Discoveries in science are not often the result of the stereotypical and unrealistic step-by-step scientific method, but usually occur through other more mundane and unexpected routes.  Think of Flemming’s moldy lunchbox sandwiches as the pathway to developing penicillin, or Newton stone-drunk in an orchard contemplating gravity with a rain of apples falling on his noggin’. When marine biologists discover a new species, especially a new shark species, it isn’t the result of putting on a red-knit cap and a pair of Speedos on your research vessel and loudly declaring that you are going to discover a new shark. Throw the mini-sub overboard, gaze into the darkness through an oval window, and bam – a new species is discovered. Bottles of Clicquot pop back on deck, the scientific community hoists you on their shoulders and applauds your excellence in zoology. Maybe the jackals from Shark Week give you a call to recreate your daring feats for a documentary low on facts and ripe with pseudoscience, likely replacing you with younger C-list actors and warping what actually happened with their own overly-dramatic narrative. With our discovery of the newly-described Ninja Lanernshark, it wasn’t the reward of a planned grand adventure, but was the usual meander of social connections, cooperation among colleagues, the benefits of museum archives, hard work from unpaid graduate students, and plain old good luck.

Several years back, John McCosker of the California Academy of Sciences and Dave Ebert, also a Cal. Academy research associate like myself, and I were studying chimeras, distant deep-sea cousins of sharks. One day I got an email from D. Ross Robertson of the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute who in 2010 chartered a Spanish trawler and conducted a number of deep-sea collections off the Pacific coast of Central America, and among the barrels of specimens he collected were a few odd-looking chimeras he wanted us to identify.  Ross had the good sense to photograph many of these specimens while they were still fresh out of the nets, and he forwarded them to us. Along with the photos of these chimeras were hundreds of other photos of deep-sea fishes, including sharks, skates, and bony fishes that were either entirely unknown species, or new locality records for previously-known but poorly documented species.  To a deep-sea ichthyologist, this was the jackpot.  I soon headed to the ichthyology collections at the Smithsonian and spent several days pulling these specimens out of gallon jars of ethanol or dipping my arms nearly shoulder-deep into huge vats of the stuff where the large specimens were preserved. Taking photographs, measurements, and making on-the-spot identifications, I compiled a large number of specimens that the fine folks in the Smithsonian ichthyology department shipped back to the California Academy of Sciences where we could more closely study them.

Once the sharks arrived, Dave and I looked them over and we both thought they were a new species since
they were unlike anything yet known from the eastern central Pacific, but “discovering” a new species isn’t as easy as that.  To describe a new species you need to conclusively show the range of variation in your new species is outside the range of variation in previously-known species. It has to be significantly different than any relative species thus far known. To do this required the painstaking and time consuming process of morphometrics, the detailed series of measurements of the sharks anatomy, and meristics, the count of such things as vertebrae, tooth rows, number of dermal denticles, etc. Fortunately, Dave and I already had a process where we worked with young go-getters, mainly his graduate students at the Pacific Shark Research Center in the Moss Landing Marine Laboratory, to learn the process of describing and publishing new species of sharks, rays, and chimeras. Victoria Vasquez was one of his students already with experience in shark ecology and conservation outreach, so he assigned her to heading the job of the not-so-sexy nitty-gritty of the detailed analysis of the formalin-preserved shark specimens with microscopes, rulers, and dial calipers, and she was a superstar at it.

It soon became clear that these small sharks did indeed represent a new species of lanternshark, a family of deep-sea sharks with this as the first species yet known from the region.  Most deep-sea sharks are dark brown or black to blend in with the darkness of the depths, but some species, like the lanternsharks, have bioluminescent organs that glow a shining pale green. This adaptation may either be to attract mates, maintain group cohesion in a school, lure smaller invertebrates within snapping range of their mouth, or possibly to create a halo-like effect to mediate the downwelling light from above and the tell-tale shadow a predator might see from below, making them effectively invisible. The newly described Ninja Lanernshark seemed to have few of these glow-in-the-dark organs, appearing less like a shark jack-o-lantern and more like a Japanese ninja dressed in black, and using their dark visage to their advantage, so prey may never see it coming. When Victoria consulted her young cousins to help with a common name for this new species, there were many options from the excited shark-loving kids, but Ninja Lanternshark, honed down from Super Ninja Shark, seemed appropriate.

