Content uploaded by William Toby White
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by William Toby White on Oct 29, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
172 Accepted by M.R. de Carvalho: 16 Dec. 2013; published: 24 Dec. 2013
Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0
ZOOTAXA
ISSN 1175-5326 (print edition)
ISSN 1175-5334 (online edition)
Copyright © 2013 Magnolia Press
Zootaxa 3752 (1): 172–184
www .mapr ess.com
/
zoo taxa
/
Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.3752.1.10
http://zoobank.org/urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:8249ADB0-EF92-457D-A4C4-DEE78D4413E4
Redescription of Paragaleus tengi (Chen, 1963) (Carcharhiniformes:
Hemigaleidae) and first record of Paragaleus randalli Compagno, Krupp &
Carpenter, 1996 from the western North Pacific
WILLIAM T. WHITE 1,* & MARK HARRIS 2
1 CSIRO Marine & Atmospheric Research, Wealth from Oceans Flagship, GPO Box 1538, Hobart, TAS, 7001, AUSTRALIA.
E-mail: william.white@csiro.au
2 F.F.C. Elasmobranch Studies, New Port Richey, Florida, USA
*Corresponding author
Abstract
Paragaleus tengi was previously considered to be the only member of this genus occurring in the Western Pacific, with
Paragaleus randalli occurring in the Indian Ocean and allopatric in distribution. Recent molecular and morphological
studies showed that P. randalli also occurs in the Western Pacific with records from Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia
previously mostly incorrectly attributed to P. tengi. This paper provides a redescription of P. tengi and confirms the pres-
ence of P. randalli from off Taiwan in the western North Pacific. These two species are morphologically very similar in
appearance but differ in meristics, dentition, some coloration attributes and minor morphological characters. The conser-
vation status of these two species needs to be reassessed based on this new information.
Key words: Paragaleus tengi, Hemigaleidae, redescription, Taiwan, Paragaleus randalli, new record
Introduction
The genus Paragaleus Budker, 1935, proposed for Paragaleus pectoralis (Garman, 1906), consists of four species:
P. leucolomatus Compagno & Smale, 1985, P. pectoralis, P. randalli Compagno, Krupp & Carpenter, 1996, and
P. tengi (Chen, 1963). Paragaleus pectoralis was described based on a specimen from the “Aquarial Gardens”, a
marine aquarium, from which Garman (1906) stated that their collections were made off the coasts of
Massachusetts and Rhode Island. Interestingly, this species is common in the Eastern Atlantic, but the only record
in the Western Atlantic is the holotype. Compagno (1984) suggested that this holotype may have been based on a
specimen that crossed the Atlantic on the North Equatorial Current and rode the Gulf Stream up to off New
England. He also suggested the possibility that the locality data for the type specimen was erroneous and could
have actually come from West Africa. However, it seems unlikely that a shark specimen was transported alive
across the Atlantic at that time due to limited aquarial technology.
Chen (1963) described Negogaleus tengi based on three specimens collected from Taichung fish market in
Taiwan. The genus Negogaleus was proposed by Whitley (1931) for Hemigaleus microstoma Bleeker, 1852, but is
considered an unneeded replacement name for Hemigaleus Bleeker, 1852. Compagno (1979) placed N. tengi into
the genus Paragaleus based on its dentition, which he considered to be intermediate between Paragaleus and
Hemigaleus, and redefined the genus to accommodate this species. Compagno (1979) included Negogaleus
longicaudatus Bessednov, 1966, from the South China Sea, as a probable junior synonym of P. tengi.
Unfortunately, the three types of P. tengi (THUP 1802–4) are believed to be lost (Ho & Shao, 2011). Paragaleus
tengi is known from the Gulf of Thailand, Vietnam, southern Japan, Taiwan and off Hong Kong (Compagno et al.,
2005). Although also recorded from off Indonesia and Borneo (White et al., 2006; Last et al., 2010), these were
recently confirmed as misidentifications of P. randalli (Naylor et al., 2012), originally considered to be restricted to
the Western Indian Ocean. Weigmann (2012) recorded P. randalli off eastern Thailand, representing the most
easterly records of this species and extensively widening the known distribution.
