FISHERY BULLETIN OF THE FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 



ment of its authors. I would not have attempted 

 preparation of this report. Dr. Richard H. 

 Backus of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institu- 

 tion, Dr. Cxiles AV. Mead of the U.S. Fish and 

 Wildlife Service, and Dr. Leonard P. Schultz of 

 the U.S. National Museum made many helpful 

 suggestions during the preparation of this report. 

 Captain B. W. Winkler was especially helpful in 

 keeping fishing logs and measurements of about 

 1,300 large sharks he took off the Bahama Banks 

 and off Nicaragua. Records obtained while I was 

 employed by the Shark Industries Division of 

 the Borden Company and while I was aboard the 

 exploratory fishing vessel Oregon of the Fish and 

 Wildlife Service comprise the basic data used 

 here. Special assistance was given me also by the 

 Lerner Marine Laboratory of the American Mu- 

 seum of Natural History, by permitting 2 months 

 of field study at Bimini, Bahamas, in the summer 

 of 1948. In all my work with sharks, I have been 

 given the most generous help by my associates in 

 commercial shark fishing and aboard exploratory 

 fishing vessels. 



NOMENCLATURE 



This report is not intended to settle problems 

 of nomenclature and taxonomy, but to be useful 

 it is necessary to name the sharks under discus- 

 sion and to define the names used. My choice of 

 a name for the sandbar shark is Eulamia miJhertl 

 (Miiller and Henle) 1841. Use of Eulamia fol- 

 lows my partial revision of the carcharhinids 

 (Springer, 19.50). For the specific name milherti 

 I follow Bigelow and Schroeder (1948) who note 

 that, if it is finally proved that the ^Mediterranean 

 form is identical with the American, the name 

 pJumbeus Nardo 1827, must be used for the com- 

 bined species in place of milherti. 



I disagree, however, with Fowler (1936), with 

 the preceding statement l)y Bigelow and Sclirne- 

 der, and witli Toi-tonese (19.51, 19.5(i) that Nardo's 

 description is valid. The description by Nardo 

 would api)ly to almost any carcharhinid and the 

 specific mention of the rounded snout ' would 

 apply better to some other carcharhinids than to 

 the sandbar shark. Because there is no type and 

 because Nardo's description would apply to al- 



1 The total description .Tnd dinpnosis of ^(jtinltin i>lunihriis liy 

 Nardo, 1827. p. 35, is as follows : "Speeiei seciindae eonvenit 

 exacte Squal. Glaucim. Bloc, si color exciperetiir I't fiiini:i 

 Toatri quae in exemplar! nostro rotunda est." 



most any carcharhinid if applied liberally but 

 to none if applied strictly, I regard Squahis 

 plumbeus as a nomen nudem. 



I am also unable to acce^rt Nardo's description 

 as .specifically applicable to the sandbar shark 

 based on the argument that the sandbar shark is 

 the mo.st common large carcharhinid of the 

 Adriatic. 



A most extraordinary snarl has developed over 

 the years in tlie determination of the scientific 

 name to be applied to the sandbar shark. The 

 origin of this complication probably lies in the 

 peculiarities of the distribution of species of 

 carcharhinid sharks along the Atlantic coast of 

 the Ignited States. Mistakes in identification of 

 specimens have been frequent, probably because 

 the descriptive accounts of the early authors were 

 very brief and did not select truly diagnostic 

 features for emphasis. Systematists had too few 

 specimens and too little data on distribution to 

 note that segregation of the sexes and segregation 

 of the adults and young characterized these 

 sharks at some seasons. 



In the latitudes from New York to Chesapeake 

 Bay at depths wnthin easy reach of collectors or 

 fishermen, two common large carcharhinid sharks 

 occur, the sandbar shark, E. milherti (Miiller and 

 Henle), and the bull shark, Oarcharhimts leucas 

 (Miiller and Henle). The sandbar shark is rep- 

 resented in this area by adult females and by the 

 young of both sexes, but rarely by adult males in 

 the observable elements of the population. The 

 hull shark is represented usualJy by adult males, 

 but females and young are also present sporadi- 

 cally. - 



The ranges of the sandbar shark and the bull 

 shark will be discussed later as well as the ap- 

 parent competition between these species. An 

 effect of the occurrence of the two species to- 



^LarKP male Carrhnrhinux leucas were reported from the 

 Chesapeake Bay area by Schwartz (19.58) : one was taken from 

 the Patnxent River in 1957 and another at Flag Pond in the 

 summer of 1958. This is apparently the first published report 

 of the species from Chesapeake Bay. Specimens of large sharks 

 came to the attention of Edgar H. Hollis. of the Maryland De- 

 partment of Tidewater Fisheries in 1957, because Chesapeake 

 flshermeii regarded them as rarities. Photographs of the speci- 

 mens sent me by Mr. Hollis were sufficient to permit Identifica- 

 tion as C. leiicns. Nichols (1918) and Nichols and Breder 

 (1927) reported C. leucas from the south shore of Long Island, 

 noting that these specimens were large males. Attention Is 

 called to this parenthetically because the appearance of adult 

 males at the periphery or in the cooler parts of ranges of 

 carcharhinid sharks is frequent. 