The scientific name was of course in honor of Jaws author Peter Benchley. Several decades earlier I worked with him during a shark conservation program through the Cal Academy, and he admitted – what I had already heard through many other people – that he carried a burden of regret for the violent backlash against sharks unintentionally instigated by his book.  For years afterward, he was not just an advocate for sharks, but a tireless campaigner in promoting ocean conservation. Long after his death, the Benchley Awards fund those who share his dream. Coincidentally, this year was the 40th anniversary of the publication of Jaws, and Victoria already knew Benchely’s widow, who was told about the new shark bearing her husband’s name. After several months of measurements, comparisons with other known species, and countless revisions of the manuscript, it was submitted to the Journal of the Ocean Sciences foundation, one of the rare but essentially important journals that still publishes species descriptions of fishes, and more importantly, one with open access, making this shark species immediately available to the world just this week. The ‘discovery’ of a new species of shark means nothing until a detailed, peer-reviewed study is finally made public.  Fortunately, the bottles of Clicquot can still be popped.

Vasquez, V.E., D.A. Ebert, and D.J. Long.  2015. Etmopterus benchleyi n. sp., a new lanternshark (Squaliformes: Etmopteridae) from the central eastern Pacific Ocean. Journal of the Ocean Sciences Foundation, 17:43-55.

The post Ninja Lanternshark: the New Shark Species You Will Never See Coming first appeared on Deep Sea News.

When my pal Dr McClain yanked me out of retirement and asked me to pen a quick post on all the hubbub around the televised and much discussed close encounter between world-champion surfer Mick Fanning and a presumed great white shark at the start of the J-Bay Open in South Africa last weekend, I was given no particular reason for his dusting me off as author. Perhaps Craig’s intentions were to approach someone whom he knows is working on shark conservation at the moment to provide a voice on the subject. Or maybe he intended for me to make some sort of connection to shark-human interactions since I spend a lot of my time thinking about this in my work. Or maybe his intention was for me to employ my trademark wise-assery and irreverent commentary on all the bloviating that’s been done since the event.Here’s the thing about intention… How do we know for sure what anyone (let alone a shark) intends?

Thus far I’ve seen narratives surrounding the Fanning event fall into two distinct themes, hinging on whether or not you wish to call this event a “shark attack.” Within the shark attack camp, I’m seeing lots of “”Fanning got lucky,” or “The shark missed,” story lines. Taking this to the absurd and crackpot level, the always reliable Fox News has even begun to make calls that maybe it’s time to “rid the ocean of sharks.”

On the other end of the spectrum are those who perhaps justifiably feel that the words “shark attack,” are prejudicial and loaded (in other words weighted towards an interpretation where the shark has targeted a human with the intent of harm (the consumption of the human being one possible outcome). This language revision camp has been employing a lot of their own “just so stories” that suggest the “shark got tangled in the surf leash,” or the shark was just “curious.” To this reader, a lot of this smacks of apologetics (and to be fair, I realize that sharks have an unfair and undeserved reputation that words like “attack” help to promote).

Any or all of these explanations might sound plausible and could be correct. But unless someone has suddenly discovered the ability to mind-meld via television with a great white shark, how are any of us to know what was the intention of the shark?

So what do we know about the Fanning incident? We know the time of year, day and hour the incident occurred. We probably have some physical/oceanographic data (water temperature, tidal state, meteorological conditions, etc). We know what Fanning was wearing (color, patterns) and the color and shape of his board. We know that particular stretch of South Africa is home to a lot of seals, and a lot of seal predators. And we seem to know (or presume) that the shark in the video of the incident was a great white shark (there have even been some preliminary back-of-the-envelope calculations of size of the shark).

As far as the intention of the shark, I can offer no compelling accounting that doesn’t load hints to my personal agenda or Panglossian spin. Was the shark targeting the surfer or board for an exploratory bite and Fanning got lucky? Was the shark planning a bite and got distracted after getting tangled in the leash? Was the shark just curious and got spooked by the leash or Fanning’s movements? Did the shark seek out Fanning in search of hugs, and then—after a punch from the surf champion—add more salty tears to an already full ocean?

