A 7-meter-long shark known as Cretoxyrhina mantelli lived amongst marine reptiles like Tylosaurus, it was also known to have hunted small to medium-sized mosasaurs as well
Bull sharks swim up rivers and can be found in some lakes. I think many people don't know that and I didn't know until adulthood. I'm not sure it's my favourite but it was the first to come to my mind.
Really ? I honestly thought that was common knowledge
Also fun fact that’s why there human attack is high as there more chance of meeting them ( due to them swimming In lakes)
"Also fun fact that’s why there human attack is high as there more chance of meeting them ( due to them swimming In lakes)"
A common refrain, and one often claimed by what should be reliable sources, but the facts don't support it.
While there have been stories of attacks in lakes and other actual freshwater bodies, they're so rare that they wouldn't have any real impact on their attack numbers. Also it's very difficult to find any substantiating documentation of any of these claimed incidents.
Example - bull shark attacks in Lake Nicaragua - there are reports of a very small number of them over the years (i found mention of 3 fatal incidents between 1850 and 1957), but little to no supporting info. Even these numbers, if confirmed, are piddly considering how much human activity happens in these waters. Amazon system? Also incredibly rare and no supporting info.
The reason for this is that the bull sharks occupying freshwater systems are primarily juveniles, heading upriver to snack on fish while avoiding predation by larger predators. These sharks not only have no interest in humans, they'd be frightened off by us.
Most bull attacks people think are in freshwater are actually in estuarine systems, in brackish or even full-salt environments. But they see 'river' or 'lake' in the name and falsely assume fresh. These would be mature specimens.
Greenland sharks can be older than 300/400 years and they reach maturity at 150 years. They are aged with identifying nuclear bomb pulse (carbon 14) from the nuclear bomb tests from 1950s
This a common myth; Sharks aren’t older than trees.
The “sharks” peddled around on popular media that came before real sharks aren’t really that closely related to sharks. Calling them sharks is like referring to mackerels as primates.
They may vaguely resemble sharks, but a closer look reveals that many of their features are vastly different from true sharks, and the two split some 400 million years ago. At least, according to experts with PhDs on the subject as well as plenty of experience.
It is also worth noting that superficial resemblance doesn’t always translate to taxonomic closeness.
flowering trees didn’t appear untill much later
In terms of ichthyology, “shark” is strictly limited to members of Selachii, whereas in terms of botany, “tree” refers to any true plant with woody parts. Bamboos, pines, etc.
Therefore, your point doesn’t really make much sense. Even if “tree” was hypothetically limited to flowering plants, they appeared around the same time as sharks and mammals, during the Jurassic.
TLDR, it is important to distinguish between pop science and academic science. The former may be simpler and more entertaining, but less factual than the latter.
Besides, sharks appearing around the same time as mammals is still a cool fact anyway, IMO.
That despite the 'official' record of 4.82 metres a Pacific Sleeper shark was caught on film off Japan that was at least 7 metres long and probably even more.
If you have ever seen the video it is awe-inspiring.
A vast wall of flesh with eyes and teeth.
It lead to an increase in the tired old bullshit that Megalodon is still extant.
My favorite shark fact is that sharks don't go into a frenzy for human blood. It's a very common misconception.
Here's my little rant on this-
So it's a myth that sharks can go into a "frenzy" if you're a human in the water and bleeding, when sharks smell human blood it CAN activate their hunting drive but its extremely low, they are more attracted to fish blood because it has certain oils in it.
It comes down to their diet, because fish are in a shark's regular diet, when they smell fish blood they know it's food. Because humans aren't in their diet, they're just neutral when they smell it.
Second part to this-
Sharks can't smell "blood in the water from miles away" while sharks have excellent sense of smell (some being able to smell from 1/4 mile away) they mostly rely on vibrations in the water to discover prey. Sharks can tell if a fish (or anything really) is struggling in the water based on vibrations, which makes them investigate. Some sharks can sense vibrations from up to a mile away!
Sharks can do this neat thing called "gastric eversion". They turn their stomach inside out, rinse it with seawater, and retract it back into its normal position. It helps get rid of fish bones and other items they can't digest.
