Historical knowledge of sharks: ancient science, earliest American encounters, and American science, fisheries, and utilization

In western civilization, the knowledge of the elasmobranch or selachian fishes (sharks and rays) begins with Aristotle (384–322 B.C.). Two of his extant works, the “Historia Animalium” and the “Generation of Animals,” both written about 330 B.C., demonstrate knowledge of elasmobranch fishes acquired by observation. Roman writers of works on natural history, such as Aelian and Pliny, who followed Aristotle, were compilers of available information. Their contribution was that they prevented the Greek knowledge from being lost, but they added few original observations. The fall of Rome, around 476 A.D., brought a period of economic regression and political chaos. These in turn brought intellectual thought to a standstill for nearly one thousand years, the period known as the Dark Ages. It would not be until the middle of the sixteenth century, well into the Renaissance, that knowledge of elasmobranchs would advance again. The works of Belon, Salviani, Rondelet, and Steno mark the beginnings of ichthyology, including the study of sharks and rays. The knowledge of sharks and rays increased slowly during and after the Renaissance, and the introduction of the Linnaean System of Nomenclature in 1735 marks the beginning of modern ichthyology. However, the first major work on sharks would not appear until the early nineteenth century. Knowledge acquired about sea animals usually follows their economic importance and exploitation, and this was also true with sharks. The first to learn about sharks in North America were the native fishermen who learned how, when, and where to catch them for food or for their oils. The early naturalists in America studied the land animals and plants; they had little interest in sharks. When faunistic works on fishes started to appear, naturalists just enumerated the species of sharks that they could discern. Throughout the U.S. colonial period, sharks were seldom utilized for food, although their liver oil or skins were often utilized. Throughout the nineteenth century, the Spiny Dogfish, Squalus acanthias, was the only shark species utilized in a large scale on both coasts. It was fished for its liver oil, which was used as a lubricant, and for lighting and tanning, and for its skin which was used as an abrasive. During the early part of the twentieth century, the Ocean Leather Company was started to process sea animals (primarily sharks) into leather, oil, fertilizer, fins, etc. The Ocean Leather Company enjoyed a monopoly on the shark leather industry for several decades. In 1937, the liver of the Soupfin Shark, Galeorhinus galeus, was found to be a rich source of vitamin A, and because the outbreak of World War II in 1938 interrupted the shipping of vitamin A from European sources, an intensive shark fishery soon developed along the U.S. West Coast. By 1939 the American shark leather fishery had transformed into the shark liver oil fishery of the early 1940’s, encompassing both coasts. By the late 1940’s, these fisheries were depleted because of overfishing and fishing in the nursery areas. Synthetic vitamin A appeared on the market in 1950, causing the fishery to be discontinued. During World War II, shark attacks on the survivors of sunken ships and downed aviators engendered the search for a shark repellent. This led to research aimed at understanding shark behavior and the sensory biology of sharks. From the late 1950’s to the 1980’s, funding from the Office of Naval Research was responsible for most of what was learned about the sensory biology of sharks.

Latitudinal and seasonal egg-size variation of the anchoveta (Engraulis ringens) off the Chilean coast

The anchoveta Engraulis ringens is widely distributed along the eastern South Pacific (from 4° to 42°S; Serra et al., 1979) and it has also supported one of the largest fisheries of the world over the last four decades. However, there are few interpopulation comparisons for either the adult or the younger stages. Reproductive traits, such as fecundity or spawning season length, are known to vary with latitude for some fish species (Blaxter and Hunter, 1982; Conover, 1990; Fleming and Gross, 1990; Castro and Cowen, 1991), and latitudinal trends for some early life history traits, such as egg size and larval growth rates, have been reported for others clupeiforms and other fishes (Blaxter and Hempel, 1963; Ciechomski, 1973; Imai and Tanaka, 1987, Conover 1990, Houde 1989). However, there is no published information on potential latitudinal trends during the adult or the early life history of the anchoveta, even though this type of information may help in understanding recruitment variability, especially during recurring large scale events (such as El Niño or La Niña) that affect the entire species range.

Diel vertical migration of the bigeye thresher shark (Alopias superciliosus), a species possessing orbital retia mirabilia

The bigeye thresher shark (Alopias superciliosus, Lowe 1841) is one of three sharks in the family Alopiidae, which occupy pelagic, neritic, and shallow coastal waters throughout the altropics and subtropics (Gruber and Compagno, 1981; Castro, 1983). All thresher sharks possess an elongated upper caudal lobe, and the bigeye thresher shark is distinguished from the other alopiid sharks by its large upward-looking eyes and grooves on the top of the head (Bigelow and Schroeder, 1948). Our present understanding of the bigeye thresher shark is primarily based upon data derived from specimens captured in fisheries, including knowledge of its morphological features (Fitch and Craig, 1964; Stillwell and Casey, 1976; Thorpe, 1997), geographic range as far as it overlaps with fisheries (Springer, 1943; Fitch and Craig, 1964; Stillwell and Casey, 1976; Gruber and Compagno, 1981; Thorpe, 1997), age, growth and maturity (Chen et al., 1997; Liu et al., 1998), and aspects of its reproductive biology (Gilmore, 1983; Moreno and Moron, 1992; Chen et al., 1997).