Well for sure, science gives us some pretty useful approaches to begin to get to the bottom of animal intent. We can (and do) systematically study sharks and are beginning to get a good sense of their behavior. For many species, we are able to document prey as well as behavior around prey. As we spend more and more time in close proximity to sharks, we are learning that they (even those species on many of Shark Week’s “Most Dangerous Sharks” lists) don’t seem to regard us as food when we are in their company. I’ve personally been inches from hundreds of bull sharks on numerous dives and have lived to type out this post with all 10 fingers.

On the one hand, I’m not a fan of language policing. I think it’s hard to define in practical, every-day usage a way to describe a human-shark interaction that results in blood-loss or bodily injury as NOT an attack. I say this in full recognition that the blood-loss or bodily injury may have been an accident or the shark may have “mistaken” a human for something else (whatever that unpacks to mean). In the Fanning incident, maybe the shark was trying to explore Fanning’s board or body as food. If it did, and Fanning were injured, maybe it would leave the scene convinced it was the “wrong” food. Maybe not. But as my friend and colleague WWF-Pacific’s Sharks Manager, Ian Campbell, recently commented, “Sharks do attack people. Doesn’t mean that their populations aren’t in trouble.”

When I personally see all the “don’t say attack” rhetoric being used, I wonder what we should be calling those incidents when dogs or grizzly bears have unfortunate run-ins with humans. In the case of bears, while we’ve comparably decimated their populations and restricted their range, we still seem to be able to co-exist without language policing.

Which makes me consider the other hand, my policy and conservation-focused hand, that words have power and influence. As researchers Chris Neff and Robert Hueter have correctly noted, “Few phrases in the Western world evoke as much emotion or as powerful an image as the words “shark” and “attack.” We have a visceral reaction to each word. Together they conjure our worst nightmares. But globally, sharks are in trouble. Estimates suggest 100 million sharks die each year from fishing alone. This may be twice as fast as shark’s ability to replenish their numbers. Getting people to care about the conservation of sharks hinges on their ability to care about sharks. The legacy of Jaws is not helping in this regard. The science we are amassing is painting an altogether different picture of shark behavior than what has been culturally ingrained my Hollywood. They are not mindless killing machines, but graceful, intelligent predators. If some judicious word policing can help in steering public perceptions and attitudes towards conservation, how bad can that be?

And as to the shark alarmist trend that seems to occupy a lot of public bandwidth (and Fox News) these days, maybe we can look to the grizzly bear once again. When we enter bear country, we take precautions. The chance of a bad human-bear outcome is very low, but there is a risk. When we choose to explore habitat shared by grizzlies, we might wear bells, sing, clap, or even carry pepper spray. In extreme situations, guns might be appropriate. We haven’t demonized grizzlies (or at least we don’t anymore). But we recognize that we are entering an ecosystem that may not have us as the toughest organism around. Want to be 100% risk free? Don’t enter bear country. Perhaps we can apply some of this common sense to our relationship with the ocean as well, and let’s just let sharks be sharks.

The post The Tension of Intention: A Surfer, A Shark, A Fox, And A Grizzly first appeared on Deep Sea News.

Last week I was at a cottage with my family just north of Toronto, Ontario on a nice small lake called Harp Lake. My daughters, Jade (4) and Taya (6), love to swim; however, they are afraid of what’s beneath the lake’s surface. Their fear…sharks. They asked me if there were sharks in the lake. I said no. They asked me if I was sure. I told them “Girls, I am a marine biologist. I can tell you for sure that there are no sharks in any lake in Ontario.” I finally convinced my daughters (they listen to me because I am their father and they trust me) and we all enjoyed a nice swim.

You could imagine how surprised I was to read on the local news sites the very next day that there was a shark found in Lake Ontario. A shark in one of the Great Lakes! And there was video evidence! I took a look at the video (below) with a friend, who is also a biologist. You can easily tell that the animal was not a shark. It could have been a harbour porpoise, but it was definitely not a shark.

It doesn’t matter that the chance of a shark getting into Lake Ontario is next to nil, especially this far north (Bull sharks are known to swim upstream in to rivers, but they live in the tropics). Once people hear the term “sharks”, fear seems to set in. In fact, the Ontario Natural Resources Minister Bill Mauro was skeptical about the shark sighting, but still said that citizens should be careful.

I’m not saying people went nuts and started to riot, but people were talking about it. The story went viral. Many news agencies posted the article with a Great White Shark picture nice and big…adding to the fear of a shark presence.

The Hoax

Shark Week, or should I say the Discovery Channel (the company who created and currently operates Shark Week), seeing how this story was taking a turn for the worst, promptly stated that the story was a hoax.