Zootaxa 3752 (1) © 2013 Magnolia Press · 173
REDESCRIPTI ON OF PARAGALEUS TENGI
During a recent visit to the museum collections of Taiwan, two specimens at the Taiwan Fisheries Research
Institute in Keelung identified as Paragaleus tengi were examined. While these two specimens are clearly a species
of Paragaleus, they were found to not be conspecific with P. tengi. The identity of this second Paragaleus species
is discussed. During examination of the carcharhinid material at the fish collection at the National Museum of
Marine Biology and Aquarium in Pingtung, a specimen previously identified as Carcharhinus dussumieri was re-
identified as P. tengi. This specimen was collected from Wu-chi (Taichong), the same location as the lost type
series. Thus, this specimen was considered a suitable specimen to be designated as the neotype of this species.
Paragaleus tengi is herein redescribed and a key to the hemigaleid species found in Taiwanese waters is provided.
Methods
The neotype herein designated (NMMB-P6452) and two other specimens (GVF-83 and GVF-87) of P. tengi were
measured in full. The two Paragaleus sp. from TFRI (FRIP 03574) were also measured. For comparison, the
holotype (BPBM 21196), two paratypes (BPBM 19923, SU 67145) and 6 other specimens (AB 4B-260 A [2
specimens], FAO/DAN uncatalogued, SV uncatalogued [2 specimens] and TRR 70–14) of P. randalli; and two
specimens of P. pectoralis (AMNH 44120 and AMNH 97267) were also measured. In the redescription,
morphometric and meristic values for the neotype of P. tengi are given first followed in parantheses by the ranges
of the two other specimens. Morphometrics methodology follows Compagno (2001). Meristics were taken from
radiographs of the neotype of P. tengi, the two Paragaleus sp. from TFRI, and 3 specimens of P. randalli (CSIRO
H 7409–01, CSIRO H 7409–02 and CSIRO H 7410–01). Ranges for the vertebral counts of the 3 non-type P. tengi
specimens were taken from Compagno (1984). Additional meristic information was taken from Compagno &
Smale (1985) and Compagno et al. (1996). Vertebral counts were obtained separately for trunk (monospondylous
centra), precaudal (monospondylous + diplospondylous centra to origin of upper lobe of the caudal fin) and caudal
(centra of the caudal fin) regions. Tooth counts were obtained in situ from the neotype and three additional jaw
specimens (PMH 197–01, PMH 197–02 and PMH 197–03). Additional tooth counts were taken from Chen (1963).
Specimens, including types, are referred to by the following prefixes for their catalog, registration and field
numbers: AB—RV “Anton Bruun” station numbers, in SAM; AMNH—American Natural History Museum, New
York, USA; BPBM—Bernice P. Bishop Museum, Honolulu, Hawaii; CAS—California Academy of Sciences fish
collection, San Francisco, California, USA; collection; CSIRO—Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial
Research Organisation, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia; FAO/DAN—FAO/DANIDA Lemuru station 1-14, in SAM
collection; FRIP—Taiwan Fisheries Research Institute, Keelung, Taiwan; GVF—George Vanderbilt Foundation, in
CAS collection; NMMB-P—National Museum of Marine Biology, Pingtung, Taiwan; PMH, Mark Harris personal
collection (jaws only); SU—Stanford University, in CAS collection; SV—Smith-Vaniz field number for FAO
collections, Arabian (Persian) Gulf, in SAM collection; TRR—Tyson R. Roberts field number for southern Indian
specimen in CAS collection. Note that the holotype and two paratypes registered as BPBM and SU specimens are
currently located in the SAM collection.
Paragaleus tengi (Chen, 1963)
(Figures 1– 3, Table 1)
Negogaleus tengi Chen, 1963: 77, fig. 24 (Taiwan); Chen & Yu, 1986: 140 (Taiwan); Yu, 1988: 8 (Taiwan).
Negogaleus longicaudatus Bessednov, 1966: 302, figs 1 and 2 (South China Sea).
Paragaleus tengi (Chen, 1963): Compagno, 1984: 444, fig.; Compagno & Smale, 1985: 2; Compagno, 1988: 259, fig. 18.1, pls
20K, 21K; Compagno et al., 1996: 392; Compagno, 1998: 1311, fig.; Shen et al., 1993: 60; Chu, 1994: 132; Nakabo, 2002:
136, fig.; Compagno et al., 2005:287, fig., pl. 49; Shao et al., 2008: 236; Ho & Shao, 2011: 18; Shen, 2011: fig.
Neotype. NMMB-P6452 (formerly THUP 1807), adult male 745 mm TL, Taichong, Taiwan, 20 Apr 1962,
collected by M.-J. Yu. Herein designated.
