Japan seem to be on a roll with 'living fossils', this time it'sa goblin...

Rarely seen 'living fossil' shark caught off Tokyo
Wed Feb 7, 12:22 PM ET




TOKYO (AFP) - A goblin shark -- a rarely seen species often called a "living fossil" -- was caught alive in Tokyo Bay but died after being put on display, an aquarium said.
The grey, long-nosed shark was caught in fishermen's nets around 150 to 200 metres (500 to 650 feet) deep. It was discovered by officials of the Tokyo Sea Life Park when they took a boat with local fishermen on January 25.

"We were able to bring it to the aquarium alive and show it to the public," said an official at the park.

But the shark died on the morning of January 27.

"Dead goblin sharks are caught from time to time, but it is rarely seen alive. We were able to document the way the shark swims. After it died, we dissected the specimen for further studies," he said.

The shark was about 1.3 metres long.

Resembling pre-historic sharks, goblin sharks live on deep sea bottoms. Little is known about their lives.

Source

One day the japanes will find something and not intantly stick it in a aquarium.
You would hope anyway.

Its still better than the other Japanese option, which is eating it raw.

If they normally live on the bottom of the ocean....wouldn't they think that the difference in pressure (keeping it captive in a tank)....would kill it?

some deep sea animals are capeable of making enormous daily migrations so they are able to make adjustments and survive near the surface which means some animals can be kept under normal aquarium conditions. it should be even less of a problem in sharks as they do not have a swimbladders that can burst, goblin sharks are not a true bottom dwelling species either so it may be able to cope. My guess is this one was very stressed and injured from the fishing net, putting it into a foreign environment with very different pressure probably gave it the rest...

very cool shark

Some more info on it here if you're interested. Not much but then not much is known about it...

wow thats cool..i love this shark..its weird

Edited

Now how about goblin sharks? Definately not going to win a beauty pageant with that smile but I would still like to see one...though that might proove difficult...

Unless he has something relevant to say about goblin sharks I would like to ask KGS kindly to stop spamming the thread and to leave now. Btw unstable ramblings= being rude to people does not help while making a point + in my personal opinion answering questions is polite and obviously asking about unneccesary comment about nationality. So I would kindly ask him to heed his own advice and leave me alone,which is all he needs to do to do if he does not wish to drag out correspondence (as I have already implied several times) however he cannot expect me to ignore him while he is trying to slander me- in a thread that is supposed to be about goblin sharks....






I think they are the only species of shark that actually come in any way close to what old (drawn) pictures of sharks looked like......

Whats that nose used for, Is it used like the hammerhead's?

Thats cool looking shark, probably more of them still around.

cool pics !!! most fascinating breed of shark !!! odd rounded fins - i like how it senses electric fields with it's "snout" --
i do believe are many underwater oasis's science cannot reach--
great thread-- thank-you very much -- i most enjoyed !! ♥

That thing's frickin' freaky

i don't think anyone really knows 100% what the snout is used for but I think the most ocmmon theory is that it has an accumulation of ampullae of lorenzinii, so electrosensory organs there.All sharks and rays have the but theory is this one has a lot more of them spread over it's snout. Very little is known about this species though so noone really knows, they anot exaclty commonly sighted especialy alive, otherwise this one wouldn't have made the news...

KGS if your fight was in another thread that is spamming. And that is the weirdest shark I ever saw.

He claims he wants to end correspondence (after replying to messages and posts that needed no reply himself) yet he keeps coming back for more, strange mentality that...

Anyhow, found this on the sense organs of goblin sharks:
"At mid-water depths, precious little light filters down from the surface, rendering vision all but useless. D. speculates that the Goblin Shark's spatulate, ampulla-peppered snout may function as a forward-projecting prey detector, in much the same way as certain halfbeaks (teleost fishes of the family Hemiramphidae) use the lateral line organs along their elongated lower jaws to feed at night. "

I never even knew those things existed but I bet that sharks Mom thinks he's handsome.

