This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Phorofor(talk | contribs) at 19:59, 9 December 2011(Sand tiger vs Sand tiger shark). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 19:59, 9 December 2011 by Phorofor(talk | contribs)(Sand tiger vs Sand tiger shark)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sharks, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sharks on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SharksWikipedia:WikiProject SharksTemplate:WikiProject Sharksshark articles
This article is being actively worked on as a Fall 2011 / Spring 2012 educational assignment: Wikipedia:WikiProject AP Biology 2011. We invite you to join us to make further improvements and changes. We are not claiming any sort of ownership. This is a project in collaboration.
An article on the Eastern Grey Nurse Shark in the Life supplement of The Guardian, from 17th February, records the gestation period as about twelve months, but also points out that no one is quite sure how long it takes. Chenxlee 16:32, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I don't understand. You're saying we call it Sand Tiger Shark but the article is at Grey Nurse Shark. Shouldn't it be moved to Sand Tiger? --67.162.31.148 (talk) 01:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying, as per the article, it is called grey nurse in Australia, spotted ragged-tooth in Africa and sand tiger in the US and UK, all is correct, wikipedia is international and WP:FISH have stated that we should use then name that fishbase uses, fish base calls this shark grey nurse shark so therefore the page is correctly named, sand tiger and spotted ragged-tooth both have redirect. --Stefantalk02:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jesus, you clearly have no clue what you're saying. First you say that fishbase calls it a sand tiger (which it does) , and then you turn right around and say fishbase calls it a grey nurse (which it does not). The article is incorrectly titled and sand tiger should be used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.109.15.202 (talk) 17:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fishbase seems to refer to it as the Sand Tiger Shark on my computer though. I don't understand, has fishbase changed the name since that's what fishbase uses? I'm so confused... --JohnVMaster (talk) 01:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Nobody calls this fish a 'grey nurse shark' outside australia. 'Sand tiger shark' is a much more internationally common name. Before seeing this article I wouldn't have had a clue what a 'grey nurse shark' referred to, despite being perfectly familiar with sand tigers. This could easily confuse people. If there's even a policy about naming according to fishbase which hasn't been followed, why hasn't this article been moved? 86.26.78.54 (talk) 09:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Discovery channel sources put Odontaspis as the genus for this shark, rather than charcharias. Is this simply a difference in opinion or a change in taxonomy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.74.232 (talk) 05:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Many species are being moved or debated on where they belong in the taxonomy tree. In wikipedia we use fishbase, see reference in the article, as our main source for fish taxonomy, what is correct is not obvious. Changes in taxonomy happen very slowly, and I doubt there is an entity that everyone accepts as being the 'correct'. So as to answer your question, yes, both difference in opinion and possibly a change happening that is not accepted by fishbase yet. --Stefantalk06:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article should be under Sand tiger shark rather than grey nurse according to the fishbase rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.219.5.241 (talk) 10:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I think it should not evem be a shark[reply]
I dispute the claims that the shark is "not aggressive unless provoked." The international shark attack file has instances of unprovoked attacks, including fatal attacks. In South Africa, especially in the "raggie" has a reputation for being aggressive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.226.104.225 (talk) 15:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Citations
I formatted the reference section and it is set up for books if you use any. However, the original citations are all over the place. Many are just web addresses. You will need to insert the "cite web template", then follow the actual link to complete the required information. This will take time. If you are not comfortable with the web resources that were there, then delete the citation and attempt to cite the info from another source. There is a section I called Additional reading which consist of random web links not in the actual text. Either use them - thus moving them under references or delete them completely.--JimmyButler (talk) 03:15, 22 October 2011
Okay, I will work on all of the original citations this weekend. Some of them are not legitimate, so I'll probably end up deleting those. All of the rest of the useful sources I will convert. Also, the reason why I added the external links/additional reading area is to keep the sources at hand for future use just to save time. I will delete them now and bookmark the sites instead on my computer. Thank you so much for the help, I was going to ask you about the unformatted sources on Monday. This saves me a lot of time. --UND77 (talk) 23:19, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Range description
The range map is very good. The range description is very uneven in detail. Three particular sightings for Canada and a very sweeping statement for the Pacific ocean. I think it would be a good idea to describe the map. There is a limited number of coastlines marked. The source of the map could then be the source cited for the text. --Ettrig (talk) 09:36, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The description section seemed to deviate adequately from the source, these sections tend to be difficult to re-write. The use of "Lastly" was just illogical ... in this case not copy/paste and thus placing it out of context. Although students do blunder like that frequently - a dead give away for plagerism. I did find this; which I assumed plagiarized Wikipedia and not the other way around!
