# Prehistoric Shark caught and filmed



## Guest

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/technology/technology.html?in_article_id=431041&in_page_id=1965

Video: http://today.reuters.com/tv/videoChannel.aspx?storyId=1a194f615fd608c0c94bfeb678aed35b5d30e013&rpc=23


Of course they had to kill it...just like that giant squid.  
Pretty cool though, I've never seen that shark before.


----------



## Bear

wow, very interesting animal


----------



## Sable

It's so beautiful!!!


----------



## mudskipper26

i wonder what it would be like to have a baby prehistoric shark?


----------



## Guest

i saw it on the news and they didnt kill it it died. It would have died anyways. But i think they should ahve left it in its natrul habittait untill it acually died and then eqamined it


----------



## Buggy

That is amazing! So sad that it had to die. I agree with the poster from the first link...they should have left it in the wild and filmed it there. Makes you wonder what other odd sea creatures are living way down under the sea. Nessie maybe???


----------



## Ice

Actually it's a Frilly Shark that lives in depths of 3,000 feet. Kinda looks like a giant eel with teeth. Very rare find and little is known about their behavior. I saw this in another website earlier this afternoon just before quitting time.


----------



## robyn

did anyone ever see pictures of some of the sea creatures washed up on s**************** after the tsunami? some incredible specimens!


----------



## Guest

eon17 said:


> i saw it on the news and they didnt kill it it died. It would have died anyways. But i think they should ahve left it in its natrul habittait untill it acually died and then eqamined it


It's natural habitat, as Ice said, is in VERY deep water...as you can tell from the video its not in very deep water. They brought it up to the surface and as a consequence, it died. They killed it.


----------



## robyn

but it was already close enough to the surface for us to see it and it probably would have died anyway, so therefore, what they did may have been wrong, but they weren't the sole reason it died.


----------



## Ice

Look at the eyes. They are made for deep water living.


----------



## redpaulhus

Its a "frilled shark" as was mentioned above.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frilled_shark

According to some reports, it was found on the surface, and may have been unwell to begin with - it wasn't pulled up from the depths (which usually kills deep water fishes due to the massive pressure change).



robyn said:


> did anyone ever see pictures of some of the sea creatures washed up on s**************** after the tsunami? some incredible specimens!


Those were not from the tsunami - they were from an earlier expedition.
http://www.snopes.com/photos/tsunami/creature.asp

A cool deep water site:
http://people.whitman.edu/~yancey/deepsea.html
(lots of good links there - hours of reading )


----------



## Ice

Oh well, I was close ! LOL !!!!


----------



## Sable

RE mudskipper
Please, don't go out and get a "prehistoric shark" - they need extreme salinity (one site I looked at said their habitat's salinity - aka specific gravity - is approximately 56)...or any shark for that matter; msot species endangered. >< I hate when people keep sharks.


How interesting that some scientistis are theorizing that this gal was brought out of her natural habitat by earthquakes in the Pacific - my Earth Science class is studying earthquakes, and I'm responsible for keeping track of activity on the Pacific plate.


----------



## Fishfirst

Redpaulhus welcome back to the forums... Nice to see you man!


----------



## Guest

Sable said:


> RE mudskipper
> Please, don't go out and get a "prehistoric shark" - they need extreme salinity (one site I looked at said their habitat's salinity - aka specific gravity - is approximately 56)...or any shark for that matter; msot species endangered. >< I hate when people keep sharks.


umm...I'm pretty sure mudskipper was kidding...
plus, there's no way anyone could get this shark for an aquarium....they are rarely seen alive, and taking one from those depths would kill it anyway due to the pressure change.
"Most" species of sharks are not endangered and some species make good aquarium inhabitants, such as the various catsharks and epaulette sharks, when given the appropriate sized tank and care.


----------



## flamingo

Why does there always have to be some huge discussion on this sort of thing? They found a cool shark- be happy.

I think it's pretty neat. And deepwater fish are the best- like the gothic fish of the world lol.


----------



## Guest

Why can't there be a discussion? Thats why I posted it. lol
This is a discussion board after all.


----------



## Guest

http://www.amonline.net.au/fishes/about/fieldwork/norfanz/psychrol2.htm

Meet Mr. Blobby. Sorry a bit off topic, but i think this fishy is neat and kinda creepy


----------



## Guest

Wow....I can't imagine that thing swimming. lol


----------



## Sable

Scuba Kid said:


> umm...I'm pretty sure mudskipper was kidding...
> plus, there's no way anyone could get this shark for an aquarium....they are rarely seen alive, and taking one from those depths would kill it anyway due to the pressure change.
> "Most" species of sharks are not endangered and some species make good aquarium inhabitants, such as the various catsharks and epaulette sharks, when given the appropriate sized tank and care.


