The Jiatural History of the Frilled Shar\ 257 



White. There is some slight uncertainty as to whether four of these sharks came from 

 Japan, though the evidence favors this source. Of the 39 fish recorded in Doctor Dean's 

 notebooks, 4 adults and 6 embryos are also listed in Table II. Therefore, this reduces the 

 total number of recorded specimens from 86 to 76. Nishikawa and Goto dissected num' 

 bers of the fish, while Owston and other dealers for years supplied specimens — some of 

 which undoubtedly are among the fish listed in Tables I and II. 



In conclusion it may be said that so far as our investigations go (and we have searched 

 the literature minutely) there are no captures on record for regions other than those listed 

 above, and no captures in extrajapanese waters other than those given. However, it 

 may be noted that David G. Stead gave an oral report before the Linnaean Society of New 

 South Wales in 1907 on the remains (a skull and about 150 vertebrae) of a ten-foot shark, 

 which had come ashore at Port Jackson, Sydney Harbor, and which he believed to have 

 been Chlamydoselachus. But the latest and fullest check'list of Australian fishes (1929) 

 has no reference to this fish, so the identification may be considered erroneous. 



As stated above, with a single exception (Collett's Norwegian specimen), all the 

 known Chlamydoselachus material dissected for anatomical study has come from 

 Japan. As will be shown later, all museum specimens, with the exception of the eastern 

 Atlantic examples listed in European museums, have come from Japan. The eastern coast 

 of Japan — especially Tokyo and Sagami Bays — is still the only dependable source of 

 supply of this archaic fish. 



DEPTHS AT WHICH CHLAMYDOSELACHUS 

 HAS BEEN TAKEN. 



Intimately connected with the matter of geographical distribution is that of the 

 vertical distribution — the depths at which Chlamydoselachus has been taken. Some of 

 these depths have been incidentally noted. In this section we have brought together all 

 the available data. 



It is well known that sharks are mainly littoral forms or surface-dwelling (pelagic) 

 fishes out at sea. However, some sharks are deep-water forms and among these Chlamy- 

 doselachus undoubtedly belongs. From the structure of his specimen (especially from the 

 small si2;e of the spiracle), Garman, for whose fish no depths could be noted, conjectured 

 that it was probably descended from a bottom-dwelling form. Giinther noted that 

 his specimens were taken in "deep water'' in Tokyo Bay, but apparently did not have 

 records of even approximate depths. Nishikawa (1898), who ought to have given the 

 depths, which he probably knew, merely said ''brought up from the deep." Doctor Dean's 

 notes, made in Misaki, give us more definite information. He referred to examples from 

 200 fathoms and to Kuma's fishing off Odawara at "depths from 300-600 fathoms" 

 (1800 to 3600 ft.). Elsewhere he listed specimens taken at depths of from 80 to 500 hiro. 

 As explained elsewhere, a hiro is the Japanese measure of a fishing line held between the 

 outstretched hands, and since the Japanese are men of rather small stature this is about 

 five feet — their fathom. Hence these depths varied from 400 to 2500 feet. 