Other material examined in this study. GVF HK-83, adult male 862 mm TL, south of Hong Kong, South
China Sea; GVF HK-87, adult male 876 mm TL, about 100 miles southwest of Hong Kong, South China Sea;
PMH 197–01, female 930 mm TL, PMH 197–02, female 925 mm TL, PMH 197–03, male 810 mm TL, Penang,
Malaysia.
WHITE & HARRIS
174 · Zootaxa 3752 (1) © 2013 Magnolia Press
Other material examined by Compagno (1988). UMMZ 177114, adult male 784 mm TL, East China Sea,
from Nagasaki, Japan.
Diagnosis. A medium-sized hemigaleid shark with the following combination of characters: snout narrowly
parabolic in dorsoventral view, narrowly pointed in lateral view, preoral snout about 1.1 times mouth width; dorsal
fins moderately tall and not falcate; mouth long, symphysis extending well anterior to upper labial furrows; upper
labial furrows relatively short, 1.4–1.8% TL; pectoral fins broad and slightly falcate; claspers of adults moderately
long, outer length 5.7–6.6% TL; teeth in upper and lower jaws dimorphic; upper teeth compressed and distally
oblique with smooth mesial edges and five or six large distal cusplets; lower teeth narrow, triangular and essentially
perpendicular to distally angular with basal lobes on mesial/distal shoulders of crown feet in anteriors and distal
cusplets in posteriors; teeth in 26–30/25–32 rows; total vertebral centra 127–135; grey dorsally, whitish ventrally;
no prominent fin markings; no dark markings on underside of prenarial snout; no horizontal yellow lines on sides
of body.
Description. Proportions as percentages of total length for the neotype and two other specimens are presented
in Table 1.
FIGURE 1. Lateral view of Paragaleus tengi. A. neotype NMMBP 6452 (adult male 745 mm TL); B. GVF HK-87 (adult male 876
mm TL).
FIGURE 2. Ventral view of head of Paragaleus tengi. A. neotype NMMBP 6452 (adult male 745 mm TL); B. GVF HK-87 (adult
male 876 mm TL).
A
B
AB
Zootaxa 3752 (1) © 2013 Magnolia Press · 175
REDESCRIPTI ON OF PARAGALEUS TENGI
FIGURE 3. Upper (A) and lower teeth (B) series of Paragaleus tengi (PMH 197–01, female 930 mm TL).
Body elongate, trunk weakly compressed, somewhat pear-shaped in cross-section at first dorsal-fin base;
length of trunk from fifth gill openings to vent 1.42 in the neotype (1.38–1.42 in two other specimens) times head
length; second dorsal-fin origin to anal-fin origin 7.25 (7.23–12.95) in second dorsal-fin origin to pelvic-fin
midpoint; anal-caudal space 6.94 (6.33–6.44) in preanal length; predorsal ridge absent; interdorsal ridge present,
stronger anteriorly; postdorsal ridge absent; lateral line distinct with a pronounced dip under second dorsal-fin
base, forming a very weak ridge laterally. Caudal peduncle slender, weakly hexagonal in cross section with dorsal
and ventral surface flattened, tapering; without lateral keels; height 1.11 (0.98–1.21) in width at upper caudal-fin
origin, 3.45 (3.51–3.92) in dorsal-caudal space. Precaudal pits present and crescentic; lower pit weak.
Head moderate-sized, length 0.82 (0.89) in pectoral-pelvic space; relatively narrow, moderately depressed,
roughly trapezoidal in cross-section at eyes; outline of prespiracular head in lateral view nearly straight dorsally,
becoming convex above gills; post-oral head slightly convex; narrowly parabolic in dorsoventral view; preoral
snout moderate, 1.06 (1.09–1.12) in mouth width. Snout narrowly pointed in lateral view, slightly convex above
and below; tip narrowly parabolic in dorsoventral view, with no indentations but a slight angle change adjacent to
nostrils.
Eyes large and slightly oval to subcircular in shape, eye length 7.28 (8.37–8.71) in head length; slightly
dorsolateral on head; lower edges in line with lateral margin of head in dorsal view; subocular ridges strong;
external opening with prominent posterior notch, no anterior notch; nictitating lower eyelids external; subocular
pouches narrow but deep, entirely scaled with secondary lower eyelids. Spiracles minute, their length much shorter
than eye to spiracle distance, located dorsally to median level of eye. Gill slits subequal in length, height of fifth
1.06 (1.00–1.05) of first; height of first 6.85 (6.86–7.64) in head and 1.06 (1.14–1.22) of eye length. Anterior
margin of gill slits slightly convex; slightly elevated on dorsolateral surface of head, upper margins about level
with upper margin of eye; gill filaments not visible from outside.
