Talk:Frilled shark

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 31 August 2020 and 10 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hunterft99, ZachT99. Peer reviewers: Mehalkok, Cosettepatterson, ZFiki, SmileyJosh.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:53, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Removed link

I removed the link around tricuspid referring to teeth. The only tricuspid entry currently is for a heart valve. 170.232.128.10 14:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

New Chlamydoselachiform

On http://www.elasmoresearch.arg/education/topics/d_checklist.htm, It lists a second chlamydoselachiform: The South African Frilled Shark

Yes, the Southern African frilled shark, for which we have an article (linked from the second sentence of this one). Yomangani^talk 14:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Any word on the genetics of this animal? Is it similar to both shark and eel?

Film

A Film (23.01.2007 released) can be found here: http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/01/24/sharkjapan.reut/index.html?eref=rss_latest

Profanity

Might there be a way to remove the F-word from this entry? 64.174.75.131 20:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes--just go in and do it.--Robbstrd 21:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Strange wording?

In the first paragraph it says "Distribution is worldwide, but they seem to be uncommon across this range." What do "this range" mean? For me it sounds like the author is saying that there is few sharks where he live, witch dont tell us much, as we dont know where he live.

I think I fixed it well enough. --Revth 03:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point out more strange wording in the human interaction section. It states The frilled shark has seldom been encountered alive, and thus poses no danger to humans-- this seems like a conclusion based on premises that do not follow, and perhaps it has to do with the vocabulary, but something like because the frilled shark has seldom been encountered alive in it's natural habitat, it remains unclear, accordingly, if it presents any immediate danger to [swimming] humans seems more appropriate to random Wiki visitors unfamiliar with frilled sharks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.105.184.93 (talk) 08:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

duplicate entry?

can be deleted, cache problem on my side —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.73.84.194 (talk) 05:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

extinct?

The article now says (rev 103135673); As of January 24, 2007 a previously thought to be extinct subspecies of the frilled shark was found alive on the coast of Japan by the Awashima Marine Park in Shizuoka

Where is the source that this shark was thought to be extinct? All news articles I see say that is rare that this shark can be seen. Because the live in the deep. But not about re-discovery of this species.--Walter Do you have news? Report it to Wikizine 14:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

These sharks are most surttenly not extinced.Everyone knows that.It is just really rare cuz it lives very deep in japan oceans.-ShadowGirl 4-

Actually, they are being caught by fish nets quite frequently.

The photo

I've been thinking about the photo of this shark that has popped up on news websites and newspapers all around the world. Since (as far as I know) this is the only picture (series) of this animal alive, you could argue that usage of this photo in wikipedia might classify as Fair Use. What do you guys think ? TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 16:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so - we have illustrations of the shark and having a photo of a live one doesn't provide anything to the article that we can't point out on the existing drawing and photo. I can't see how you can justify it under "no free alternative exists or could be obtained". Yomangani^talk 16:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

OK was just wondering. The picture is so pretty, but pictures in Wikipedia really aren't my thing :D --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 17:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Japanese sentiment??

The final sentence (below) has nothing to do with the frilled shark. Since there are other articles on whaling, overfishing, etc... I suggest it is moved. Overfishing is a worldwide problem (see article), and singling out the Japanese is just racist.

"It appears the Japanese not only are killing whales to extinction, but also every single “rare” species that make the mistake of coming close to the surface. Where, somehow, there always is a Japanese fishing ship, ready to “capture” the creature for “scientific” purposes." 80.156.42.129 12:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Use of word "pre-historic"

The article says that the sharks are called a fossile specied because they are little changed from pre-historic times. Pre-historic times is at most several thousand years which isn't long in evolutionary terms. Perhaps it should be "little changed since the time of the dinosaurs" - I think there must be a better word for it though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.239.8.200 (talk) 08:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

other facts

A rare Frill shark has been cought off of the coast of Japan. After a fisher man reported seeeing an odd-looking eel-looking creatue. With a mouthful of needle-sharp teeth. frill shark are rare ly alive because they like to live 600m underwater. This body shape and numbers of gils are similar to fossiles of sharks which livied 350 million years ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.154.91.81 (talk) 22:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Shark-snake

The above article seems to be about the same subject. Someone with the proper expertise should merge or redirect Shark-snake to this article, if appropriate. Thanks! --Stormbay (talk) 17:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I redirected shark-snake here; it's obviously the same species, not the mention the other article's based on some very sketchy sources (YouTube?) -- Yzx (talk) 22:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I was going to redirect and then had some uncertainty about whether something was being missed on my part. --Stormbay (talk) 02:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Frilled shark/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Xtzou (Talk) 16:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow, this is a wonderful article, very complete yet concise and too the point. Great pictures. In some it certainly does not look like a shark. What incredible teeth. One thing I wonder. What does this meant: "The very long jaws are positioned terminally at the tip of the snout"? Even with the picture I cannot tell what it means, but it must be an important feature.