Description: Sand tigers have many features that distinguish them from other shark species. Their mouth extends beyond their eyes, and they usually swim with their mouth open. Their snout is flattened with a conical shape and their body is stout and rather bulky, with two large dorsal fins that are almost equal in size. The tail is elongated andhas a long upper lobe, and the dorsal fins are set back almost beyond the pectorial fins. The pectoral fins are triangular, and the tail is almost one-third as long as the head of the shark. The Sand tiger shark's head is rather pointy, not round and the teeth are smooth edged and sharp-pointed. People normally associate the Sand tigers with the demeanor of being vicious because of their teeth protrude from their mouths when their jaws are closed; however, they are generally quite harmless. The Sand tiger shark usually has a grey back and white underside. It also has grey dorsal fins.Biological Profile
This has to be a first.. a students paper being plagiarized by another entity and not the other way! We are making history here. Thanks for the list; students seemed to perform well when the problems are defined. I of course look to see if they ignore them... let us hope this will not be the case.--JimmyButler (talk) 23:07, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the article Smalltooth sand tiger can be an inspiration to this article. It is GA. It is about one of the other three species in the family. It might have citations of sources that are also relevant to this species. --Ettrig (talk) 17:00, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The sand tiger shark enjoys hunting in the surf of waters. Attributing a human emotional state to an animal is a common mistake. Even under carefully controlled experiments, it is difficult for behavioral biologist to attribute an emotion with an action. Typically humans draw conclusion based on their own perspectives of emotion. For example, dolphins are happy = they are always smiling. The fact that their mouth is fixed into a perpetual grin may lead us to wrong conclusions. My cat loves me, he is rubbing my legs - nope - he is marking territory with scent glands in his checks. I would like to think the shark enjoys hunting in the surf; however, I suspect the shark feels no emotion - happy or sad - in this endeavor. The term is Anthropomorphism. I'll teach this when we cover animal behavior. Bottlenose dolphin--JimmyButler (talk) 23:23, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was actually curious about this. I thought that because cats, dogs, etc. seemed to have enjoyments, every animal was that way. That is very interesting. Thank you for the clarification. I changed all the occurrences of it. --UND77 (talk) 00:14, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Excerpt from cat communication: Touching noses is a friendly greeting for cats, while a lowered head is a sign of submission. Some cats will rub their faces along their guardian's cheek, hands, or ankles as a friendly greeting or sign of affection. This action is also sometimes a way of "marking their territory", leaving a scent from the scent glands located in the cat's cheeks. More commonly, a cat will do a "head bonk" (or "bunt"), i.e., bump someone with the front part of its head to express affection.[1]
Sand tiger sharks will often shelter in caves or gutters during the day. I must confess my ignorance. What is a gutter, I'm guessing not the place that the hapless and homeless end up when they are destitute as in "Jimmy if you don't straighten up you'll end up living in the gutter" (Granpa, 1977).
I was going to ask you for a review tomorrow, I have to import a few flickr photos because the Wikimedia Commons is lacking. I think the article is ready for some tweaking. The lead is yet to established of course. So, other than the lead and the photos it appears to be ready. Thank you so much!--UND77 (talk) 00:14, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
reference alignment with facts in paper
"You" state: (feeding in surf zone) has caused many instances of accidental attacks upon humans. . This is not documented in the reference you cite; it fact it contradicts your reference which actually states: Despite this, they are a docile, non-aggressive species, known to attack humans only when bothered first. ---> From National Geographic reference.I will attempt a teacher review soon - you are behind the Greater Scaup. --JimmyButler (talk) 03:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Humans do not generally serve the Sand tiger as a diet resource, however, the shark has been know to attack a few humans. I found myself making numerous edits, as I attempt to increase verbal efficiency. See here for examples. You seem to rely on a lot of weasel words --- words you can't pin down as wrong such as "few" and "many". These terms are open to opinion and thus useless. This sentence is typical of what I am seeing.
I will read through the article extremely carefully, and make sure that the weasel words won't be in there. Sorry about that, I really have to separate my English writing from my Scientific writing. I will try not to make the same mistakes. --UND77 (talk) 17:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than build my own portfolio; I'll request that you give it a once through and remove any words or phrasing that only increase word count, without increasing accuracy or clarity. I'll check back when you've indicated "done".--JimmyButler (talk) 20:11, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Some comments
General
In the middle of a sentence, it's "sand tiger", not "Sand tiger".
The sequence of events here isn't quite right. For example:
Triglochis and Eugomphodus are genus names, not species names. Thus, Muller and Henle's proposed name was Triglochis taurus.
ICZN Opinion 47 gave precedence to Carcharias. By seeking to repeal it, Tucker, White, and Marshall actually wanted Odontaspis to be the genus name, and the request was approved by the ICZN.
The name Compagno first proposed was Eugomphodus taurus (see above). He was largely responsible for reverting the name back to Carcharias taurus (ICZN Opinion 1459).
Information about attacks on humans should be put separately, because these are not part of the natural history of the shark and are thus a completely different topic.
Humans do not serve the sand tiger as a diet resource. I think this is the line... humans do not serve as a dietary source for any sharks; this best addresses "threats to humans".--JimmyButler (talk) 19:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is information on social behavior in this species as well, for example their "tail slapping" behavior.
I have seen evidence of the Great white, Thresher, and Dusky shark having the "tail slapping" behavior, but not the sand tiger. --UND77 (talk) 22:31, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"many roam just for pleasure and fish" -- Don't assign human motivations ("pleasure") to animals.