Nostrils with large oval incurrent apertures lacking posterolateral keels; well in front of mouth; width 2.39
(2.65–2.79) in internarial space, 1.66 (1.70–1.71) in eye length, and 1.76 (1.94–2.09) in first gill-slit opening;
excurrent apertures small, oval. Anterior nasal flaps subtriangular and moderately long, low mesonarial flaps, and
small posterior nasal flaps. Anterior nasal aperture broadly rounded anteriorly, forming a gradual depression.
Mouth moderately rounded to broadly arched in shape and moderately large; width 3.28 (3.37–3.48) in head
length; length 1.91 (2.05–2.20) in width; tongue large, flat, broadly rounded, filling floor of mouth, with a weakly
notched bilobate tip; buccal papillae absent; labial furrows long, upper 1.62 (1.28–1.43) times lower furrows;
anterior ends of uppers extending ahead of posterior corners of eyes.
Dentition groups include medials, symphysials, anteriors, laterals and posteriors in both jaws with some
variations in lateral and posterior counts; not sexually dimorphic; dignathic heterodonty very strongly evident in all
but extreme posteriors; monognathic heterodonty noted below; bilateral symmetry present in all quadrants with
exception to lower posteriors which vary in placement; in 29/25 in neotype (26–30/27–32 in 4 other specimens)
rows; functional tooth series 1–2 / 2–3; dental formula, 13 + 4 + 12 in upper jaw, 12 + 1 + 12 in lower jaw in
neotype (12–14 + 2 + 12–14 in upper jaw, 12–15 + 3 + 12–15 in lower jaw in 4 other specimens).
A B
WHITE & HARRIS
176 · Zootaxa 3752 (1) © 2013 Magnolia Press
TABLE 1. Morphometric data for the neotype of Paragaleus tengi, with ranges provided for the two other specimens; the holotype of
P. randalli, with ranges for eight other specimens; and ranges for two specimens of P.pectoralis. Measurements expressed as
percentage of total length.
P. tengi P. randalli P. pectoralis
Neotype Others; n = 2 Holotype Others; n=8 n=2
Min. Max. Min. Max. Min. Max.
Total length (mm) 745 862 876 719 587 722 590 890
Pre-second dorsal length 60.5 60.3 61.4 58.4 57.4 59.9 56.9 59.7
Pre-first dorsal length 28.3 27.6 28.8 26.8 26.3 28.0 27.6 28.0
Head length 19.6 19.8 19.8 20.5 19.8 22.3 20.2 20.9
Pre-branchial length 15.4 14.9 15.2 15.7 15.2 17.2 – –
Pre-spiracular length 10.1 9.6 9.7 10.4 9.6 11.3 10.4 11.5
Pre-orbital length (direct) 6.5 6.4 6.5 7.1 6.3 7.3 7.2 7.7
Pre-pectoral length 18.6 19.0 19.4 18.6 18.5 20.3 19.7 20.3
Pre-pelvic length 45.6 44.8 46.1 43.0 40.9 45.7 43.4 44.4
Snout-vent distance 47.4 47.2 48.0 43.8 43.4 47.0 45.4 46.6
Pre-anal length 61.3 61.4 61.5 59.8 59.3 61.5 58.0 60.4
Interdorsal distance 21.6 24.3 25.1 21.9 20.5 24.0 21.3 22.3
Dorsal-caudal distance 9.9 10.7 11.1 10.5 9.6 11.3 9.8 11.0
Pectoral-pelvic distance 24.0 22.2 22.4 19.2 18.6 23.0 18.9 21.8
Pelvic-anal distance 10.7 10.9 11.3 12.6 11.6 14.5 8.9 10.5
Anal-caudal distance 8.8 9.6 9.7 8.5 8.3 9.2 8.1 8.4
Pelvic caudal distance 26.0 26.3 27.3 27.5 26.5 29.0 23.9 25.7
