continues!

Bloody cool News!

Pic: Frederic Buyle

FishR2 (5'-ACTTCAGGGTGACCGAAGAATCAGAA-3') anybody?

Yes this is the language of Molecular Analysis!

From Species Delineation and Evolutionary History of the Globally Distributed Spotted Eagle Ray (Aetobatus narinari)
Vincent P. Richards, Marcy Henning, Wayne Witzell, and Mahmood S. Shivji

Molecular analyses are resolving many taxonomic uncertainties, including revealing that species once thought to cover wide geographic areas are often complexes comprising 2 or more genetically distinct species.
In addition to providing taxonomic clarity and more accurate biodiversity assessments, such findings have management and conservation ramifications as many of the newly identified species may have limited ranges and relatively small population sizes rendering them more vulnerable to human impact.
Consequently, the accurate delimitation of species boundaries is an important conservation need, especially for exploited species.

First the Manta Rays, now this.

The Spotted Eagle Ray (Aetobatus narinari), a large coral reef–associated batoid of conservation concern, is currently described as a single, circumglobally distributed species.
However, geographic differences in its morphology and parasite diversity have raised unconfirmed suspicions that A. narinari may constitute a species complex.
We used 1570 bp of mitochondrial and nuclear sequence data (cytochrome b, cytochrome c oxidase subunit I, and internal transcribed spacer 2) to assess the validity of A. narinari as a single cosmopolitan species and infer its evolutionary history. Specimens from 4 major geographic regions were examined: the Central Atlantic, Eastern Pacific, Western Pacific, and Central Pacific.

Phylogenies described 3 distinct, reciprocally monophyletic lineages with no genetic exchange among regions. Based on combined genealogical concordance and genetic distance criteria, we recommend that the Western/Central Pacific lineage be recognized as a distinct species from lineages in the Central Atlantic and Eastern Pacific. The latter 2 lineages, separated by the Isthmus of Panama, are proposed as subspecies.
A basal position in phylogenetic analyses and statistical parsimony results support an Indo-West Pacific origin for the A. narinari species complex, with subsequent westerly dispersal around the southern tip of Africa into the Atlantic and then into the Eastern Pacific.

Original paper (including the gibberish at the top) here.
Just stunning!

New Sharks and Rays!

Check this out!

It's a whole list of newly described Elasmobranchs from Borneo.
It includes some very cool finds like a new Wobbegong and a new River Shark - but the one paper that personally fascinates me most starts on page 141.

It re-affirms the Eagle Ray Aetobatus ocellatus as a valid species.

ABSTRACT.— Aetobatus narinari is generally considered to have a circumglobal distribution but some have suggested that it consists of more than one cryptic species. Recent molecular studies have provided evidence of a species complex, with an Indo–West/Central Pacific clade and a Western Atlantic clade.

This paper investigates the nomenclature of the Indo–West Pacific species and provides a redescription of Aetobatus ocellatus (Kuhl, 1823).
Aetobatus ocellatus is very similar morphologically to Aetobatus narinari but differs in having a slightly longer tail and a different dorsal coloration. A major taxonomic revision of the A. narinari complex is required to determine the number of species present, their distributional ranges and effective field characters. The conservation status of members of this complex needs to be evaluated.
...

The comparison of Aetobatus ocellatus with A. narinari from the Western Atlantic revealed that they are very similar morphologically... The major difference between these species is the background coloration of the dorsal surfaces.

Aetobatus ocellatus has a dark greenish, greyish to almost blackish (sometimes with a pinkish tinge) background colour, whereas all Western Atlantic specimens of A. narinari have a much paler, medium yellowish brownish (fawn) background colour.

This is a direct confirmation of Mahmood's paper that postulated
Based on combined genealogical concordance and genetic distance criteria, we recommend that the Western/Central Pacific lineage be recognized as a distinct species from lineages in the Central Atlantic and Eastern Pacific.
How cool is that!