I'm sure some treasure-hunter would offer it, or a lookalike, for sale if it meant a few thousand bucks.

My point was that taking it from that pressure would kill it, if you reread my post.

By "shark," I meant what most people think of as "sharks" - Great White, nurse, blue, mako, lemon, goblin, etc. Obviously, I didn't mean "shark" as it applies to the aquarium trade. And yeah, most of these species are very much endangered. I'm sure you've heard of the practice known as "finning," the shark nets of Australia, oil spills, hunts after a child is killed, ghost nets and mistaken catches in fishing trawls. Most species of saltwater shark are, in fact, endangered; some are even thought to be extinct in the wild. Nurse sharks, which are rapidly being depleted through several processes, are now being commonly sold in the aquarium trade - which is absolutely disgusting. Soon enough, there won't be enough nurse sharks in the wild to breed, and we'll have another extinction. Seriously - think about it before you buy that next cool-looking animal. If one thing goes wrong in your tank, it WILL be dead, but ammonia/nitrite/nitrate spikes are virtually impossible in its native habitat, where it is happier and becoming increasingly scarce. The same thing applies for corals, which used to make up 60% of atmospheric oxygen. Not anymore, both because they're being picked clean by treasure-seekers looking to cash in on the aquarium trade and because of a global warming pattern. I sincerely believe people should at least limit the amount of corals/anemones they keep in their tank because anemones are in serious trouble in the wild and corals worldwide are bleaching at alarming and dangerous numbers. Any live coral in the ocean should, for at least the next few years, be left there - as should any live sharks (again, I'm not using the term as it applies to the aquarium trade; I'm using it as it applies to the general public, as was my INTENTION, so as not to confuse mudskipper with a lengthy explaination of what exactly I mean by "shark").


----------



## Guest

Now you're just being confusing. If you didnt mean sharks as it applies to the aquarium trade, then why are you talking about how they shouldn't be kept in aquariums? And you mentioned how ammonia and nitrite spikes can harm them where that isnt a problem in the wild...this applies to all fish, so should we keep any fish then?
And although coral reefs are becoming depleted in the wild and this is partially contributed by the collection of them, cyanide and explosive fishing practices are a bigger threat to them. Collection of corals for the trade isnt so much a huge problem now (still a problem, but slightly improving) as fragging and coral propagation is helping the solution.


----------



## Sable

Scuba Kid said:


> Now you're just being confusing. If you didnt mean sharks as it applies to the aquarium trade, then why are you talking about how they shouldn't be kept in aquariums? And you mentioned how ammonia and nitrite spikes can harm them where that isnt a problem in the wild...this applies to all fish, so should we keep any fish then?
> And although coral reefs are becoming depleted in the wild and this is partially contributed by the collection of them, cyanide and explosive fishing practices are a bigger threat to them. Collection of corals for the trade isnt so much a huge problem now (still a problem, but slightly improving) as fragging and coral propagation is helping the solution.


You took what I said completely out of context. Some definitions:

"As applies to the aquarium trade" = aquarium fish with common names including "shark" - i.e., redtailed shark, bala shark. I did not mean to include these under the word "shark." They are obviously nowhere near extinct, although several species are endangered in the wild.

As for the ammonia spike comment:
It is my belief that we should not be keeping endangered fish in home aquaria because most survive much better in the wild - notably the reef shark and nurse shark, which are, as I say, quickly being depleted. Obviously, if an endangered fish were to breed in the home aquaria and only tank-raised fish were sold, that would be fine, but this has yet to be accomplished for any type of shark - that is, except in SeaWorld.

Coral collecting is completely unnecessary in my opinion, at least to the extent at which it goes on now. Newcomers to the hobby buy several pieces with the advice "this is sea salt; you add it to the water...usually one cup for every gallon" (I literally heard this said) and kill the $400 worth of corals they buy - then go back and buy (and kill) more. This seems to be an utter waste to me, especially of a life form that makes life possible for all the creatures on this planet. 

I do believe I wrote quite concisely and very simply, thank you anyhow.


----------



## Guest

I wasn't refering to bala sharks and red tail sharks. I am refering to REAL, marine sharks. 
This is a coral catshark:

















This is an epaulette shark:

















And yes, breeding of sharks has been accomplished. The marbeled catshark is just one example. They are sold tank raised, even on liveaquaria.com.
Not one of these sharks is endangered.


----------



## Sable

I _really_ think you're missing my point by about six miles.

Let's look at one example.

The nurse shark has not been bred successfully in a _home_ aquarium (I'm sure it's been done in Seaworld). Scientists speculate that the nurse shark may have reached endangered status in the wild. And yet my LFS has _two_, selling for $200 apiece. I see them all over aquabid.

The same goes for reef and lemon sharks (lemon sharks, however, do not have a critical conservation level).