Pre-narial length 4.5 4.2 4.5 4.7 4.4 5.1 4.5 4.8
Pre-oral length 6.3 6.4 6.4 6.7 6.3 7.1 7.2 7.7
Eye length 2.7 2.3 2.4 2.4 2.5 2.9 2.2 2.5
Eye height 1.4 1.4 1.6 1.8 1.2 1.6 1.5 1.6
First gill slit height 2.9 2.6 2.9 2.8 2.2 3.1 2.3 2.5
Fifth gill slit height 3.0 2.7 2.9 2.6 2.0 2.6 2.2 2.7
Pectoral fin - anterior margin length 13.9 12.1 13.3 13.9 13.1 15.4 15.1 15.5
Pectoral fin - base length 4.9 4.2 4.5 4.6 3.9 4.3 4.1 4.3
Pectoral fin - posterior margin length 10.3 9.2 9.9 10.4 9.0 12.7 9.9 9.9
Pectoral fin - inner margin length 5.6 4.8 4.9 4.9 5.1 5.6 6.1 6.2
Caudal fin - dorsal margin length 21.5 20.8 21.3 23.1 22.2 23.7 23.2 25.6
Caudal fin - preventral margin length 9.3 8.4 8.5 8.3 8.3 9.2 9.8 10.0
Caudal fin - upper postventral margin length 9.8 9.6 10.0 10.1 9.4 10.9 10.3 12.7
Caudal fin - lower postventral margin length 3.4 3.3 3.3 3.0 2.3 3.0 3.0 3.4
Caudal fin - fork width 5.5 4.9 5.0 5.1 4.8 5.5 5.4 5.6
Caudal fin - fork length 6.7 6.3 6.7 6.4 5.9 7.2 7.3 7.4
Caudal fin - subterminal margin length 3.6 3.3 3.4 3.1 3.2 3.6 3.6 3.7
Caudal fin - subterminal margin width 2.6 2.3 2.4 2.4 2.3 2.7 2.0 2.3
Caudal fin - terminal margin length – 6.2 6.3 6.7 5.9 7.4 5.8 6.5
Caudal fin - terminal lobe length – 7.2 7.4 8.3 7.5 8.6 7.7 8.5
First dorsal fin - length 13.2 12.2 12.7 – 13.0 14.6 13.2 13.3
First dorsal fin - anterior margin length 12.2 11.2 11.6 12.7 11.7 14.0 13.0 13.3
First dorsal fin - base length 10.3 9.3 10.8 10.6 10.0 11.3 9.9 10.0
First dorsal fin - height 7.9 6.9 7.6 7.9 7.7 8.1 8.9 9.2
First dorsal fin - inner margin length 3.3 2.5 3.7 – 3.0 3.6 3.4 3.6
...... continued on the next page
Zootaxa 3752 (1) © 2013 Magnolia Press · 177
REDESCRIPTI ON OF PARAGALEUS TENGI
TABLE 1 (continued)
P. tengi P. randalli P. pectoralis
Neotype Others; n = 2 Holotype Others; n=8 n=2
Min. Max. Min. Max. Min. Max.
First dorsal fin - posterior margin length 8.3 7.9 7.9 – 7.6 8.5 9.0 9.8
Second dorsal fin - length 10.0 9.8 9.8 10.3 10.0 11.1 9.8 10.4
Second dorsal fin - anterior margin length 8.7 7.5 7.7 8.8 8.0 9.4 8.6 8.7
Second dorsal fin - base length 8.0 7.6 8.0 8.2 6.9 8.2 7.5 7.6
Second dorsal fin - height 4.5 4.4 4.7 5.4 4.5 5.3 5.0 5.5
Second dorsal fin - inner margin length 2.3 2.2 2.6 2.4 2.4 3.0 2.9 3.2
Second dorsal fin - posterior margin length 4.8 5.1 6.0 6.0 4.9 6.1 5.8 6.7
Pelvic fin - length 8.5 7.3 7.8 8.0 7.8 8.5 7.9 8.6
Pelvic fin - anterior margin length 7.6 5.9 6.5 6.4 6.3 7.2 7.1 8.1
Pelvic fin - height 5.9 5.2 5.5 4.9 4.6 6.1 5.0 5.3
Pelvic fin - inner margin length 3.0 2.8 3.4 3.1 2.8 3.6 3.1 3.6
Pelvic fin - posterior margin length 4.9 4.6 5.1 4.6 4.1 5.3 4.6 5.1
Anal fin - length 9.0 8.5 8.8 8.8 8.2 9.6 9.2 9.8
Anal fin - anterior margin length 7.3 6.3 6.6 6.5 6.2 7.4 7.6 8.1
Anal fin - base length 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.3 6.0 7.1 6.8 7.0
Anal fin - height 3.5 3.4 3.5 3.1 3.1 3.6 3.8 3.9