Discovery’s President, Paul Lewis admitted in a statement the video used a “life-like prosthetic model shark” to raise the question “could sharks surface in the Great Lakes?” Mr. Lewis went on to state “This video certainly sparked the conversation about sharks.”

The conversation certainly sparked a conversation; however, the conversation was not positive for Shark Week. The marine conservation community lashed out at Shark Week for continuing to fabricate “facts” about sharks. Here are just some of the tweets found on Twitter about the hoax:

My latest: Fraud, Deception And Lies: How Discovery’s Shark Week Became The Greatest Show On Earth http://t.co/SziQgWQAs1

— Christie Wilcox (@NerdyChristie) July 18, 2014

@WhySharksMatter But to intentionally spread misinformation as if it is truth/news is just plain offensive. They should be a reliable source — Kelly Poe (@poe_NR) July 16, 2014

The network that cried, “(Fake) Shark!” Enough is enough #SharkWeek. Please read and RT! https://t.co/KZootpel79

— Melissa C. Márquez (@mcmsharksxx) July 17, 2014

Multiple Offender of Perpetuating Fiction

This is not the first time Discovery has replaced fact with fiction during Shark Week. Last year, Discovery produced an episode for Shark Week entitled Megalodon: The Monster Shark Lives where the fake documentary told stories of sightings and researchers from actors and fake scientists. More lies. Many of the viewers thought the Megalodon existed as the faux documentary used actors to portray scientists, but did not tell the audience the documentary was fake. There was a disclaimer at the beginning of the episode, but not many people saw it.

I understand Shark Week is designed to entertain viewers; however, shark week programming’s popularity should yield some responsibility.

Perpetuating Fear of Sharks

Many people are afraid of sharks due to its reputation as an efficient predator, large teeth, and a giant movie franchise called “Jaws.” The fear has lead to people not caring as much for sharks as they would a dolphin; even though, some dolphins can be true a-holes. When people don’t care for something, they tend not to protect it. It’s taken shark researchers and marine conservationists decades to improve the reputation of sharks so people can rally behind their protection.

Unfortunately, there are still many people who fear sharks and do not understand their importance as an apex predator. So marine conservationists and researchers are working very hard to continue to improve the reputation of sharks by telling the public that they are not human killing machines, but efficient predators of the ocean. They have a very important role as an apex predator; however, things will soon change in the oceans if 270 million sharks are killed each year will eventually cause a change if conservation of these regulators is not successful.

Discovery’s Shark Week can really help the shark conservation efforts by developing programming about some unknown shark species and their unique characteristics, behaviors and migration patterns. They should focus more on the conservation issues facing the sharks rather than the show line up for 2014, which includes: “Megalodon: The New Evidence”, 2 shows on 20-30 foot Great white sharks, and “Jaws Strikes Back.”

As a channel that influences many people around the world, Discovery should take more responsibility in disseminating factual information rather than made up and terrifying information that is designed to scare many people.

In case you are wondering, I told my daughters that there are still no sharks living in Ontario Lakes and they will not be watching Shark Week this year because I don’t want them to be terrified of going in the water. I hope to provide them with much better information from sites like shartagging.com rather than Shark Week

The post No Honey, there are no sharks in Ontario Lakes first appeared on Deep Sea News.

Once upon a midnight dreary, while I pondered, weak and weary,

Over many a quaint and curious volume of nautical lore —

While I nodded, nearly napping, suddenly there came a tapping,

As of someone gently rapping, rapping at my office door.

“ ’Tis some visitor,” I muttered, “asking again about ocean lore —

Only this and nothing more.”

Ah, distinctly I remember it was the gray Oregon December;

And in the distance I could hear the waves crash upon the shore.

Eagerly I wished the morrow; — vainly I had sought to borrow

From my textbooks cease of sorrow — mistake of science for ocean lore—

Of the unreal and radiant mermaiden whom I really thought a bore —

Nameless here for evermore.

As the soothing and uncertain rumbling of each aqua curtain

Thrilled me — as each tidal wave washed ashore;

So that now, to still the beating of my heart, I stood repeating

“There are amazing creatures in the waves beyond the shore —

Ones that far outshine the whisperings of ocean lore; —

They exist and nothing more.”