Larvae of Dactylopsaron dimorphicum (Perciformes: Percophidae) from oceanic islands in the southeast Pacific

Percophids are a family of small marine benthic fishes common over soft bottoms from inshore to the outer slopes in tropical to temperate regions of the Atlantic and in the Indo-West and southeast Pacific (Reader and Neira, 1998; Okiyama, 2000). Five species belonging to four genera have been recorded around the Salas y Gómez Ridge in the southeast Pacific, all of which are endemic to the area except for Chrionema chryseres, a species which also occurs off the Hawaiian Islands and Japan (Parin, 1985, 1990; Parin et al., 1997). Of these five species, larval stages have been described only for Osopsaron karlik and Chrionema pallidum (Belyanina 1989, 1990).

Estudio morfológico y taxonómico de los ampulláridos de la República Argentina: Maria Isabel Hylton Scott. [tomado de la Revista del Museo Argentino de Ciencias Naturales “Bernardino Rivadavia”, Ciencias Zoologicas, Tomo III, nº 5, 1957.]

Corría 1968. Yo era un estudiante enamorado de las ampularias, y alguien me regaló una separata del trabajo de María Isabel Hylton Scott titulado “Estudio morfológico y taxonómico de los ampulláridos de la República Argentina”. Hoy soy un profesor e investigador jubilado, … enamorado de las ampularias ¿Qué pasó en el medio? Por diversas circunstancias de mi vida comencé mi carrera estudiando roedores. Pero como canta un tango, “siempre se vuelve al primer amor” y dos décadas después (hacia 1990) conseguí algo de financiación para estudiar uno de estos extraordinarios animales: Pomacea canaliculata. Esto fue para mí un nuevo comienzo: poco a poco fui dejando mis estudios en ratones silvestres, y formando un grupo dedicado a esta ampularia ¡Fue un cambio de phylum! Pecado difícilmente perdonable en un ambiente científico cada vez más competitivo, pero que me llenó de satisfacción, por lo que me felicito de haberlo cometido. Desde entonces he dirigido a siete doctorandos en distintos aspectos de la morfología y la ecofisiología de este animal (Albrecht, 1998; Vega, 2005; Gamarra-Luques, 2007; Koch, 2008; Giraud-Billoud, 2009; Cueto, 2011; Giraud-Billoud, 2011), y sus tesis tienen al menos dos cosas en común: P. canaliculata casi siempre en el título, y el trabajo de Hylton Scott (1957) siempre citado en la bibliografía. Ella, “la doctora”, la “decana de los zoólogos argentinos” (como escribió Cazzaniga, 1991) fue para nosotros, atrevidos que no la conocimos personalmente, a quien llamábamos por sobrenombre “Doña Marisa”, y lo seguimos haciendo. Lo sigo haciendo yo, porque aunque jubilado “en los papeles”, sigo trabajando detrás de sus pasos. Hoy tengo un doctorando (C. Rodríguez) trabajando en P. canaliculata , el octavo de mis tesistas en esta especie, y deseo que no sea el último. Una revisión de la biología de ampuláridos actualmente en prensa en Malacologia (Hayes et al., 2015) cita repetidas veces el trabajo que hoy reedita ProBiota. Los autores provienen de un amplio “mundo”, porque “el mundo” de los ampuláridos se ha extendido antropocóricamente a lo que hoy es Estados Unidos, Europa, China y Japón. Esto no lo podría haber soñado Doña Marisa cuando comenzó sus pacientes estudios de la embriología de P. canaliculata hace ochenta años (Hylton Scott, 1934). Y si algún cientómetra quisiera calcular la vida media de sus citas, se encontraría con algo sorprendente: que la curva temporal de éstas no va decayendo ¡sino creciendo! Hoy no puedo imaginarme a mí mismo, como investigador, si no me hubiera topado con esa separata de cien páginas, escritas en un castellano elegante y hoy amarillentas, a las que guardo como un tesoro (porque las que usamos son sus fotocopias). Por eso, al acercarse los 25 años de la muerte de esta gran cordobesa (y platense por adopción) le propuse a mi amigo Hugo L. López esta reedición, que el aceptó con entusiasmo. Y también le propuse a mi alumno G. I. Prieto, excelente dibujante, que le diera nueva vida a una vieja foto de Doña Marisa que fue publicada por Cazzaniga (1992). Los que conocieron a “la doctora” personalmente, podrán decir si Prieto logró revivir su penetrante mirada. Creo que sí. Alfredo Castro-Vazquez