As to the conservation status, it looks grim.
The IUCN describes the global status of the Spotted Eagle Ray A. narinari as being Near Threatened. Impressively thorough as always (read it!), the report then adds that the fishing pressure in Southeast Asia and Africa, i.e. the range of A. ocellatus, is particularly heavy, warranting a listing as Vulnerable.

Not good - but still, always fascinating to observe Taxonomy in action!

GW Biology - totally fascinating!

One of the best GW ever, by Terry Goss (yes this is a link!)

Found the following by pure happenstance.

Very informative and at the same time, very entertaining indeed!
Keeping it Green is a program by Debbie Klughers who just won a scholarship by the Women's Hall of Fame. The lecturer is Dr. Demian Chapman, according to my sources one of the good guys - as evidenced by the fact that he has obviously worked with Doc, Mahmood and Mrs Pikitch. And may G.H. Harvey be the Guy, and may the paper be related to Guy's work in Cayman?

Anyway, enjoy!
AND: check out the third video, 10:15 - that was in November 2010, now we know more!

Track your Tiger Shark!

This is way cool!
Gary alerts me to Mahmood's real time Tiger Shark tracks and I am deeply impressed!

From the website.
To understand tiger shark movement behavior in more detail and aid in conservation efforts, the Guy Harvey Research Institute/Guy Harvey Ocean Foundation and their project partners are investigating tiger shark movements in the western and central North Atlantic Ocean in long-term studies based out of Bermuda, the Bahamas, the Cayman Islands and the US Virgin Islands.

The sharks’ movements are being studied by employing three types of electronic tagging technology that provide complementary information – acoustic tags whose signals are detected by strategically positioned, underwater listening devices (receivers), and two types of satellite tags that relay information on where the tiger shark is and/or its depth in the ocean.

This is a continuation of these studies.
Once again, Tigers are being shown to be highly versatile not only in their diet but also with regards to the habitats they frequent, from coastal to very much pelagic. Also, they are by no means resident but can engage in very wide ranging migrations, this possibly associated with opportunities for predation. Interestingly, this does not appear to be a uniform pattern but rather, it appears that different individuals engage in completely different behavior. As an example, check out the Grand Bahama page and you will see that whereas Nikole and Christina prefer to stay close to the coast, Jamin appears to be way more adventurous - this very much like the Bermuda Tigers that are true pelagic wanderers that visit seasonal hot spots.

Please explore the site and the tracks.
I particularly liked the animated tracks as they feature a running time log which does a great job in depicting time spent in an area or distances traveled.

Enjoy!

He's baaaaaaaaack!!!

Guadalupe GW with permanent bling - click for detail.

Domeier wants to go and fish for more Great Whites – story here.

Before commenting, let me try and put things into perspective.
Generally speaking, we are very much in favor of research as we deem it essential for providing the data enabling us to devise effective conservation measures. Consequently, as you know, we have always always sponsored research on our Bull Sharks that are the principal attraction of the Fiji Shark Dive. But research is expensive as we devote a lot of resources to this undertaking and depending on what we do, it may also be disruptive to our business as some happens during our regular Shark dives with paying customers. We consequently don’t just blindly embark into new ventures, but have instead developed the following process whereby every project gets thoroughly screened before being implemented – and incidentally, we do something very similar when deciding about the countless film productions that get proposed to us.

The lead researcher is Dr. Juerg Brunnschweiler.
Juerg is one of, if not the foremost expert on this species and everything we do and every request by any other researcher is subject to his vetting and approval. We will also consult with Gary Adkison who brings to the table a lifetime of experience in diving with Sharks, and with Rusi whose understanding of the individual Sharks on Shark Reef is simply unparalleled, and define the framework for a research project. From the very beginning, we have had the understanding that all projects need to be checked against the following two prerequisites:

• There must be a direct link between the project and Shark conservation. Like I’ve said many times before, funding for research (and conservation) is scarce and the inevitable consequence is that it must be prioritized. We believe that the most urgent biological challenges that need to be tackled are habitat degradation and species extinction, and that “nice to know”, let alone blatantly frivolous queries must wait, respectively have no place in our research.
• The method we use must be the least invasive possible, this in order to conform to what we deem ethical (no lethal sampling, ever!), to safeguard the animals but also, to ensure that the Sharks we have worked so hard to attract and befriend are not being spooked by unnecessary rough handling.

