Fishes of the Western North Atlantic 343 



write of it in more than the most general terms because of the uncertainty in many cases 

 as to whether published records referred to it, to longimanus or to obscurus, or to a com- 

 bination of these three.'" Locality records for it that can be accepted as reasonably sup- 

 ported by description or other information locate its center of abundance in the West In- 

 dian-Caribbean region, no doubt including the southern part of the Gulf of Mexico; it is 

 reported from Cayenne (probably), French Guiana, the Antilles" (see Study Material, 

 P- 337)j Cuba, Porto Rico (probably), the Bahamas, Colon (probably), from the Pan- 

 ama Canal, from Lake Yzabal, Guatemala; and from many localities on both coasts of 

 southern Florida, where It is certainly one of the more common of the larger sharks inshore 

 and one with which commercial fishermen and anglers are far more familiar than might 

 be expected from the meager scientific records. In fact, we would hazard the guess that 

 more of this species are caught there from wharves, etc., than of any other large shark. 



To the southward it is no doubt distributed generally along the South American 

 coast as far as southern Brazil, being positively known from Para and Rio de Janeiro. Avail- 

 able information also suggests that this is the most numerous shark in shoal water around 

 Bermuda. In southern Florida it is resident throughout the year, but perhaps not north 

 of Cape Romaine, for it is not seen at Englewood (Lat. about 27° N.) in December, Janu- 

 ary or February although well known there during the warmer months. To the north- 

 ward in the Gulf of Mexico it has been described similarly as the commonest large shark 

 in summer on the Texas coast near Galveston ; it has been encountered off Biloxi, on the 

 north shore of the Gulf in July," and has even been reported in fresh water in Louisiana, 

 as noted above (p. 341). Also, it has been described, nominally at least, as moderately 

 common near Charleston, South Carolina. But seemingly it does not range much farther 

 north than this with any frequency, for while eleven large ones were reported as caught 

 near Morehead City in July and August of 1 930, only three specimens had been definitely 

 reported for the North Carolina coast up to 1916,^^ although a rather productive shark 

 fishery had been carried on there for some years previously. Moreover, some or all of 

 these may have been longimanus, milberti or obscurus. Evidently it occurs only as a stray 

 along the sector thence northward as far as New York, where the only report ostensibly 

 referring to it is of one New Jersey specimen." Perhaps it visits the stretch of coast east of 

 New York oftener, for it has been described as uncommon along Long Island,'' but there 

 is no way of knowing how many of the captures on which this characterization was based 

 were leucas, or obscurus, while the single published report of its presence farther east is 

 based only on a photograph of a specimen about five feet long, supposedly of this species, 

 taken at Woods Hole." 



30. On this, see p. 361 under longimanus, and p. 38S under obscurus. 



31. The Eulamia flatyodon reported froni Jamaica by Fowler (Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad., 7/, 1919: 146) 

 appears to have been some other species, for its teeth were described as narrow and the lowers as "entire." 



32. Personal communication from Stewart Springer. 33. Radcliffe, Bull. U.S. Bur. Fish., 3^, 1916: 261. 



34. Fowler (Proc. biol. Soc. Wash., 55, 1920: 144, footnote 2) states that a shark earlier reported from the Dela- 

 ware River by him as obscurus (Rep. N. J. Mus. [1907], 190S: 12) was actually commersonii, i.e., leucas. 



35. Nichols, Bull. Amer. Mus. nat. Hist., 37, 1917: 873; Copeia, 140, 1925: 21. 



36. Nichols and Breder, Zoologica, N. Y., 9, 1927: 16. 



