Talk:Silky shark

Notes

First cut, stole layout from Oceanic_white_tipped_shark.

Need to verify

• young fed in utero by a placental sac ( not sure what this means ... just assumes silky is same as oceanic? :-) )
• Temperature, I have 2 books one say above 23 , the other say it likes 23 best.

Improvements:

• Better distribution, all I have is worldwide, but not how far north/south.
• Picture, I have one will try to upload at some time.
• More text, more headers!!

Stefan 07:02, 2 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Placental doesn't make sense to me either. I'm fairly certain that only mammals have placenta (and then only the placental mammals, not marsupials or egg layers). From the little I know about shark reproduction, viviparous sharks don't actually have a good way to feed their young. In some species, the young will actually eat each other for nutrition. That some sharks would have an advanced system like a placenta and others wouldn't have anything at all doesn't make sense to me. Athaler 18:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

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

I will begin reviewing this article and make straightforward changes as I go (explanations in edit summaries). Please revert any changes I make where I inadvertently change the meaning. I will post queries below. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

"The silky shark, Carcharhinus falciformis, is...." - as a style issue, I usually put the scientific name in parentheses, as there are usually commas all over the place. Not a big deal though.

I actually find parentheses less aesthetically pleasing than the commas, since I think they disrupt the prose in a way that's distracting in the lead sentence. I'll change it if too many people find it bothersome though.

It is about 50/50 each way I think. Click on any bio article and see. No biggie anyway and a style issue for which there is no consensus really. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

In the Taxonomy and phylogeny, it would be nice if there were a statement stating the closest relationships of the shark are unclear (as they appear to be). However, this'd need a source saying that.

The branch of Carcharhinus that the silky shark's in is actually fairly well-resolved compared to the rest of the genus; I've rephrased the paragraph to put emphasis on the later molecular studies, and tried to make clear that Dosay-Akbulut doesn't really contradict Naylor (since the 3 species of the group included in Dosay-Abkulut's study resolved out together).

Reads better now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

There may be four distinct populations of silky sharks inhabiting separate ocean basins worldwide - hmm, I see only three big oceans. Is there some more info on how/what/where the populations are?

Unfortunately I don't have full access to the relevant source, just snippets. I'd guess that the populations are Atlantic, Pacific, Indian, and Gulf of Mexico, based on life history.

However, they can respond with startling swiftness to any shift in the status quo - odd phrase at the end, "any changes in their immediate environment" or "surroundings" ?

Changed to "immediate surroundings"

It does not frequently come into contact.. --> "It only rarely comes into contact.."

Changed

The conservation material is alarming. Any more data from anywhere else? If not, that's fine.

Well, the IUCN (re)assessment only came out in 2009. Probably hasn't been enough time for more material.

To summarise, much the most polished of shark articles I have seen you write. Well done, and very nearly there. I am being a little nitpicky as I'd like to give this one some extra oomph to propel it towards FAC. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I've addressed the issues; let me know of any others. -- Yzx (talk) 06:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

There were no real deal-breakers anyway. This one passes. If you can get the paper with the four populations, that would be a pretty big step towards FAC. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Behavior - Lévy flights

I wanted to leave a note about Lévy flights, but I didn't see a behavior section. Perhaps this should be assembled? ᛭ LokiClock (talk) 08:41, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

And an on-topic note... sharks have eyes. Also, they have numerous other senses. So how could Levi flights be relevant here? This species of shark likes to follow tuna, so even if it is confirmed that it displays this motion, how do you know that its not just following the tuna schools levi flight or brownian motion? In nature, and with the senses the shark has, im sure there will always be a smell or sight or sound or whatever sensory information that will be more interesting for the shark than to follow levi flight or brownian motion, even if it only stays within water that is in the appropriate temperature range for this species. 79.230.51.101 (talk) 00:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Having senses - including vision - does not preclude an animal from using Levy flight as a strategy to find prey. Rlendog (talk) 13:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

just a random note, hoping that someone sees this and fixes it. the picture linked in this article showing the tunas is upside down. This is why it looks so strange. I noticed because of the upside down dolphin in the picture, okay dolphins do this, but the apparently random bubbles near the bottom left of the picture that turn into a view of the surface of the water from below if you rotate the picture by 180 degrees prove it. Also, tuna normally do not swim upside down, maybe in the gulf of mexico they now do, but this is a temporary phenomenon due to the oil spill and its increased toxicity because of the dispersants, which are themselves toxic and allow the oil to get into tissues which would normally be safe against oil because they are hydrophilic, like gills. 79.230.55.182 (talk) 00:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, definitely upside down, the uploader could probably change it.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

It's been changed.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 19:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)