With that in mind, here is what has happened lately.
After completing the satellite tagging project that was aimed at identifying the nursery areas but was fraught with technical challenges, we started a new project aimed at exploring the short-range movement patterns of the Sharks with the aim of better defining the area required to ensure their effective protection. For that, we positioned a multitude of receivers on the adjacent reefs and proceeded to equip the Sharks with acoustic transmitters. In line with our beliefs about having to use non-invasive methods, all tags were fed rather than attached, meaning that they would be expelled within only 3 to 7 days. Despite of this impediment, we were able to indentify the likely scope of their range and this has resulted in the establishment of a Shark protected Shark Corridor in 2006.

Our next query was to try and pinpoint the mating areas.
As the Bulls do not feed during the mating period, we had no choice but to attach the acoustic tags externally – and back came the old technical challenges. Our first choice of pole spears proved inadequate as most of the time, the anchors would not penetrate properly and the tags would detach in no time. Using a spear gun was more successful but resulted in veritable hunting expeditions where some of us got the impression that the Sharks quickly caught on to the activity and would split as soon as the hunter would ascend in the water column, to the point that after a few days of spearing, Shark numbers would be noticeably diminished and only recover after several weeks of normal diving.
Long story short – despite of obtaining several stellar results, we have realized that our protocols are sub-optimal and need urgent improvement.

As a consequence, we have not tagged a single Shark in 2010.
Instead, we have sent back all surplus tags that are now being deployed elsewhere and after the last tag had detached itself, we have retrieved all receivers and have instead concentrated on obtaining as many tissue samples as possible for Mahmood’s research on genetic fingerprinting. At the same time, we are scouting the rivers in order to set up a series of research projects there in 2011 where we will re-deploy the receivers.

And what about the tagging?
The current problem we are facing is threefold:

• We know the range of the Bulls and have expanded the protected area accordingly, and we also know where the mating areas are (up to Juerg to explain that in an upcoming paper): thus, in order to invest more resources, we will need to come up with a new, conservation-oriented query. As I said, mere nice to know does not cut it.
• Tagging the Bulls externally is invasive and changes their behavior, albeit only temporarily. On a personal note, it is also profoundly disturbing for both me and Rusi to witness somebody shooting animals to whom we have developed a personal attachment.
• The gizmos are faulty and continuing with the present techniques is going to lead to more frustration.

With that in mind, we will resume tagging only once we have a new, worthwhile conservation-oriented project and above all, only once we have developed a new, secure and non invasive technique for deploying them.
But fear not: we have already agreed upon such a project and have also already successfully deployed a completely new prototype gizmo! Preliminary results look highly promising and we may soon be able to reveal it to the public – after securing it against moochers like the always industrious and formidable BB!

Which brings me straight over to Domeier.
He wants to fish and then tag 13 more GWs, a highly endangered and strictly protected species, and that within a protected marine sanctuary. That fact alone requires a very much heightened level of vigilance and due diligence when determining whether he should be allowed to do so.
It may not surprise you that I believe he should not, and here is why.

I’ve read the draft proposal.
Quite frankly, it is a great piece – in fact, it is so exhaustive and compelling that being my usual skeptical self, I already harbor the suspicion that this is already a done deal and that the public consultation is merely a ploy aimed at preempting any subsequent critique once things will again go pear shaped.
But as I said, it is extremely well written and addresses many grievances head on and with plausible explanations – so good that in fact, I’m stumped that Domeier never deigned to use the same compelling arguments and deflect much of the criticism when the proverbial hit the fan!