And the spam(/spæm/ :[spam]: a disruptive message posted on a computer network)just keeps on coming....short english lesson:
slan·der /ˈslændər/ Pronunciation Key - S[slan-der] :a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report
Now compare to:
quote /kwoʊt/ Pronunciation Key - [kwoht] verb, quot·ed, quot·ing, noun,verb (used with object): to repeat (a passage, phrase, etc.) from a book, speech, or the like, as by way of authority, illustration, etc.
in·ter·pre·ta·tion [in-tur-pri-tey-shuhn] noun:a conception of another's behavior: a way of interpreting. Also done when no ex·pla·na·tion (/ˌɛkspləˈneɪʃən/ [ek-spluh-ney-shuhn]:something that explains; a statement made to clarify something and make it understandable; exposition) is given.
As he has repeated himself several times without revealing any new and revolutionary information,if KGS could kindly depart as he said he would about 4 messages back, that would be very nice.

Anyhow for people interested in the shark, this is the fishbase entry, very good database for everything fishy:
http://fishbase.org/Summary/SpeciesSummary.php?id=5910, enjoy

That is one hell of a ugly shark......i bet it gets mocked and picked on by other sharks, probably get's called big nose.


As for the argument thats going on how about one of you just decide to be the bigger person so that the thread does not get closed. Or just use the report button and get the argument sorted out.

Seeing that were he lives is very dark and not a lot of other animals will see him, or if they do they will look just as odd or odder, I don't think you have to worry too much about him being teased....

Was thinking of reporting it but to me it's not worth it, if he wants to make a comlaint, tht's up to him,was actually tempted to suggest it to him, I know what I know and that's that,if it's that important to him, fine. I just find it amusing that after making a big deal about it he is now so unwilling to let go

Man!!! Its an ugly bugger!!!

~*~

If i was swimming and one happend to come at me to attack me i would not know if i should scream in terror and try and flee or point and laugh as it takes my leg off.

I agree completely... they can be such pigs. I hear this over and over again, and it's just a greedy mentality that I cannot stand.

I don't think there is a real danger of that happening, shark attacks are rare enough as it is,usually cases of mistaken identity, plus I don;t think there is a big chance of you ever meeting this shark...but I get what you mean....he is rather unfortunate looking...but if you put him next to some deep sea fish...well he starts looking quite fetching then...

Interesting how all these "living fossils" are to be found all over the place. Strange of some of these species have supposedly been around for "millions" of years, yet don't change and manage to survive, while others supposedly haven't. Really makes one wonder...

KGS

Reason for that is that they don't need to, the deep sea is a very stable environment, things do not change very quickly, therefore change can be slow, animals more likely to adapt and maintain a form that is more similiar or may even retain features of their prehistoric ancestors, new species tend to evolve in rapidly changing environments not in relatively stable ones, that's why there are a fair amount of 'living fossils' in the deep sea, like the goblin and the frilled shark or the coelocanth and while they may seem unchanged, there are some major differences between prehistoric and modern day coelocanths, not to mention that they used to be far more widespread than they are now and were several differnt species Some more info:
On the coelecanth
On common misconceptions (I think he's taking things a bit too personal and gets a bit personal himself as a result but there are interesting links there as well)
Just found another nice website on living fossils:
Living fossils

How do we know that stable environments are really all that stable since they've only been observed for a relatively short period of time and in a fairly limited way? And let's not forget that according to scientists these things have been around "millions" of years--that's a pretty long time to not change all that much, regardless of how stable the environment is. Not to mention that this generalization doesn't seem to explain species like the bowfin, which is found in the Great Lakes.

KGS

Some species can go for extremely long periods of time with no need to change and survive.Other species can adapt to changing conditions and survive.Other species will adapt to changing conditions and survive for a time...but then die off because they cannot adapt to a specific change in their environment.Other species will go for a long period of time in a stable environment without needing to adapt...but if the environment changes too suddenly...they will die off (in some cases,even a very minute change in the environment can cause a species to die off).

It's the essence of evolution.It's not always a straightforward process.There are many factors involved which can keep it from being straightforward.Evolution is both orderly *and* chaotic.