Anal fin - inner margin length 2.5 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.0 2.7 2.8 3.1
Anal fin - posterior margin length 4.4 4.3 4.4 3.3 3.4 4.1 3.9 4.8
Head height 9.3 8.3 9.0 7.9 7.3 9.7 9.3 9.5
Trunk height 10.1 9.1 9.7 9.1 8.5 10.3 9.7 10.0
Abdomen height 10.2 9.5 9.6 11.1 8.9 10.5 9.5 10.2
Tail height 6.8 7.1 7.4 7.0 6.4 7.6 7.2 7.6
Caudal peduncle height 2.9 2.7 3.2 2.5 2.8 3.1 3.0 3.0
Pelvic midpoint-first dorsal insertion 9.8 10.8 11.0 9.1 8.5 10.3 9.1 11.0
Pelvic midpoint-second dorsal origin 11.3 11.9 12.1 12.5 11.2 14.8 10.6 11.1
Second dorsal origin-anal origin 1.6 0.9 1.7 1.5 0.6 2.9 1.0 1.2
Second dorsal insertion-anal insertion 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.9 0.4 1.1 0.8 1.0
Mouth length 3.1 2.6 2.9 2.4 2.4 2.8 2.1 2.3
Mouth width 6.0 5.7 5.9 5.7 5.0 5.8 6.1 6.8
Upper labial furrow length 1.8 1.4 1.5 1.7 1.7 2.2 2.2 2.3
Lower labial furrow length 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.4 1.5 1.5
Nostril width 1.6 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.7 1.6 1.9
Anterior nasal flap length 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.6 1.0 0.8 0.9
Internarial space 3.9 3.7 3.7 3.3 3.1 3.7 3.2 3.3
Clasper inner length 6.6 5.7 6.1 7.1 3.8 7.0 – –
Clasper base width 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.3 0.8 1.4 – –
Interorbital space 7.4 6.9 6.9 6.4 5.9 7.1 6.6 6.8
Head width 9.0 8.5 8.7 9.5 7.5 9.8 8.3 9.2
Trunk width 8.5 8.3 8.5 9.2 6.9 8.9 7.6 8.5
Abdomen width 7.3 7.6 7.7 – 6.1 7.9 6.4 7.5
Tail width 5.6 5.9 6.5 5.2 5.2 6.1 5.2 5.7
Caudal peduncle width 2.6 2.6 2.8 2.3 2.2 2.6 2.7 2.8
WHITE & HARRIS
178 · Zootaxa 3752 (1) © 2013 Magnolia Press
Upper jaw with monognathic heterodonty graduated but evident in series; both alternate and imbricate
overlapping of basal lobes noticeable; usually two rows (files) of well-developed medial teeth adjacent to one
symphysial and one anterior tooth per quadrant; anterolateral and lateral teeth proceeded by only three to five
posteriors, usually one half of which are molariform with apical surface reduced to a low, carinate crown. Upper
teeth compressed and expanded laterally with high crowns and distal angularity; distal side of cusp usually with 5–
6 disproportionately long distal cusplets graduating basal-apically to a very heavily cleaved primary cusp
subterminally; apical section nearly bilobate with lower primary cusp distally angled and apex slightly re-curved
mesially; mesial side of cusp only slightly convex basal-apically above the lower crown area and concave apically,
again with mesial curvature to the apex; both distal and mesial cutting edges smooth including surfaces of distal
cusplets; mesial cusplets only present on two symphysials; root moderately wide, somewhat shallow and concave
with a deep transverse notch on surface; asymmetrical with distal lobe noticeably shorter than mesial lobe; basal
groove deep; basal ledge short distally and mesially, wider centrally.