What it however does not address are the two prerequisites we postulate here in Fiji.

Cui bono?
Is there really a need to tag more Pacific Great Whites?
I sure hope this is not again a fishing show for Nat Geo! And if not: thanks to TOPP and others, Pacific GWs are without a doubt the most researched and best documented local population of this species: we basically already know where they give birth, where the juveniles migrate, where the adults roam. Also, those GWs are already protected in the USA and in Mexico, however with the caveat that quite a few juveniles perish as they are caught accidentally by small Mexican fishermen when they migrate south to Baja.
What possible new data will Domeier’s project gather for better preserving the species?

And with that in mind, would those resources not be better invested elsewhere?
Just as some examples: could those funds not be better invested in trying to stop the accidental catches by the small Mexican fishermen? Could those tags not be deployed to study the little documented GW in the Mediterranean, or the newly found population in Vietnam?

But much more importantly, those SPOT tags suck!
First, there are notorious connectivity problems that need not be addressed here.
But secondly, the present attachment technique is just simply unacceptable. The tag is supposed to uplink to a satellite and transmit is position whenever the Shark comes to the surface and for that, in its present configuration, it needs to be rigidly attached to the first dorsal fin. This implies catching and immobilizing the Shark in order to drill some holes and attach the tag with bolts and nuts, a fact that condemns the Shark to henceforth carry around some ugly bling that will never ever fall off anymore. Check out the above picture from Lawrence’s blog, and I can only agree with his comment : WTF?

The whole procedure is highly invasive, if not outright cruel.
That alone should be grounds enough for not giving the permit.
In fact, the procedure is so bad that Domeier himself has recognized the problem and apparently (and unsuccessfully) tried to develop a clamp very much in line with what is already being deployed on Whale Sharks. Having failed, he now wants to resort to the old, “proven” (and granted, slightly improved) technique of catching the Sharks with rod and reel, subduing them by having them fight against some buoys and then hoisting them onto a vessel.
That’s just not good enough!

I say: wait til the gizmo is fixed!
Collecting those data is probably neither really necessary, nor urgent. Why not take the time to develop a better tag with a better attachment instead of having the Sharks pay the price for his incapacity to devise a better attachment.
Solutions? Surely, if one can produce a space-age satellite tag, one can also devise something equally sophisticated instead of continuing to resort to those jury-rigged implements? Maybe indeed a clamp that snaps shut and can be applied on the fly? Maybe re-design the tag so that it can be attached anywhere (and thus, on the fly) and equip it with a short line to just a small floating and self-righting antenna? And if everything fails: how about a cool contest among the students of some technical university!

So, there you have it.
It is once again about what’s ethical and whether the need for data warrants mistreating the animals. We believe it does not and consequently, we don’t do it in Fiji - and neither is it OK to do so anywhere else! Yes, improving faulty protocols may be tedious and even expensive - but it needs to be done.

Mind you, just my 2 ¢ - and as I said, I fear that in practical terms, nobody cares anyway.
As always, we shall watch how this venture unfolds.

With a very heavy Heart!

This is a terribly difficult post to write.

But the story needs to be told.
At stake, my personal friendship with some good people who I until now considered to be highly intelligent, honest and ethically irreproachable, for which they had earned my utmost respect; but equally at stake, the credibility of a prominent Shark diving operator with a substantial involvement in Shark conservation, and of the agencies funding that effort.

But first, let me try and put things into perspective.
Watch this.



Yes, I've posted it before.
This is the message of Dr. Erich Ritter distilled to its bare essentials, a collection of moronic platitudes, idiotic truisms and bunk science: pure snake oil!
Patric hits the nail on the head when he claims that these PSAs are factually incorrect, moronic in their simplistic assumptions, and dangerous in their conclusions.

But I fear that we may again be totally wasting our time.
Sadly and after years of trying to set the record straight, Ritter continues to enjoy a loyal following, principally from German speaking Europe where some circles continues to regard him as a messianic visionary. I call that movement Sharkitarianism and if you want to perceive the extent of blind adulation he commands, look no further than the incoherent ramblings of his devotee Pascal Gospodinov in the comments section of this post.