Clearly you haven't thoroughly read the articles.They do in fact change, just a lot less than other species. These are NOT the same species (neither the bowfin nor the coelocanth) that were around millions of years ago, these are merely members of ancient families retaining a lot of the ancient characteristics. These families used to be a lot more widespread and diverse, occupying wide ranges of habitats as far as it is known, which also indicates that habitat stability is a major factor in the persistence of these 'living fossils'. There is also another theory according to which 'living fossils' maintan ancient characteristics due to low genetic variability and are thus restricted to certain habitats that are suitable for their way of life.

You're not making that much sense here; you say that "they do in fact change, just a lot less than other species" but then state that they are not the same species "that were around millions of years ago". How can a "not the same species" species "change... a lot less than other species" if it is "not the same species"? If a species "change[s]... a lot less than other species" it suggests that the "not the same species" had "change[d].. a lot less" from a similar species that existed, according to you, millions of years ago. The question is, then, when did the bowfin (Amia calva) begin to exist; this, interestingly, is something that glossed over in everything that I've managed to find of the species. Whatever the case, I still find it strange that one can assert that certain environments on this planet could have remained stable for millions of years, and that during the course of that time certain species evolved at a rate where some that exist today are extremely similar to ones that science claims existed "millions of years" ago.

KGS

No you just don't understand, it may not been phrased too clearly so I will try and explain it to you again. Say there is are one or two species of coelocanth living at great depth, while there are also a few (other species) living in more in dynamic environment, this all being a few million years ago., they belong to the same family. Now the dynamic environment is more prone to change and changes more quickly, species there will evolve more quickyas there will most likely be more niches etc, however they are also more prone to extinction as some drastic changes may happen quickly and the animals will be unable to adapt their behaviour to changed conditions or are just unsuitable for this new type of habitat.If changes are more slow and the environment is more stable as in the deep sea, there is more potential for a species surviving changes as they are generally slower and not as drastic however it may gradually evolve new features as wnow different characteristics will be favoured by the new environment and animals showing these features will be more likely to breed as they are better at surviving in this new environment, so their genes get passed on. Now, an animal can only be so different to another before they get considered a different species, like we have different species of zebra, we have different species of coelocanth,same genus different species, they are closely related but not the same. Nowadays this can be calculated using genetic data however with species as the coelocanth, we depend on phenotypic (how the animal looks, anatomy etc) information. Now if you compare that to animals that are descended from very different ancestors, it looks more complex, there are a lot more intermediate forms etc, they do not look as much like their ancestors that lived millions of years ago, they have varied quite considerably from the original form-> more changes compared to what the coelocanth went through, which still retains a lot of ancestral features.
I do not think, when the bowfin came into existence in it's current form is 'glossed over'. You will probably find specialist articles in specialist journals (I don't think anyone is going to write an article solely on when Amia calva came into being,it would be in an article about the evolution and phylogenetic relationships of actinopterygian fish or just on the evolution of genes in different lineages of fish )or it may not have been studied in depth yet, also possible.
Again, noone is saying hte environments remain unchanged, they just change slower than dynamic habitats and as I explained before, more dynamic and stressful management, more changes needed to survive, faster speciation. Again, it is not the only theory on how 'living fossils' persisted with comparably little changes, as I mentioned before there is also a theory on low genetic variability.
Now that I have explained that, if you just want to go on arguing about evolution and make this into yet another thread about why science and evolution is wrong or evil or in fact out to get religion, please go to the appropriate forum, or there is even a thread on this exact topic: 'natural selection vs. creationism', or open your own thread; it's getting old and this is supposed to be about goblin sharks, if you are truly confused about 'living fossils' rather than just trying to start another religion vs. science debate, there are plenty of sources (as the ones I have linked to before) in the form of books or the internet that you can consult on this topic which will hopefully clarify the issue further.

We know the environments are stable because they are below the thermocline, no evironmental changes occur below a thermocline. New species do enter from the warmer water above, but this will not change things for every species. In fact if it provided an extra food source it would likely improve the survival chances of a species.

