No more Galapusky - Paper!

Or is it, Duskapagos?

Anyway, check this out.

I was sent to me by the Saffron Pimpernel under the heading of mumbo jumbo - and for a genetic ignoramus like me, it sure very much is! 

But having double checked with my trusted geneticist, she confirms that Gavin and Will's putative lumping of the Dusky and the Galapagos is no more, meaning that the two species continue to be valid.

And this mystery Shark?

Likely not a Dusky (see the map at the top) but a Silky like first assumed!

Ain't taxonomy fun - and it's so easy, too!:)

 

Dusky Sharks vs Humpback Calf!

Have you read this post by David?

Here's the video.

What strikes me as peculiar is the absence of the mother, meaning that that calf would have eventually died of starvation - and with that in mind, are those Duskies really hunting, or are they merely acting opportunistically (certainly not cooperatively!) and dispatching an animal that was already condemned for reasons we ignore = possibly lost or abandoned?

Anyway, watch.

Duskies feeding!

Nice! :)
This is one of the most severely overfished Sharks, great to see so many at once!

Husky Dusky? Maybe!

Remember the mystery Shark?
It's still a mystery - but at least, we've managed to narrow down the choices to two likely suspects. And having gone digging, I found some brilliant pics on Andy Murch's great Elasmodiver website.
The two suspects look like this.

That would be a Dusky (Carcharhinus obscurus) on top and a Silky (C. falciformis) below. See the alignment and the size of the fins? And that caudal keel that for so long has left everybody baffled? Except that, apparently, it aint really a proper "caudal keel"? Read below and you'll understand - it's complicated!

And now, compare them with the mystery pic on top: any preferences?

Like El Tiburon and after a knee-jerk reaction in favor of it being a Silky, I now root for the Dusky. I've never seen a Dusky, but I've seen plenty of Silkies - and although I can't quite put my finger on it, the mystery Shark just doesn't "feel" like one of them. I'm specially unconvinced by the first dorsal, but then again, who am I to say!

Talking of which, Juerg cautiously tends towards the Silky - but being the good scientist he is, he has passed on the question to a very prominent (and probably, the best) Shark taxonomist who has come back with the following.

"C. falciformis it is, nice pics."

but then, after reflection:

"I was a bit deprived of sleep when I made the call on the identification, so that your friend may be on to something.
I did a composite illustration of C. falciformis vs C. obscurus, and append it to this note for comparison with the best of your two images.

The only carcharhinids with prominent keels when alive and dead are Galeocerdo cuvier and Prionace glauca, so that your Carcharhinus when alive and swimming shows a keel but not when dead. Rather like observing a live bird in a tree through binoculars vs a live bird of the same species in hand from a mist net, and again the same species of bird as a study skin.
Fin size and shape change with growth in Carcharhinus. I was wondering about your C. falciformis in terms of second dorsal shape, position of the first dorsal, and pectoral fin shape and relative size.
Tooth shape of upper anterolateral teeth and vertebral counts are diagnostic for these species, but until we can pack underwater mini CAT-scan machines, we have to rely on dead animals to voucher live ones. Shark watching is not quite as advanced as bird-watching, but it's getting there"

There you have it! And yes, it's complicated! But fascinating, too - at least to me!
But whatever Shark that really was, the myth about Bronzies (C. brachyurus) prowling the waters of Fiji remains just that, a myth! As expected! For now!

Stuart: there you have it!
Well, sort of.

Mystery Shark!!!

Check out this Shark by clicking on the pics.

It was brought up and photographed when jigging for Pakapaka, a prized deepwater Snapper (likely Etelis coruscans) on a seamount in 1,000m of water off the island of Kadavu in Fiji.

My knee-jerk reaction when hearing the story was "Silky!" (C. falciformis) - but upon seeing the picture, the first dorsal seems just a bit high for it to be that species.
Never having personally seen a Bronzie (C. brachyurus) but having heard about numerous, albeit always unconfirmed "sightings" in Fiji, I was hoping that this could be the first confirmed record of that species for that country.

And yet - that caudal keel continues to irritate me!
The only Carcharhinid Shark with a pronounced caudal keel I've seen is the Tiger, clearly not the Shark in question.
So, quite frankly, I don't have the faintest clue!

Having contacted the "experts", the only educated guess so far is Bignose Shark (C. altimus), this yet again with a question mark. To me, the alignment of the free rear of the pec with the first dorsal look wrong - but who am I to say...

Anybody out there who knows?

The flip Side of the Coin

Under the title "Saving Sharks at the expense of Fishermen", here comes a real interesting article exploring the flip side of Shark Conservation, i.e. the fate of Shark fishermen who are being pushed out of business by new rules from the National Fisheries Management Services, a division of the US' NOAA.

The Atlantic Ocean Shark population overall has dropped 89 percent, with Tigers dropping by 97%, and Hammerheads, Duskies and Bulls 98%. That has prompted the Authorities to step in with some draconian fishing quotas.

Once they are fully implemented, the new rules could lead to the likely recovery of the population of Sandbar Sharks by 2070, of Porbeagles (like the one pictured above caught for "Science"; the water tube sticking out of his mouth is meant to ventilate it whilst it's being "worked on") ), within the next 100 years and of Dusky Sharks, within the next 100 to 400 years.
Yes you have read it correctly: up to 400 years! This is an indication of the present damage to stocks, but it is also due to the fact that Sharks are extremely slow breeders.

Obviously, the Shark fishing community cannot afford the luxury of waiting for so long and is now faced with immediate disaster, as the new quotas are too low to operate a vessel.

"But hey, wait a minute", I hear you say, "aren't these the very same people that have exterminated the stocks in the first place?"
Yes, they are, and if left to themselves, they would undoubtedly continue to reap and pillage until the very last stocks would be wiped out, along with the industry living off them. That's what fishermen seem to do time after time after time again.
From that point of view, they should be left to go under, with nobody to blame but themselves for what appears to be their stupid and reckless greed.

But having said this, what about the guys who supposedly have the "brains"?
What was NOAA doing whilst the stocks were falling by 30, and then 40 and then 50 and then 60 and then 70 and then 80 and then 90 percent?
You guessed it: likely nada de nada! Or better: as the stocks were falling, they may have started to collect data in order to properly document the threat in view of some future decision.
That's what Fisheries Biology has become all too often: collecting data in order to diligently document the decline, and all to often, the demise of a species. Caught between the interests of environmentalists who say they're not doing enough and the fishing lobby who fear for their livelihood, the Agencies all to often keep procrastinating until the situation has progressed well beyond its tipping point and everyone is faced with a catastrophe.
As an example, the new rules have taken years to document and one and a half years to "equitably" draft by consulting with all of the stakeholders - way too long for the stocks and the fishing industry alike.
Was that smart?

Will anybody learn from this unholy and repetitive pattern?
Maybe issue some pre-emptive injunction and only then go out and document it with the required data?
I wish!

But hope, as they say, springs eternal.