My point is, for the third or fourth time, _many species of aquatic life which are endangered (including several species of marine shark) are being taken from their natural habitats and sold in the aquarium trade. This is detrimental to their ecosystems. People who are looking to cash in on the aquarium trade don't care about this aspect of their economic gains._


----------



## Guest

If you haven't noticed, I have not mentioned once a nurse shark, lemon shark, or leopard shark or ANY endangered aquatic species. In your first argument, you said that no sharks should be kept. I corrected you.
This started with you advising people not to keep prehistoric sharks. Frankly, that was a completely unecessary and rather ridiculous comment as it is not possible now and probably not in the future. Why you even brought up keeping endangered species is beyond me, this entire thread was to show a rare species caught on film. Did you make these same comments when the film of the giant squid came out?


----------



## gemjunkie

Just another little FYI, there are deeper water fish kept in the aquarium. Check out some of the Tanganyikan fish. It takes days for divers to bring the fish to the surface, to decompress them.

Granted this is no where near the depths spoken of with this particular species.....


----------



## Guest

This is true, lol. But like you said, the depths don't compare.
An interesting thing I saw once: Some guy was selling a nautilus on ebay. I think it was like $5000 too. I've seen nautilus at my local aquarium. They're amazing creatures!


----------



## flamingo

Scuba Kid said:


> This is true, lol. But like you said, the depths don't compare.
> An interesting thing I saw once: Some guy was selling a nautilus on ebay. I think it was like $5000 too. I've seen nautilus at my local aquarium. They're amazing creatures!


You can get them for 150-200- but they're boring and extremely hard to care for.


----------



## gemjunkie

Scuba Kid said:


> This is true, lol. But like you said, the depths don't compare.
> An interesting thing I saw once: Some guy was selling a nautilus on ebay. I think it was like $5000 too. I've seen nautilus at my local aquarium. They're amazing creatures!



Isn't that (the nautilus) a submarine or a piece of work out equipment? hehehe


----------



## Guest

lol. :razz:
I'm writing a research paper involving the submarine Nautilus. Just thought I'd share. lol


----------



## Ice

Here we go again with the discussion getting out of control ...

This topic was simply an article about the frilled shark found that is rarely seen and then some attacks (or assumption of) as if one would want one in their own tank. Stop the bickering and the flaming !! Let this topic simply be about the newslink of the rare shark found !


----------



## Guest

This was my intent in the first place.


----------



## Fishfirst

Sable said:


> Obviously, if an endangered fish were to breed in the home aquaria and only tank-raised fish were sold, that would be fine, but this has yet to be accomplished for any type of shark - that is, except in SeaWorld.


Just to let you know, Sharks especially the ones you have listed are bred a lot in captivity. I saw several eggs being hatched and several pups being born right in a facility in the mall of america! The truth is though reef sharks and nurse sharks should not be kept by the average joe in captivity... and rightfully so, they just aren't managable for the average aquarist. Thier size and disposition are not meant for less than thousands of gallons of water. But there are several species being bred in captivity, as well as the ones scuba kid have mentioned. 



> Coral collecting is completely unnecessary in my opinion


You couldn't be more wrong here, collecting and keeping/breeding these specimens ensures that they will be here for future generations and possibly re-released into the wild. If they are bleaching all over the world, then the culprit is not us collecting them, it is global warming in general, as well as pollution that is ruining the reefs. Why would we not want to save these creatures from eminant extinction if they are bleaching because of something we as aquarists don't really control all that much?

Sable, you have really tainted this discussion. We are all very passionate people, and we all realize what is going on with shark populations in the wild, but isn't that a reason to bring some into captivity? People only care about what they love, and if no one really knew sharks, reefs, ect existed, they really wouldn't give a hoot if it went extinct. Part of conservation, is learning about the WHY things are the way they are, and keeping these animals in captivity is one of the only ways of learning the WHY and the HOW we can bring them back from the brink.


----------



## FishHead

i like that coral catshark. he's cool. it looks like he has large floppy ears..LOL

check out these deepsea fish.pretty crazy

http://www.reticulatedsplines.org/stuff/Fish!.htm


----------



## Ice

Well said FishFirst !!


----------



## harif87

I bet someone here owns a whole fishroom of prehistoric sharks!


----------



## Guest

flamingo said:


> You can get them for 150-200- but they're boring and extremely hard to care for.


Really? That's interesting, I've never seen them for sale except that one instance. I have also heard they are very hard to care for though.


Thanks Fishfirst for clearing up what I've been trying to get across. Very well said, I couldn't agree more.


----------



## flamingo

There are a few sites that "offer" them. Most that are on the cephalopod page are odd sites or have been taken over/closed. I don't personally think a flying shell that sits in the corner is a very exciting thing to pay 150 for though....


----------