Presently my thrills grew stronger; hesitating then no longer,

I thought of the creatures which science has explored;

But the fact is the public’s asking, and marine science is ever tasking,

To know what creatures there lay upon the ocean floor,

That are far more fascinating than legend — than ocean lore; ——

The ones that science ought to explore.

Deep into that darkness peering, I thought of creatures then appearing,

In my head as thoughts of animals like none seen before;

The nudibranchs, echinoderms, cetaceans, each its own unique creation

Each one more fascinating than the one before.

This I pondered, as my imagination scanned the ocean floor —

Over undersea vents and near the shore.

First, Orcinus orca, the bringer of death, a beautiful fury with predator’s breath.

Whose artful visage many species do abhor

He spends his lifetime bound to kin, a social life that rivals men;

Who has his own dialect and vocabulary store —

A scourge to prey within the sea and upon the shore —

May he click and squeal forevermore.

In my mind’s eye I flung the shutter, when, within my thoughts did sputter,

Vampiroteuthis infernalis, the vampire squid with his black chromatophores;

Not the least obeisance made he; not a minute stopped or stayed he;

But, on the end of each pulsing limb, a glowing aqua photophore—

Lit up like a lighthouse hailing ships to safer shores —

He drifted into the abyssal darkness, vanishing forevermore.

Then traveling ever deeper, my feeble eyesight growing weaker,

A hydrothermal vent teeming with extremophiles upon the ocean floor,

Tubeworms, shellfish, bivalves, octopi, thrive in smoking hydrogen sulfide

Braving temperatures as hot as Celsius 464 —

Each animal more unique than the last, as if pulled from fiction’s store

Like no creatures seen above the ocean shore.

Much I marveled at this place as I ascended,

Arose swiftly from the ocean’s core;

As I left the zone that few human beings

Are very often blessed with seeing; I traveled from the ocean’s floor—

I thought of creatures bold and brighter, nearer to the ocean shore,

And dwelt in darkness nevermore.

Rising up to bluer waters, gave my imagination fodder

To seek out creatures who seemed nearer to imagination’s door

The blue dragon nudibranch, Glaucus atlanticus, surely from Poseidon’s corp,

Whose iridescent blue wings fluttered as the ocean waves rolled back and fore

A reminder that each marine invertebrate is more beautiful than the one before

Left me in awe forevermore.

Marveling at the ocean’s creatures, seeking out more faunal features,

I thought of the humble rockfish, who some might think to be a bore

Ambling through the waves unworried, ever calm and rarely hurried

A life which patience doth implore, he lives two centuries or more —

Oft ‘till the dirges of his tasty flesh make fisheries his burden bore

Long live the rockfish, nevermore.

But the sea’s treasures still piling, I found myself then smiling,

Thinking of the creatures creeping on the ocean floor;

Like the sunflower sea star, Pycnopodia helianthoides,

A beauty lethal, with 24 arms flush as the petals of a rosy fleur —

It feeds on countless prey within the rocky intertidal shore

A predator other invertebrates do oft deplore.

And where at once the tide grew stiller, I did then sight that knightly killer

The mighty shark which modern evolution did ignore.

Lithely swims with tail curled, with razor teeth flashing, whorled

Alas, the shark does claim no more the fiercest throne the ocean o’er

As the finning trade then sought him to gore

Swam the shark most proudly, nevermore.

Peering towards the vast horizon, two blue forms my eyes did spy on,

Swimming on like two Leviathons, those giants that I do adore,

The blue whale (B.musculus) and whale shark (Rhincodon typus)

Although the largest fish, and the whale, ne’er a larger creature did come before;

They feast on but the tiniest creatures that the ocean bore;

Merely these and nothing more.

Back ashore the tide was turning, and as I watched with youthful yearning

As the blue waves kept gliding, turning, and seafoam crept across the shore

Weary then my eyes did flutter, and I closed the textbook cover,

My mind reeling with creatures found in the sea and on the shore.

Each drop of saltwater a world alone to be explored.

The world which forms the ocean’s core.

How curious, thought I, then wondering, that one would spend time pondering

Imaginary creatures when there are already so many within the ocean’s store

Creatures wrought as if from fiction, but well within science’s diction.

Far more fabulous than fantasy could have ever bore;

To study them myself I swore, like many marine scientists before.

Long live our oceans, evermore.

The post An Oceanic Ode first appeared on Deep Sea News.

