414 



Fishery Bulletin 93(2), 1995 



as a size range rather than as a specific length. An 

 individual author's definition of maturity is some- 

 times ambiguous or obscure. The sizes at maturity 

 (Table 2) are from multiple reference sources and 

 therefore may be mixed in definition and criteria. 

 The original published sources should be consulted 

 as the basis for defining sexual maturity among dif- 

 ferent authors. 



An attempt was made to obtain samples represen- 

 tative of the full size range of each species. The mini- 

 mum, maximum, and mean lengths and weights by 

 species of sharks examined in this study are reported 

 (Tables 1 and 2). A reliable maximum size is difficult 

 to verify. Lengths or weights, or both, for large fish 



are often reported inaccurately and published ac- 

 counts usually qualify maximum lengths with such 

 words as "probably reach," "possibly to," or "may grow 

 up to." Maximum lengths (FL) reported in Pratt and 

 Casey (1990) are included for comparison with the 

 sizes measured in this study (Table 2). With the ex- 

 ception of the porbeagle and the tiger shark, our data 

 are within 62 cm (2 ft) of published maximum sizes. 

 The porbeagle shark is less common in our study 

 area; fewer specimens were examined (<30), and 

 therefore the full size range of this species is not rep- 

 resented. Although the tiger shark is purported 

 worldwide to grow to 469 cm FL (15.4 ft) (Castro, 

 1983; Compagno, 1984; Pratt and Casey, 1990), 



