i just heard that some asian aquarium found a eel like shark that is supposedly a dinosaur of some sort. if you know any more info post here

I assume you're referring to the frill shark. Recently, this rare, ancient shark was filmed. That would make it a 'living fossil' of sorts, but not a dinosaur. Dinos are reptiles, not fish.

Dinosaurs were strictly land dwelling animals, and there's a very distinct difference between sharks and dinosaurs; although I'm pretty sure that the Frilled shark has remained relatively unchanged since the era of the dinosaurs (I could be wrong, I need to check).

There's another thread on the Frilled Shark here. Click.

Welcome to the forum.

Ahem...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frilled_shark

Its not a dinosaur but its a very primitive shark.

thanks for the info

heres a question....why is that in the last 2-3 years more identification of lost or new animals have been made than in the last 50? i was watching discovery channel and caught an episode on where scientists were finding that maybe that the north and south poles were changing places.....could this be the reason why such animals are popping up?...Because of the changing polarities it could be really screwing with the way these animals migrate or tell where they are...more evidence could be the amount of recently beached whales and porposes around the world??? just a question!

One reason we're finding a lot of new animals right now, is technology. We have better detection equipment, discoveries can be more properly documented, we're able to go to new places, deeper places etc.

But you're right, environmental factors are pretty important. I'm not entirely sure what effect the magnetic field would have yet, but changing sea temperatures and decline in food supplies among other things would result in unusual migration patterns. Also, there's a theory that whale beachings have been influenced by chemicals that're used to destroy barnacles on ship hulls.

I doubt it's true that we've made more discoveries in the last three years than we have in the last fifty; I don't have any confirmation, though.

Things like molecular testing have given us a greater insight into species and meant we have discovered new species because of the genetics. With awuatic species we have much greater underwater technology now and its much easier to find animals at depth.
However pretty much every new species has a tendancy to be small.

With dolphin beaching, it tends to occur with old and unwell individuals, but new sonar systems are believed to cause problems.

That makes sense. We are over due for a polar reversal. It would make sense, as it would change migration roots. Think of it... like so many times in the earths history, the compas will be pointing south instead of north.

But whales do not react to magnetism.
Senility (grouped is species dependent with this) and sonar are the main causes of whale beaching.

Here is a better pic

It was found off the coast of Japan

A deep sea shark that they found in shallow water. It died soon afterwards.

Not a dinosaur...just a creepy fish.

Actually, that is not a frilled shark^

That right there is a rattail. You can see it has scales.



In Hilton Head Is, SC, USA, dolphins beach on purpose. They herd a school of fish next to shore, so that a wave will wash them up on the beach. Then the dolphins will beach themselves, eat the fish, and slide back into the water. This is the only place in the world where it happens. I was fortunate enough to see this.

The poles ARE slowly moving, like they always have, but they're are not reversing that drastically.

Wait, the poles are REVERSING? You just had to go and ruin my day, didn't you?

Yep, England was their ancestral land...

Seriously, it is true, the magnetic poles swap places every couple of tens of thousands of years. it has something to do with the liquid metals under the surface, but I'm no geologist. Its not that serious for us, mostly because (according to wikipedia) the next one should occur around 3000-4000 AD, and we'll be dead by then

i think that the frilled shark caught is really a juevinille. their may be bigger frilled sharks we dont know about, and they probably dont come to the surface often. their could be a whole population of deep sea big frilled sharks, maybe 15-20 ft long.

No there will not be, there is a limit to depth and large body size, especially for vertebrates due to pressure. All those odd looking deep sea fish with giant teeth (relative to body size) are in fact very small.

thats where ur wrong. the sleeper shark is a deep water shark, and grows up to 23 ft long, and so is the greenland shark. their are whales 60 ft long and squids 50 ft plus, so it should be expected to be at least a couple large animals. we know only 1.2 million species, and their may be 10's of millions we dont know about

How do you know that it ISN'T a juvenile?

No it is a relatively deep shark, it is not deep deep. Whales dive deep, but not to the depth of gulper eels and deep sea angler fish. Sleepers are found at a maximum of 1200m, but that is a rarity and although it is believed that sperm whale can dive to 3km it is very rarely dives below 400m and in general is not as adept at diving in comparision to the considerably smaller elephant seals. The giant squid is a invertebrate and suffers from the issues of pressure less due to a lack of a skeleton. However it is due it being a component of the diet of the sperm whales diet and it very rarely dives below 400m it is likely that the giant squids rarely are found deeper than this. When you get to 3km down though everything tends to get smaller. After this the pressure means bigger is not good, not only this, food is so limited at this depth that large animals could not be supported.

Mattshark, I've said that many times on this forum. People just won't listen.

It wasn't just discovered, it was just the first time it was seen alive. But as many people said, technology.

And the first post of this thread made me angry because it is not a dinosaur.

socurious - That is an excellent theory and one that certainly deserves more thought and study! As for advances in technology, certainly this is one of the primary reasons- but not the only reason; I believe there is often more to it, esp. when you see spikes in the rate of some things as they increase/ decrease.Has there really been more new species discovered these last few years? That Frill Frill shark is all in all a fascinating and wonderful find- previously discovered or not. A rare and little known species to be sure. This should be regarded as Definitive proof that unexpected things can pop up at any time.

mattshark- Assuming this is true, and in some cases i believe you're right, ex: In regards too the Relativity of pressure/depth zones- this is certainly not the case all of the time-at least a few known examples of species show this. And lets not forget there are always exceptions to the rule.
makaya325- Very true.- Quite possibly a greater number than that even.

Look, when will people get it through they're heads.....there is no 100ft. "unknown" creature living in the Mariana Trench, there is no monster lying dormant at the bottom of the ocean waiting to AWAKEN. There is nothing of great size and bulk that can sustain itself in the deepest parts of the ocean due to the immense pressure, lack of sunlight, and in turn, lack of food supply to sustain such bulk(as Mattshark illustrated previously)....period.

A previously-unknown 100-ft oceanic deep-sea creature would be an earth-shattering discovery.
But the physics of such a thing don't add up, unless we've missed somethng major.
The debate is rather moot, until something actually surfaces, or is caught in a net for study.

And it WAY off-topic, too!

cool

Ok they just put it on cnn, really great footage
Rare shark captured on film


Do I hear Loch Ness bells ringing?

im saying is that in the deep depths, their are still large animals undiscovered . we dont know alot about the ocean, so i think their ought to be large animals not known to science. im not saying in the deep deep depths, but deeper than 1000 ft at least

im not saying their are 100ft animals in the ocean undiscovered .im saying that large animals unknown to science could be 20 to 50 ft long.

They just can't let it go, can they?

we dont know alot about the ocean. their are so many species unknown to science, and out of those, i think its reasonable to assume their might be large ones