Not so elsewhere.
Despite having long attained pariah status in the established Shark research community, Ritter did enjoy an equally remarkable popularity in the USA and the UK, this largely due to his legendary eagerness to bloviate and showcase himself on numerous television productions. Incidentally, and yes I'm digressing, that has not changed: from Sharkwater to Shark Con (proof that Darwin's Theory is flawed ??? Gotta love the man!!!) all the way to Red Sea Jaws and the brand new Sharkwise, Ritter and Sharkitarianism continue to spread like cancer.

All that did however come to a screeching halt when his harebrained theories were debunked by a Bull Shark in a predatory attack in 2002 that nearly cost Ritter his life.
This is that attack.



The aftermath counts as one of the saddest chapters in the history of Shark conservation.
It completely discredited the perceived conservationist and scientist Ritter and by association, it did untold damage to Sharks, Shark research, the Shark diving industry and the Shark conservation movement.

The principal perpetrator: Ritter himself.
He rescinded his word never to allow the publication of the footage and partook in what remains to this day one of the most ignominious examples of Shark porn ever produced, a Discovery program called Anatomy of a Shark Bite that was aired during Shark Week 2003. He then repeated his feat in a subsequent equally catastrophic Discovery shoot, Bull Shark: World's Deadliest Shark (=great, visionary conservation messaging!) that gave Discovery yet another excuse for airing the gory scene. The attack sequence remains a staple of the Shark Week page and until this day, it is being used to advance anti industry agendas, and to forever heap scorn on anybody trying to intercede on behalf of Sharks.
After all, if the the only professional applied shark-human interaction specialist could get bitten, what hope was there for the rest of humankind!

The Shark researchers and the Shark conservationists have not forgotten this, nor have they forgotten the vitriolic personal diatribes that ensued after the airing of the Discovery programs.

Example?
This is an excerpt from a simply brilliant article that was published after the airing of the second Discovery show.
And I quote.

And what became of the great Yogic Heartbeat Theory? How I miss that!
I also liked how Nigel pointed out that the massive strong powerful shark knocked Erich off balance when it bit. In fact you can see Erich flailing around helplessly as clear as day. But in Anatomy of a Shark Bite Erich tells us what has to be the most idiotic explanation in the history of western thought ever uttered by a supposed scientist. He tells us that when he was bitten he lifted his leg so that he would get the bull shark's head out of the water, its gills would clamp shut and it would have to let go. Of course this baloney is just another attempt by Erich to make him seem like Shark Superhero.

Now we are given two reasons why Ritter got bitten

- "We (note the subtle diffusion of blame...) allowed the shark to come in too close." Excuse me Erich but YOU have been allowing sharks to come in too close over and over again. Not "We". It is what you did whenever you had an audience or film camera pointed at you. And your luck ran out.

- Erich admits that there are food particles in the water wafting around his tasty-looking legs and "sooner or later the shark wants to know what these people are." This is the staggering discovery that Erich presents us with: if you stand among hungry, macro-predatory, chummed-in sharks that are searching for food, sooner or later you will be bitten.

But excuse me Erich: 99.999999999999999% of the planet knew that anyway!

Of interest, Ritter has since once again changed his interpretation of what happened: check out this remarkable interview on Swiss Television - pure genius!

Anyway.
There you have it, this is the context.
Which may help you to better understand what follows.

It has led to this recent post, written by real researchers with no connection to Sharks! Simply hilarious, and didn't I tell you that you were in for a treat - Bangladesh Post Office indeed! :)
It is alas also the context for the following message.

Not All Quiet on the Palauan Front Or; Let Your Principles Be Your Guide

Tonight, 22 March 2011, on the island of Palau, during a presentation at “Shark Week” hosted by Fish N Fins, an unpleasant scene was played out before the participants of the evening lectures.