This is a guest post from Sizing Ocean Giants team member Leo Gaskins

1) Not the best cook? No worries, Greenland sharks won’t complain!

Forgot to thaw your frozen turkey? Have too many leftovers to fit in your fridge? Not so confident in your cooking skills? No worries. Your new Greenland shark friend won’t judge you!

Greenland sharks are some of the least picky eaters you’ll ever run into. They have been documented with many strange things in their stomachs, ranging from polar bears, horses, even a whole reindeer! In fact, this month, in Newfoundland, some people saved a Greenland shark that was choking on a moose.

Though these odd things have been discovered in their stomachs, their diet usually consists of fish. They are also known as the Sleeper shark, and have a lethargic cruising speed of .76 mph to match their nickname. As they lazily move around the ocean, they aren’t usually catching too many quickly moving organisms.  But lucky for you, in addition to fish, they also eat carrion, which are dead and decaying animals. So that Thanksgiving turkey you just cooked fits right into their typical menu. No need to cook them anything out of the ordinary!

2) Fearful of your heating bill this winter? Your shark friend doesn’t mind the cold!

Greenland sharks, as the name suggests, do in fact live near Greenland, in the sub-arctic latitudes, and are the only true sub-arctic shark, found in temperatures around 33 degrees Fahrenheit! In other words, even if they stayed outside the whole night, they would still be perfectly fine!

Greenland sharks are also surprisingly large, and can get up to around 20 feet, the same size as a Great White Shark. But contrary to what you might think, when animals get larger, they actually have to put in less energy to maintain a constant internal temperature. This phenomenon, called gigantothermy, boils down to some basic physics. Larger animals have a larger volume to surface area ratio than smaller animals. This means that relative to the rest of their body mass, there is less skin exposed to the water where heat can escape.

3) Looking for some compelling dinner conversation? Greenland sharks have plenty to tell!

Each Thanksgiving, along with the food and family, come the stories. My grandfather always has the most interesting ones, telling us about his childhood, his time in WWII as a medic, and what life was like in previous decades. At 88 years old, he has a wealth of knowledge and experience that makes each Thanksgiving story and family discussion interesting.

So why invite a Greenland shark? What would they have to bring to the table? Though not widely studied, Greenland sharks are believed to be the vertebrate with the longest lifespan, at over 200 years!

To give you perspective on how long 200 years really is, the United States as a nation is only 237 years old, the civil war was 150 years ago, and my family has gone through about eight generations since then. I can only imagine that these sharks would have incredibly compelling stories to tell, and be able to offer a unique voice in family discussions. In addition, even shark researchers know very little about the lives of the elusive Greenland sharks, so it would be interesting to understand more about what they do as they slowly cruise through the Arctic seas.

The post 3 Reasons Why You Should Invite a Greenland Shark to Thanksgiving Dinner first appeared on Deep Sea News.

1st bit of evidence. Whale sharks spend a lot of time below the surface.  Derrr, I might hear you say, it’s a fish…  Except, it is a fish that spends (or so we thought) a disproportionate amount of time at the surface.  This was based on observation (obviously) and some tagging data, but as the tagging has continued we have learned that in fact they spend much more time out of sight than we thought.  We used to think they were at the surface except for occasional dives, some of which could be very deep, but now we are learning that they may stay deep for significant chunks of their lives, which puts them effectively out of detection range.  And even when they are at the surface, they make such frequent short range dives that subsurface behaviour becomes a big part of their daily pie chart of time use.  This means we need to up the estimates of population by a correction factor that accounts for the portion of time they spend out of sight.  What should that factor be?  Dunno yet, I’ll get back to you after the next conference.

2nd bit of evidence.  Tags and photo ID disagree on connectivity. How groups of whale sharks in different parts of the ocean are connected (or not) is an important question both biologically and for effective conservation measures.  On this matter, two different research techniques disagree somewhat, but they do it in a way that hints at a bigger population.  Satellite tags have shown plenty of evidence of connectivity between different sites in the ocean, sometimes on scales of thousands of miles.  For example, animals tagged in Mexico often show up in Belize, Honduras and the Gulf of Mexico, even Brazil.  And yet, photographic identification databases (the most important is Wildbook for Whale Sharks, formerly ECOCEAN), show surprisingly little connectivity.  Despite over a thousand individual sharks identified in Yucatan Mexico, for example, only a handful have been re-sighted in the other places I just mentioned.  How is this possible if satellite tags show frequent proof positive of connectivity between these locations?  Well, it’s probably because tagging is a “population independent” method, but photo ID is not.  That is, the results of satellite tagging depend only on the movements of the tagged animal and not on the size of the population in either place, whereas the chances of re-sighting a whale shark photographed in one place at another place depends to a large degree on how many sharks there are at the new site.   The lack of photo ID re-sightings suggests that these populations are in fact pretty big, so big that finding that familiar “face in the crowd” actually becomes statistically pretty unlikely.