You were really going pretty good there, and then for some reason you felt justified in tacking on that last paragraph about my supposed attempt to turn this into a religious debate, even though I haven't mentioned God or the Bible, nor did I have any intention of doing so. I think what this boils down to is the fact that scientists tend to to develop convoluted theories and arguments based on little or no hard evidence yet talk as though what they theorize to be the truth is complete fact. Then out of pride, ego, and a desire to maintain one's status and pay, the scientist refuses to admit that they are wrong or just don't know.

My assertion about the bowfin is correct, though; nowhere is it mention when the species "Amia calva" evolved from its "not the same species" predecessor, and if it were known it would likely have filted onto the Internet by now. A google.com search of "phylogenetic relationships of actinopterygian" only returns two hits, and doesn't provide me with anything that I can refer to quickly; perhaps you could be more specific about what I should be looking for, and I may just go ahead and take a look at these "specialist articles".

Aside from this, I think I'll just contemplate a little more about what you wrote, perhaps read up a little on your beloved "coelocanth" and, if I feel like it, will most a more suitable reply sometime soon.

KGS

I thought about attachig the last paragraph for quite a while but decided judging from past experience it was an appropriate warning.Trying to discredit evolution is usually closely linked to trying to prove creationism in my personal experience and I felt such a discussion would be better suited somewhere else. I apologise if this was not your intention.
You cannot just formulate a theory and hang onto it as fact, you have to present facts to prove a theory and this has to be peer reviewed. Yes scientist, just like religious people or any one else for that matter do not like to admit that they do not have all the answers but they will, just like anyone else offer explanations, scientific explanations usually have some base in fact and relevant experimentation. If no better explanation can be found, yes this is often taught as 'fact' however it is usually explained that this is a theory and more research needs to go into it. If this is omitted by the lecturer or the person talking about it, it is not due to the vanity of the scientist who came up with the theory, wrong theories are corrected and revised if convincing evidence shows the contrary. corrections may not be instant and overnight, people are obviously cautious about making major revisions as if it is in fact wrong, there will be even more paperwork revising the first revision, so obviously people like to be sure before accepting a new concept.
Some specialist papers and journals are not available on the internet, there are a lot of journals out there purely focusing on fish biology or phylogenetic relationships and the like, usually your local library can order them in for you if you find a reference to something relevant however that is usually very expensive.
if it interests you I found a paper about hox genes in fish which specifically refers to Amia calva and it's phylogenetic relationships in several parts, not in relationship to when it evolved precisely but it may help you get on the right track: http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/23/1/121
I found references to some papers on phylogenetic relationships however only found them cited so far:
Grande. L. and W.E. Bemis, 1998. A comprehensive phylogentic study of amiid fishes (Amiidae) based on comparative skeletal anatomy. An empirical search for interconnected patterns of natural history. Society of Vertebrate Paleontology Memoir 4:i-x, 1-690; supplement to Journal of Vetrebrate Paleontology.
and another one which i seem to have mislaid, will add it if I find it again. However as I said before, it might just not be very well studied yet, there are a few articles on the relationships of primitive actinopterygians (google scholar: actinopterygian fish interrelationships) however, this does not mean it's being glossed over, there may just not a lot of (available) papers on it. there is a lot of ground to cover in biology, there are a lot more severe problems to solve than the phylogenetic relationships of one specific fish and there are a lot of species that are waiting to be re-evaluated based on a molecular analysis. I think the best thing to do for you is to hunt out a fish biologist and ask him to direct you into the right direction, he might be able to point you into the right direction more efficiently, I am personally very interested in zoology but phylogenetic relatioships don't really thrill me, a lecturer at a university specialising on phylogenetics of fish may be a better person to ask for directions.

KGS3333 and cetacea, Several posts have been removed due to bringing your arguments onto an open forum. There really is no need to do this and it is seen as derailing the thread. If you have issues with one another than use the PM facility or speak to a Moderater.

Back on topic....