Xtzou (Talk) 16:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

"terminally" here literally means "at the tip of the snout". Would putting parentheses around it be better? -- Yzx (talk) 16:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Does the placement of the jaws at the tip of the snout have some significance? I take it that's unusual? Does it have any implications as far as function goes? Xtzou (Talk) 16:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

It's unusual in that most sharks have underslung jaws. As for function, it likely relates to feeding but nobody's seen that so it's all speculation. -- Yzx (talk) 16:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

"Underslung" means attached below somehow, I gather. I can see there is a lot to know about sharks. No problem with the article. It is excellent in my eyes. Xtzou (Talk) 17:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality: Clear and concise writing

   B. MoS compliance: Complies with the basic MoS

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources: Sources are reliable

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: Well referenced where needed

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects: Broad in scope

   B. Focused: } Remains focused on topic

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: Pass!

Congratulations! Xtzou (Talk) 17:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Yzx (talk) 18:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Holy Cr@#$P!

Is it dangerous? Readers of this article want to know! 192.235.24.2 (talk) 17:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Blue photo

The photo at right seems to differ somewhat from the drawings and other photos in this article. Is it indeed the same species? --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 21:46, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes it is. To my knowledge, this is the only existing footage of a living frilled shark in its natural environment. -- Yzx (talk) 02:13, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

This is the first footage, not the only footage. See the documentary by biologists Yoshihiro Fujiwara and Sho Tanaka .--Citron (talk) 22:47, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Source

• http://www.khou.com/story/news/nation-now/2015/01/21/frilled-shark-sea-monster-caught-australia-coast/22099613/ ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:01, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Frilled shark. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140627094911/http://www.iucnredlist.org/ to http://www.iucnredlist.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:29, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Re sea serpent link

Bloodofox, regarding the question in your edit summary [1]: Garman (1884) says pretty much what the summary currently in the article states, i.e. that a larger related species would nicely fit the profile of a large section of sea serpent sightings. Can't check Bright (2000), but Garman at least was not a cryptozoologist (the term not existing at that time). Good as written ATM, I'd say. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:29, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for checking into that, Elmidae! :bloodofox: (talk) 18:01, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Edits I made to the Frilled Shark page

edits (which I indicated in bold) made to the frilled shark wiki page:

1) Added a sentence and reference to the last paragraph of the taxonomy and phylogeny section.

The anatomic traits of body, muscle, and skeleton phylogenically include the frilled shark to the neoselachian clade (modern sharks and rays) which relates it to the cow shark, in the order Hexanchiformes. In addition, genetic analysis conducted by researchers in 2016 may also suggest that the species is part of the order Hexanchiformes. Nonetheless, as a systematist of biology, the ichthyologist Shigeru Shirai proposed the Chlamydoselachiformes taxonomic order exclusively for the C. anguinesis and the C. africana species of frilled sharks.

reference added:

Bustamante, Carlos; Bennett, Michael B.; Ovenden, Jennifer R. (2016-01-01). "Genetype and phylogenomic position of the frilled shark Chlamydoselachus anguineus inferred from the mitochondrial genome". Mitochondrial DNA Part B. 1 (1): 18–20.

2.) Added a sentence and reference to to the first paragraph in the description section.

The eel-like bodies of the Chlamydoselachus anguineus and the Chlamydoselachus africana species of frilled shark are anatomically different; the anguineus frilled shark has a longer head and shorter gill slits; a spinal column with more vertebrae (160–171 vs. 147); and a lower-intestine spiral valve with more turns (35–49 vs. 26–28) than does the africana frilled shark; moreover, the skin color of the frilled shark is either uniformly dark-brown or uniformly grey. In addition, the C. anguineus has smaller pectoral fins than the African species, and the width of the mouth is more narrow.[2]

reference added:

Ebert, David A.; Compagno, Leonard J. V. (2009-12-31). "Chlamydoselachus Africana, A New Species Of Frilled Shark From Southern Africa (Chondrichthyes, Hexanchiformes, Chlamydoselachidae)". doi:10.5281/ZENODO.189264

3.) Added and changed a few sentences in the second paragraph in reproduction section, also added a new reference

Reproductively, the frilled shark is an aplacental viviparous animal born from an egg, without a placenta to the mother shark. During gestation, the shark embryos develop in membranous egg-cases contained within the body of the mother shark, when the infant sharks emerge from their egg capsules in the uterus they feed on yolk until birth. The frilled-shark embryo is 3.0 cm (1.2 in) long, has a pointed head, slightly developed jaws, nascent external gills, and possesses all fins. The growth of the jaw for elasmobranchs seem to begin early in the embryonic stage, however, it has been observed not to be the case for frilled sharks. The elongation of the jaws seemed to begin later in embryonic development. This leads to some studies suggesting that the terminal position of their mouth, due to anterior elongation of the jaw, is a derived trait instead of ancestral.[3]

reference added:

López‐Romero, Faviel A.; Klimpfinger, Claudia; Tanaka, Sho; Kriwet, Jürgen (2020). "Growth trajectories of prenatal embryos of the deep‐sea shark Chlamydoselachus anguineus (Chondrichthyes)". Journal of Fish Biology. 97 (1): 212–224. doi:10.1111/jfb.14352.

ZachT99 (talk) 01:18, 29 October 2020 (UTC)ZachT99

Thank you for posting this, it made me want to tweak and improve some of the wording, too.--Mr Fink (talk) 01:35, 29 October 2020 (UTC)