Lower jaw with monognathic heterodonty present in series, most notably with posterolaterals; only slight
alternate overlapping of basal lobes present without imbricate positioning; usually one small medial tooth adjacent
to one symphysial and one anterior tooth per quadrant; anterolateral and lateral teeth followed by approximately 5–
7 posterior teeth, two to four of which are molariform with apical surface reduced to a low, carinate crown. Lower
teeth with four diagnostic structural changes occurring within post-symphysial teeth in series; first two rows of
lower teeth perpendicular to very slightly angular and subsequently developing a slight distal angularity
anterolaterally; laterals again become perpendicular before a gradient change to distally angular but low-crowned
posteriors; apical sections of laterals to posterolaterals variably re-curved mesially. Pre-posterior teeth compressed
apically but heavier labial-lingually at basal margins and roots; expanded laterally with high crowns and wide
mesial and distal shoulders; basal area of crown wide, graduating to conically shaped cusps; straight edged distally
and slightly convex mesially, tapering gradually to a thinly pointed apex. Extreme ends of mesial and distal
shoulders of anterior through anterolateral teeth with fairly well-developed, knob-like basal cusplets, one per side.
Crown surface of cusplets form round to slightly angular protrusions, tapering off postero-laterally where distal
blade cusplets form. Roots moderately wide; weekly concave basally with a heavy lingual structure and shallow
transverse notch; root lobes slightly asymmetrical with distal lobe shorter; basal groove deep and basal ledge very
pronounced.
Lateral trunk denticles below first dorsal fin small, closely imbricated; broad and multicuspidate with about
five longitudinal ridges extending entire length of crown; crown length slightly shorter or equal to its width.
Denticles absent near insertion of the pectoral and pelvic fins.
First dorsal fin moderately tall, not falcate; anterior margin slightly convex, moderately rounded apically;
posterior margin convex distally becoming broadly concave near free tip; free rear tip acutely pointed; inner margin
nearly straight; fin origin slightly posterior to free rear tips of pectoral fins; midpoint of base 1.15 (1.09–1.12) times
closer to pectoral-fin insertions than pelvic-fin origins; free tip well anterior to pelvic-fin origins; posterior margin
slanting slightly posteroventrally from apex; insertion posterior to level of fin apex; first dorsal-fin base 2.11 (2.25–
2.69) in interdorsal space, 2.10 (1.92–2.29) in dorsal caudal-fin margin; fin height 1.29 (1.22–1.57) in base length;
inner margin 2.43 (2.06–2.71) in height, 3.15 (2.52–4.27) in base length.
Second dorsal fin moderately tall, apically narrow, not falcate; much smaller than first dorsal fin, height 0.56
(0.62–0.64) of first dorsal-fin height, base length 0.78 (0.73–0.81) of first dorsal-fin base length; anterior margin
weakly convex; apex narrowly rounded; posterior margin moderately convex distally and strongly concave near
free tip; inner margin straight or slightly concave; free rear tip acutely pointed, terminating about level with anal-
fin free rear tip and well in front of upper caudal-fin origin; origin separated from pelvic-fin midpoint by a space
about 1.41 (1.52–1.58) times second dorsal-fin base; posterior margin almost upright to slanting slightly
anteroventrally from apex; insertion posterior to fin apex; second dorsal-fin base 1.24 (1.34–1.47) in dorsal-caudal
space; fin height 1.78 (1.60–1.79) in base length; inner margin 1.95 (1.85–1.98) in height, 3.47 (2.95–3.55) in base
length.
Anal fin moderately tall, apically narrow, semi-falcate, smaller than second dorsal fin; height 0.77 (0.73–0.79)
in second dorsal-fin height, base length 0.80 (0.83–0.86) times second dorsal-fin base length; anterior margin
moderately convex; apex somewhat angular; posterior margin broadly concave, almost upright distally then
slanting strongly posterodorsally near free tip; free rear tip acutely pointed, well in front of lower caudal-fin origin;
inner margin nearly straight; base expanded anteriorly as short preanal ridges less than half length of rest of base;
Zootaxa 3752 (1) © 2013 Magnolia Press · 179
REDESCRIPTI ON OF PARAGALEUS TENGI
origin slightly behind second dorsal-fin origin, by 0.19 (0.12–0.22) of second dorsal-fin base; insertion slightly
posterior to apex, almost level with second-dorsal fin insertion; anal-fin base length 1.38 (1.46–1.47) in anal–
caudal space; fin height 1.85 (1.88–1.89) in base length; inner margin 1.39 (1.41–1.58) in height, 2.58 (2.66–2.97)
in base length.
Pectoral fins narrow and falcate; anterior margins broadly convex, length 1.35 (1.31–1.35) times posterior
margin; bases narrow; apices narrowly pointed, posterior margins moderately concave; free rear tips somewhat
angular, inner margins strongly convex; origin under space between fourth and fifth gill openings; slightly larger in
area than first dorsal fin. Apex of pectoral fin well posterior to its free rear tip when fin is elevated and adpressed to
body.