3rd bit of evidence.  Where are all the ladies at?  The veritable explosion of whale shark science in recent years has been due in large part to the recognition of the phenomenon of whale shark aggregations, or constellations as I now like to call them (you chose it, dear reader).  I’ve written a ton at DSN about the one that occurs in Yucatan Mexico but there are actually at least 12 locations in the world where whale sharks gather in large numbers – always to feed – relatively close to shore.  And those are just the ones we know about.  There are constellations taking place in the Red Sea, the Persian Gulf, the Philippines, Indonesia, Australia, the Seychelles, the Maldives, Mozambique and Tanzania, to name a few, but they all have one thing in common: they are dominated by immature males.  Very consistently so, in fact; nearly all of these selachian sausage-fests show the same 3:1  male:female sex ratio, and the overwhelming majority of animals are immature.  It’s basically an elasmobranch frat party, sans the beer pong.  We know that whale sharks give birth to the genders in a 1:1 split, so you have to ask: where are all the other immature females?  For that matter, where are all the mature animals, both male and female, and where are all the little ones too, under, say, 4 meters?  When you really break it down, we are basing a sizable chunk of whale shark research on one small demographic slice of the whale shark pizza: immature  males.  That’s no way to study a species, and it certainly makes it hard to get a good handle on he global population, when the numbers you are extrapolating from represent such a small segment of the overall population.

Taken together, these bits of evidence suggest that there might be a lot more whale sharks out there than we know of.  Some genetic studies have estimated populations (in the genetic sense this means the number of mature females) between 100,000 and 250,000, which is a LOT more than what we see, especially when you add in the males and immatures of both genders.  But genetic techniques are no substitute for observational data and there we are still sadly lacking.  One one level, this actually gives me a warm inner glow.  I find it both tantalizing and fascinating to think that we are unable to account for perhaps 3/4 of the population of the world’s largest fish.  It’s like the dark matter of the marine megafauna world.  It gives me a strange sense of encouragement that they are out there somewhere, evading our best efforts and proving daily that the ocean still has her fair share of secrets.

“There are things known and there are things unknown, and in between are the doors of perception.” – Aldous Huxley

The post Where are all the ladies at? first appeared on Deep Sea News.

The Rules:

1. It must include a LOL photo of thier study organism(s)
2. The photograph must be either fair usage or thier own
3. The photo must use LOL Cat Speak
4. The LOL photo must include a biological fact
5. LOL meme must be humorous
6. Each student must tweet 4 LOL pictures this week.

For your Friday enjoyment here are the best from the week. You can join in on Twitter at #deepsn and #sizingoceangiants with your own.  You can use the Builder at Cheezburger.com and the Speak lolcat generator to help you out.

@ccfrankee got the week going with the below based on the Bad Luck Brian meme.

Elephant Seals anyone?

A little meme shout out to Scumbag Steve

Giant Ocean Sunfishes aren’t scumbags and sometimes even provide protips.

Disappointed Great Whites with their crappy shark tongues.

Last we turn to Giant Clams for motivation

The post LOL Ocean Giants first appeared on Deep Sea News.

Shark’s Tooth

1 oz rum, 2 oz coconut liquer, 1 oz Cointreau

Vampire Shark’s Tooth

1 1/2 oz of dark rum, 1/4 oz of lime juice, 1/4 oz lemon juice, 1 splash of soda water,

drizzle grenadine syrup over the top, drink and then say “Sookie”

Shark’s Nipple

1/4 part spiced rum, 1/4 part Mountain Dew, 1/2 cranberry juice,

use your nipple to stir

Shark Bite

2 parts Southern Comfort, 2 parts cranberry juice, 1/2 part lime juice,

slam contents, run around room screaming and holding side like you’ve been bitten by a shark