"It is interesting to note that while over 90% of Arctic populations of the Greenland shark parasited by the copepod¹, less than 5% of the sharks encountered by GEERG researchers in the St. Lawrence² are hosts of Ommatokoita elongata."
I love Greenland shark! They’re so old and the way they eat is so interesting.
You know they believe a Greenland shark is lockness which makes sense because I can see it
Yes and no! While sharks don't have terrible eyesight- they just rely on their other senses more. The best analogy I can think of is if you have good eyesight but AMAZING smell, you're gonna use your sense of smell more than your eyes when it comes to hunting for food.
A shark can swim faster than you, but you can run faster than a shark, so in a triathlon it all comes down to who can ride a bicycle faster.
Mine is one I learned recently. I recently found out about a little sea cow.
bonnethead shark- they eat sea grass, they often mistaken for baby hammer heads.
A 7-meter-long shark known as Cretoxyrhina mantelli lived amongst marine reptiles like Tylosaurus, it was also known to have hunted small to medium-sized mosasaurs as well
Are you reading John Long’s “Secret History of Sharks”? Because I’m currently reading it and just covered that part of the late Cretaceous.
Nope, I just appreciate this shark
If I was not homeless that is one of the first books I would buy to restart my library (long and horrible story that is not the topic of this forum).
Having glanced at it in Waterstones, I suspect it would be my favourite shark book alongside 'Great White Shark' and 'The Devil's Teeth'.
Bull sharks swim up rivers and can be found in some lakes. I think many people don't know that and I didn't know until adulthood. I'm not sure it's my favourite but it was the first to come to my mind.
Really ? I honestly thought that was common knowledge Also fun fact that’s why there human attack is high as there more chance of meeting them ( due to them swimming In lakes)
"Also fun fact that’s why there human attack is high as there more chance of meeting them ( due to them swimming In lakes)"
A common refrain, and one often claimed by what should be reliable sources, but the facts don't support it.
While there have been stories of attacks in lakes and other actual freshwater bodies, they're so rare that they wouldn't have any real impact on their attack numbers. Also it's very difficult to find any substantiating documentation of any of these claimed incidents.
Example - bull shark attacks in Lake Nicaragua - there are reports of a very small number of them over the years (i found mention of 3 fatal incidents between 1850 and 1957), but little to no supporting info. Even these numbers, if confirmed, are piddly considering how much human activity happens in these waters. Amazon system? Also incredibly rare and no supporting info.
The reason for this is that the bull sharks occupying freshwater systems are primarily juveniles, heading upriver to snack on fish while avoiding predation by larger predators. These sharks not only have no interest in humans, they'd be frightened off by us.
Most bull attacks people think are in freshwater are actually in estuarine systems, in brackish or even full-salt environments. But they see 'river' or 'lake' in the name and falsely assume fresh. These would be mature specimens.
Greenland sharks can be older than 300/400 years and they reach maturity at 150 years. They are aged with identifying nuclear bomb pulse (carbon 14) from the nuclear bomb tests from 1950s
Oh also they are full of urea which acts like a natural anti freeze
They could’ve seen Alexander Hamilton and Hamilton
Basking Sharks sometimes jump completely out of the water
It’s a classic, but that sharks are older than trees
This comment thread feels like an epic battle between 2 shark enthusiasts
This a common myth; Sharks aren’t older than trees.
The “sharks” peddled around on popular media that came before real sharks aren’t really that closely related to sharks. Calling them sharks is like referring to mackerels as primates.
The early sharks were still fairly shark like, albeit not what we consider to be modern sharks.
Flowering trees didn’t appear until much later either, which are the majority of modern trees, so similar can be said for them.
I guess the impressive “fact” is that there were primitive sharks swimming around before there were any trees
They may vaguely resemble sharks, but a closer look reveals that many of their features are vastly different from true sharks, and the two split some 400 million years ago. At least, according to experts with PhDs on the subject as well as plenty of experience.
It is also worth noting that superficial resemblance doesn’t always translate to taxonomic closeness.
In terms of ichthyology, “shark” is strictly limited to members of Selachii, whereas in terms of botany, “tree” refers to any true plant with woody parts. Bamboos, pines, etc.
