taxonomy -- Galeocerdo

[John M]

Does Galeoerdo (Tiger shark) belong with the rest of the Requiem sharks (Carcharhinidae) or should it be in a family of its own in the Carcharhiniformes, (ground shark). Consider their short wide face, broad can-opener teeth, unique for requiems aplacental viviparous (ovoviviparous) reproduction and apparently methodical rather than frenzied feeding.

I'm not a shark expert although I am interested in the subject. Taxonomic reason is however one of my biological pursuits.

 

[Hercules Rockefeller]

They’re pretty specific questions. There are a few posters around (past and present) who seem to know a bit about taxonomy and cladistics, but I have never seen anyone post here with a speciality in shark taxonomy. Does this help.......?

http://www.elasmodiver.com/elasmobranch_taxonomy.htm

 

[synthesizer-patel]

John.

Your quite probably right and not the first to suggest it- the Tiger shark has a number of morphological and biological traits that are unique to it within the Family Carcharhinidae, several of which you pointed out.
I beleive some taxonomists already place it in a sub-family of the Carcharhinidae, the Galeocerdidae - although this isnt widely accepted at present.

I work with a couple of shark biologists - next time I see them I'll ask them what they think

if you're interested, the University of Michigan have a rather good taxonomy search engine on their site:

http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/index.html

 

[synthesizer-patel]

My shark biologist colleague has been away tagging sharks in the Bahamas for the last few weeks (lucky bastard!) so I only got o ask him about this a few days ago.

He's in agreement that there would have been a decent case for putting Tiger sharks in their own sub-family or family based on morphological differences alone, but isnt aware of any genomic studies that might confirm its place in the shark taxonomy - and that's how they do things these days- until that happens its going to stay where it is.