During the Question and Answer session after 60 minutes of Erich Ritter giving an entertaining presentation entitled: “Shark-Human Interaction as a Tool for Conservation”, Douglas Seifert, World Editor of DIVE Magazine in the UK and a fellow Guest of Honor/Presenter at “Shark Week”, asked a question of Erich Ritter regarding his denouncement of sensationalist “Shark Attack” titled publications in his power point presentation when “he was responsible for the most inflammatory reaction against sharks since the movie Jaws with his own “Anatomy of a Shark Attack” documentary for Discovery Channel” and further challenged Erich Ritter’s qualifications as a “real scientist” by failure to use the scientific method of replicability in his ‘experiments’ or submit to peer review at scientific conferences or in scientific publications.

After portraying Ritter as “not a real scientist” and as a ......, Mr. Seifert further offered to have a forum the following evening where the science and statements behind Ritter’s presentations could be debated.

The question was not answered, the challenge to a debate was not addressed and Mr. Seifert was rightfully asked to leave the venue out of politeness to the speaker.

Mr. Seifert heartily apologizes to his hosts, Tova Harel and Navot Bornovsky of Fish N Fins, their wonderful family and staff, Francis Toribiong, creator Fish N Fins and the paying participants of “Palau Shark Week” for demonstrating such poor manners as confronting a fellow presenter and challenging him in front of the entire audience at a gathering for the appreciation of sharks.

Mr. Seifert will not apologize to Erich Ritter until there is a fair and open forum where a discussion of Ritter’s pronouncements and theories given during the presentation are addressed and discussed including Ritter’s statements claimed to be scientific put to the methods of science, real science.

Douglas David SEIFERT

I understand that Douglas has been declared persona non grata at Fish 'n Fins.
I post this after hearing that he has left Palau and that he is presently spending quality time with mutual friends in Raja Ampat.

What more can I say about Ritter after this.
Maybe, that he just won't go away and that he remains as toxic as ever!

When it comes to Douglas' intervention, Chapeau!
It takes an extraordinary person to do what he has done: to stand up, all alone and amid a throng of hostile Sharkitarians and at risk of embarrassing the hosts who are long term friends, and this with the sole aim of defending the truth and one's principles. With all of my imposing size and arrogant self assurance, I am not at all sure that I would have had the same courage!
But this is Doug: where so many of his peers will say and write anything in exchange for an invitation to a tropical destination and diving dog&pony show, Douglas is beholden to nobody and nothing but his own beliefs and professional and personal integrity.
Brother, I am deeply impressed - and you know what that takes!

And what about Fish 'n Fins?
I must say, I was speechless. I am also deeply saddened.
To me, Tova and Navot were the epitome of Mensch - highly intelligent, always witty, profoundly human. Their love and knowledge of the Ocean knows no bounds. And let's not forget their legendary hospitality featuring Tovas equally legendary home cooked meals - epic stuff!
And now this colossal error both in judgement and ethics- to just throw a close long term friend under of the bus!

But above all, there's this.
Tova and Navot have founded the Micronesian Shark Foundation Palau that is being funded, among others, by the SOSF , to the point that Tova is being prominently showcased in a PSA about their research projects.

Check it out: Tova at 4:10 - and Alison at 0:31, Lesley at 0:22, Mahmood at 3:12, Andrea at 1:02 and Juerg at 0:51!
Just beautiful!


In Awe of the Shark from Save Our Seas Foundation on Vimeo.
But the question for me now is, does Tova still deserve to be featured in that lineup.
How does the image of Fish 'n Fins, the image of the MSFP and ultimately, the image of the donors dovetail with the fact that Tova and Navot

• found it fit to grant a public forum and thus promote the highly controversial and utterly absurd propositions of Erich Ritter
• denied and suppressed the reasonable request for a science-based debate
• ostracized the critic

I say, you got to walk the talk.
There has to be a moment of accountability after a failure of such proportions.