DONE, I tried to find as much as I could on this subject. The information given seemed pretty straight-forward, there was not much elaboration to be done. --UND77 (talk) 22:47, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reproduction
What are some mating behaviors? This has been observed in captivity.
The sequence of events during gestation is a bit simplified. Multiple embryos develop in each uterus, and the dominant embryo kills and eats the others. Thus, there is only ever one embryo brought to term per uterus (up to two total), and this species exhibits both ovophagy and sibling cannibalism. It's the only shark known to do this.
Thank you! That clears the confusion of the process. Also, is there a resource that states that the sand tiger is the only known shark to do this type of reproduction. I have read many articles on this, but I have yet to find that fact. --UND77 (talk) 17:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are two different figures given for age of maturity, at the beginning of the section and at the end.
How often are litters produced? Where and when are the young born? What's the pattern of growth through life? What's the maximum lifespan?
The sand tiger shark must reach a status of sexual maturity before mating This statement seems so obvious; that is not worth stating; do other sharks mate before they are sexually mature?
Thank you so much for responding. This is a fantastic help. I will try to sort through these suggestions, and get them done. If any questions arise, I will be sure to ask them. Hopefully, this article can become a true success. Thanks again! --UND77 (talk) 17:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The lead is suppose to be a summary of the article. References are not required in the lead(unless the material is contentious) but go into the body of the article. Regards, SunCreator(talk)14:50, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I was saving the lead for last, so that is why it was not tend to. I will be sure to edit the reference out of the lead. --UND77 (talk) 03:41, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note the wording above. References are not required. References are allowed. I prefer without, personally. But don't fret over this one. --Ettrig (talk) 06:05, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Two behaviors set the sand tiger apart from other sharks: its method of reproduction and its ability to gulp air from the surface to allow it to float effortlessly throughout the water." I've got so many problems with that sentence. First of all, the Description section says that "Sand tigers have many features that distinguish them from other shark species", but here we're told there are only two. Secondly, in what sense is its method of reproduction a behavior? And thirdly, what does "float effortlessly throughout the water" mean?
"It also dwells in the waters of Japan, Australia, South Africa, Great Britain, and Scandinavia". The range map doesn't show it in either the waters around the UK or Scandinavia.
"However, many taxonomists and experts question his change saying that there is not a significant difference between Odontaspis and Carcharias. However, after changing the name to "Eugomphodus taurus" ...". Need to do something about that "However ... However"; "however" is a much overused word.
"He proposed the name because it fit best to the characteristics of the shark because "Carcharias taurus" means ...". Similarly here, "because ... because". And what do you think of "fit best"? I don't think much of it. "Best fitted the characteristics ..."?
"However, biologists observed that the sand tiger swallows their prey whole 93.7 percent of the time". Another one of those "howevers", but more importantly, "the sand tiger swallows their prey"?
I've got another problem with this sentence, which is to do with the statement that sand tiger sharks swallow their prey whole 93.7% of the time. First of all, biologists haven't observed all sand tigers, just a sample of them, so all that can be said is that among that sample prey was swallowed whole 93.7% of the time. Secondly, the precision to one decimal place seems absurd to me; surely the point is that biologists have observed that sand tigers almost always swallow their prey whole; if this study was to be repeated, what do you think the chance of coming up with 93.7% again would be? Zero? MalleusFatuorum22:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How do you reconcile these two apparently contradictory statements: "The sand tiger has not been known to attack humans unless provoked ... There have been twenty-nine unprovoked attacks."
"These estuaries are very susceptible to point source pollution that can be extremely harmful to the pups." What the source says is "juvenile sand tiger sharks are commonly found in estuaries of the eastern U.S. that are susceptible to non-point source pollution." (My emphasis.)
"These teeth are very unique to this species of shark" hum, is there any sharks or any other species for that matter that does not have unique teeth?? I think I understand the point that is trying to be made, but I think it should be reworded??
And here's my additional suggestion. Leave this article for a couple of days and then come back to it with fresh eyes. Try to forget it's something you've worked on and instead look at it as a regular reader coming across it for the first time would. Right now it really doesn't hang together: the sharks never attack unless provoked, but there are 29 reported cases of unprovoked attacks ... no need to rush it, take your time. MalleusFatuorum03:16, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will definetely do that. I just need to take my time. Of all the edits I have done, have I done them correctly? Do they make sense? Especially the unprovoked attacks edit. I tried to make it as connected as possible. Thanks for your help Malleus. I really appreciate it. --UND77 (talk) 03:37, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're doing fine, but softlee, softlee, catchee monkee. Give yourself a break of a day or two and then come back and read the article like anyone else would. MalleusFatuorum03:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if this is really an issue, but in some places you refer to it as a Sand tiger, and in others it's the Sand tiger shark. I'm not doing an animal article, so I'm not sure the rule behind this, but I suspect it might just be an issue of consistency? I just thought I'd bring this up. If it is a problem, it would just be a simple fix. Phorofor (talk) 19:59, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