Shark Attack Punch

1 gallon of vodka, 1/2 bottle of blue caracao, 1/2 blueberry schnapps, 1 gallon of lemonade, a sprinkle of water, a low opinion of yourself and friends,

drink and demonstrate punching a shark on a friend

Shark Attack

1 can of Mountain Dew, 4 oz of raspberry vodka,

drink together, in your caffeine and alcohol induced charged state tell everyone at bar how the probability of an actual shark attack is ridiculously small

Land Shark

1 oz vodka, 1/4 oz peach schnapps, 1 oz orange juice, 1/4 oz lime juice, strawberries for garnish,

drink two in quick succession and pontificate about how awesome sharks on land would be

Great White Shark

3oz light rum, 3/4 oz raspberry liqueurr, 1/4 oz of coconut, 1/4 of crushed pineapple,

drink, yell out “I’m the baddest thing in the ocean”, strut

F’d Up Shark

1 1/2 oz of bourbon, 1 1/2 of blue caracao, 1 1/2 oz of triple sec, 1 1/2 oz of Southern Comfort, 12 oz can of tonic

drink and proclaim “I’m a F’d Up Shark”, try to bite friends

Mexican Blue Shark

3/4 oz vodka, 1/2 oz tequila, a smidge of  blue caracao

drink and then name all species of sharks that occur in Mexican waters, take a drink for everyone you miss

Sharknado

Drink any combination of cocktails above combine with a Tornado (1 oz whiskey, 10 oz rum, 1 oz tequila, 1 oz vodka, 2 oz of Coke, 1/2 tbsp sugar, 3 ice cubes)

Spin around in circle several times, scream “I’m am Sharknado”, try to bite friends

The post It’s Shark Week…Let Us Drink! first appeared on Deep Sea News.

A year ago, I jumped off the side of a perfectly good boat. Infinite water hides the land to the west and the ocean floor below. Moments ago, the captain and Mexican marine biologist, Rafa tells me to get ready. I scramble to gather and put on my mask, fins, and snorkel. Through my fogged mask and the glaring sun I can’t see anything below the surface, but Rafa perched high on the deck above knows what to look for. He cuts the engines and we coast up to the target. Rafa shouts “Now!” I spring over the side of the boat. At first I don’t see anything except the bubbles from my water entry. The bubbles begin to clear and see nothing except blue. I swing around. Mere feet from me a mouth, as wide as I am long, quickly approaches. Following that mouth is 25 feet of whale shark. Al briefed me on whale sharks just that morning. “The esophagus of a whale shark measures only inches across.” His words are echoing in my head. I also take solace in that whale sharks prefer planktonic not human flesh.

Even if most sharks preferred man meat, most just do not measure up. Fifty percent of the sharks in the ocean are less than 3 feet in length. Seventy five percent are less than 5 feet. That is maximum length. In other words the maximum length an individual of given species has ever obtained. In the oceans, where life is tough most sharks will never reached this ideal size. It’s like saying all humans are the size of Andre the Giant. Most of us and most sharks are not giants. Of all the size classes, the greatest shark diversity occurs at less than one foot in length.

The smallest shark is the dwarf lanternshark (Etmopterus perryi) is a rare animal from the deep waters of Columbia and Venezuela. The largest known individual, ever, reached only 8.3 inches. Not feet. Inches. This is just barely longer than a pencil.  What is lacks in size it makes up for in flashiness. Like its name suggests, the dwarf laternshark can generate light through an array of photophores that line its body.

Another close contender for the smallest shark is the enigmatic Campeche catshark (Parmaturus campechiensis). The species is only known from one individual held now in the Smithsonian. In other words, we have only seen one…once. Like the dwarf lanternshark, the species is known only from deep waters. The one individual measured just 6.3 inches. That’s only big for a phone.  Notably the individual was a juvenile and adults, if ever caught, may measure longer.

Another contender, and often wrongly assumed to be the smallest shark, is the spined pygmy shark (Squaliolus laticaudus). It is a giant among small sharks at whopping 11 inches. Like the other small sharks here it lives in deep water, lurking about typically at 1,600 feet.  However, it is by no means rare or geographically limited being found across the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Oceans.

Given the size of most sharks, of far greater concern is how many can fit into our mouths.

The post Megalodon…phhh…most sharks are Microlodons. first appeared on Deep Sea News.

Hat tip to Reddit

The post @TheAverageShark only follows one first appeared on Deep Sea News.