Therefore, your point doesn’t really make much sense. Even if “tree” was hypothetically limited to flowering plants, they appeared around the same time as sharks and mammals, during the Jurassic.
TLDR, it is important to distinguish between pop science and academic science. The former may be simpler and more entertaining, but less factual than the latter.
Besides, sharks appearing around the same time as mammals is still a cool fact anyway, IMO.
Booooooooooooooooo, sharks are old!! (I agree with everything you said 😄)
That despite the 'official' record of 4.82 metres a Pacific Sleeper shark was caught on film off Japan that was at least 7 metres long and probably even more.
If you have ever seen the video it is awe-inspiring.
A vast wall of flesh with eyes and teeth.
It lead to an increase in the tired old bullshit that Megalodon is still extant.
My favorite shark fact is that sharks don't go into a frenzy for human blood. It's a very common misconception.
Here's my little rant on this-
So it's a myth that sharks can go into a "frenzy" if you're a human in the water and bleeding, when sharks smell human blood it CAN activate their hunting drive but its extremely low, they are more attracted to fish blood because it has certain oils in it.
It comes down to their diet, because fish are in a shark's regular diet, when they smell fish blood they know it's food. Because humans aren't in their diet, they're just neutral when they smell it.
Second part to this-
Sharks can't smell "blood in the water from miles away" while sharks have excellent sense of smell (some being able to smell from 1/4 mile away) they mostly rely on vibrations in the water to discover prey. Sharks can tell if a fish (or anything really) is struggling in the water based on vibrations, which makes them investigate. Some sharks can sense vibrations from up to a mile away!
I think horror films are the main reason for this fear sadly.
Great post 👍
Goblin shark might look grey in photos but it's actually pinkish because of translucent skin that shows its oxygen-filled blood.
Like me!
Sharks can do this neat thing called "gastric eversion". They turn their stomach inside out, rinse it with seawater, and retract it back into its normal position. It helps get rid of fish bones and other items they can't digest.
That is one of my top favorite shark facts.
I didn't know this at all, thanks for sharing
Every Greenland shark ever found has been blind due to parasites on their eyes (none found without the parasites)
That's not true at all.
"It is interesting to note that while over 90% of Arctic populations of the Greenland shark parasited by the copepod¹, less than 5% of the sharks encountered by GEERG researchers in the St. Lawrence² are hosts of Ommatokoita elongata."
Great source re: Greenland sharks...
😯 I stand corrected! The documentary I heard it in must have been outdated or misinformed
Can I hazard a reasoned guess that the source of that 'documentary' was that bastion of misinformation that rhymes with miscovery panel?
Ha, honestly can’t remember but it could well have been!
I actually think I’ve found where I heard it
“in these arctic waters, every Greenland shark has a copepod parasite attached to the eyeball”
“Shark” documentary from BBC Earth in 2015
I’ve probably remembered that and added my assumption that it’s all of them…
Ah, that makes sense.
It's also possible that a lot of this info has been gleaned since 2015.
It's amazing how much we've learned in recent history, or previous beliefs that have been corrected. Yet we still have so far to go.
Yes, not your fault but this myth is so widespread it is taken as gospel.
I love Greenland shark! They’re so old and the way they eat is so interesting. You know they believe a Greenland shark is lockness which makes sense because I can see it
for fish standards many sharks are remarkably intelligent and some species can remember individual humans
Most sharks have pretty bad eye sight compared with the other senses they possess.
How have you got tiger shark under your name? I want one
Go to the subreddits home page and look on the right side, should be user flair options!
Thank you darling! And hello! Nice to see my new friend again 🦈
Ofc! I would follow you but this account is too new T-T my last one got hacked -.-
You don’t have to follow ahha! I don’t post much other than shark stuff and might calm that down after that mean man.
Don't let that negativity discourage ya xD
Reddit needs more positivity and whimsy.
That’s me! I like being jaw-some. You’re so kind! I’m not good with negativity
Yes and no! While sharks don't have terrible eyesight- they just rely on their other senses more. The best analogy I can think of is if you have good eyesight but AMAZING smell, you're gonna use your sense of smell more than your eyes when it comes to hunting for food.