Jump to content

Dead Shark Id


uncoat

Recommended Posts

Hi,

Why may I not click on photos to see them whole ? I can't see the head of this shark !

Coco

----------------------
OUTIL POUR MESURER VOS FOSSILES : ici

Ma bibliothèque PDF 1 (Poissons et sélaciens récents & fossiles) : ici
Ma bibliothèque PDF 2 (Animaux vivants - sans poissons ni sélaciens) : ici
Mâchoires sélaciennes récentes : ici
Hétérodontiques et sélaciens : ici
Oeufs sélaciens récents : ici
Otolithes de poissons récents ! ici

Un Greg...

Badges-IPFOTH.jpg.f4a8635cda47a3cc506743a8aabce700.jpg Badges-MOTM.jpg.461001e1a9db5dc29ca1c07a041a1a86.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi,

Why may I not click on photos to see them whole ? I can't see the head of this shark !

Coco

Look for a scroll tab at the bottom of your browser window. On internet explorer the pics extend of the right hand side of my screen.

I'm going with salmon shark incidentally.

"There is no difference between Zen and Purgatory and Time Warner Cable, and they are trying to tach me this, but I am a dim impatient pupil."

----- xonenine

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you look at the third photograph, it appears that the second keel on its caudal peduncle has been either cut or bitten off. ...

That must be it! The fellow that scavenged the jaws also removed from the peduncle the secondary keel (and the second dorsal fin) so that we'd have trouble identifying the carcass. I think he took the eyes, too. :P

--------------------------------

There seems to be a consensus building that this is a lamnid shark, even though the tail is not clearly homocercal in the images we have. That's fine with me. I think that Jess has a good idea in suggesting that the images be sent to an ichthyologist.

http://pristis.wix.com/the-demijohn-page

 

What seest thou else

In the dark backward and abysm of time?

---Shakespeare, The Tempest

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi,

Look for a scroll tab at the bottom of your browser window.

I haven't scroll... The pics are cut.

I have seen with Firefox and it is OK. I discover someone had taken the haw of the shark... We can't know the species with teeth...

Coco

----------------------
OUTIL POUR MESURER VOS FOSSILES : ici

Ma bibliothèque PDF 1 (Poissons et sélaciens récents & fossiles) : ici
Ma bibliothèque PDF 2 (Animaux vivants - sans poissons ni sélaciens) : ici
Mâchoires sélaciennes récentes : ici
Hétérodontiques et sélaciens : ici
Oeufs sélaciens récents : ici
Otolithes de poissons récents ! ici

Un Greg...

Badges-IPFOTH.jpg.f4a8635cda47a3cc506743a8aabce700.jpg Badges-MOTM.jpg.461001e1a9db5dc29ca1c07a041a1a86.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

As a marine biologist with a specialism in icthyology (in particular deep-sea elasmobranchs and british salmonids) I would say the evidence points toward this being a male salmon shark. As with all science however, identification based on morphology alone can only be a process of disproving options and the ultimate outcome being significantly likely (and thus not absolute proof).

The tail is not homocercal, ruling out lamnid sharks. Based on location I would therefore conclude the highest posibility of it being a salmon shark and that the photo or state of decay prevents clear viewing of the secondary keel (though in my opinion it is just visible).

Still, an interesting debate to read through though and was nice to see the relatively well informed arguments for both sides. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a marine biologist with a specialism in icthyology (in particular deep-sea elasmobranchs and british salmonids) I would say the evidence points toward this being a male salmon shark. As with all science however, identification based on morphology alone can only be a process of disproving options and the ultimate outcome being significantly likely (and thus not absolute proof).

The tail is not homocercal, ruling out lamnid sharks. Based on location I would therefore conclude the highest posibility of it being a salmon shark and that the photo or state of decay prevents clear viewing of the secondary keel (though in my opinion it is just visible).

Still, an interesting debate to read through though and was nice to see the relatively well informed arguments for both sides. :)

Now, you've confused me, 'MBio'. The only way that your assertion,

"The tail is not homocercal, ruling out lamnid sharks. Based on location I would therefore conclude the highest posibility of it being a salmon shark",

can be true is if the salmon shark, Lamna ditropis, is NOT a lamnid shark. Please explain.

http://pristis.wix.com/the-demijohn-page

 

What seest thou else

In the dark backward and abysm of time?

---Shakespeare, The Tempest

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, you've confused me, 'MBio'. The only way that your assertion,

"The tail is not homocercal, ruling out lamnid sharks. Based on location I would therefore conclude the highest posibility of it being a salmon shark",

can be true is if the salmon shark, Lamna ditropis, is NOT a lamnid shark. Please explain.

You have also confused me, Harry, I'm not relative, i'm only MB

B):P:D

Edited by MB
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oops! My bad. Confusion fully understood. My text was supposed to say 'However', not 'therefore'. Sorry again. The argument remains that it is likely to be a Salmon shark in spite of the very heterocercal tail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...