Pelvic fins triangular and weakly falcate; area slightly greater than anal-fin area, length 0.55 (0.49) length of
pectoral-fin anterior margins; anterior margin very slightly convex; apex narrowly pointed; posterior margins
shallowly concave; free rear tips pointed, inner margins nearly straight to slightly concave. Claspers of adult males
relatively long and basally stout; slightly convex for most of outer margin length, tapering near tip; extending well
behind pelvic-fin free rear tips and well short of anal-fin origin; glans moderately long, length almost half length of
outer margin of clasper; blunt distally with a narrow apex; covered laterally and ventrally with small clasper
denticles; dorsomedial surfaces of glans (including rhipidion) and lateral strip adjacent to clasper groove naked.
Caudal fin narrow-lobed and asymmetrical, with a short terminal lobe and a prominent ventral lobe prominent;
dorsal caudal margin moderately long, 3.64 (3.70–3.85) in precaudal length, slightly convex to nearly straight,
without lateral undulations; preventral margin convex, length 2.31 (2.44–2.53) in dorsal caudal margin; tip of
ventral lobe narrowly angular; lower postventral margin nearly straight; upper postventral margin mostly straight
and slightly convex near terminal lobe; subterminal notch a narrow, shallow slot; subterminal margin nearly
straight, terminal margin nearly straight to slightly concave, fin tip angular; subterminal margin (1.83–1.92) in
terminal margin; caudal tip pointed, terminal lobe length (2.82–2.97) in dorsal caudal margin.
Vertebral counts and ratios of the neotype and the two other specimens are summarised as follows: total (TC)
centra 127 (131–135), precaudal (PC) centra 74, monospondylous precaudal (MP) centra 46, diplospondylous
precaudal (DP) centra 28, caudal centra 53 (55 or 56). Transition between MP and DP posterior to pelvic girdle.
Last few MP centra before MP–DP moderately enlarged, not forming ‘stutter zone’ of alternating long and short
centra.
Coloration. Light grey dorsally, whitish ventrally; no prominent markings on fins or underside of snout.
Size. The four specimens of P. tengi currently housed in collections were all adult males ranging from 745 to
876 mm TL. The three male types of Chen (1963) ranged from 750 to 810 mm TL. The three jaws collected from
Penang (Malaysia) consisted of two females, 925 and 930 mm TL and a male of 810 mm TL. Thus, females and
males of this species attain at least 930 and 876 mm TL, respectively.
Distribution. Specimens examined were from southern Japan, Taiwan and Hong Kong. In addition, three jaws
from Penang in Malaysia examined by one of us (MH) also agree with this species. Paragaleus tengi has also been
recorded from China, Vietnam and Thailand (Compagno, 1988, 1998).
Discussion
Ho & Shao (2011) confirmed that the type series of Paragaleus tengi was lost. The information available on this
species to date is based on only three adult male specimens, two from off Hong Kong and one from off Japan
(Compagno, 1988; Compagno et al., 1996). In this study, a neotype is designated which was collected from the
same location as the original type series, and P. tengi is redescribed based on this specimen and the two from off
Hong Kong. Whole female and juvenile specimens of this species are not present in any collections to date. Three
P. tengi jaws collected from Penang (Malaysia) were also examined by one of us (MH). It appears as though no
specimens of P. tengi have been recorded from Taiwan in the last few decades. This species has possibly been
extirpated from Taiwanese waters and although the IUCN Red List of Threatened Animals currently lists it as Data
Deficient, this should be reinvestigated to determine whether it should be listed as a highly threatened species.
It has previously been thought that P. tengi is the only member of this genus occurring in Taiwan waters.
However, examination of two specimens in the fish collection of the Taiwan Fisheries Research Institute in
Keelung (FRIP 03574) revealed a second Paragaleus species (Figures 4 and 5). Vertebral counts of these two
WHITE & HARRIS
180 · Zootaxa 3752 (1) © 2013 Magnolia Press
specimens were far higher (159 and 161 total centra) than that of P. tengi (127–135), and close to that of P. randalli
(164–187). Also, these two specimens possessed a pair of longitudinal dark lines on the underside of the prenarial
snout which is a characteristic of P. randalli, and is absent in P. tengi (Compagno et al., 1996). Paragaleus species
are very similar morphologically and it is difficult to obtain good characters to distinguish them apart. The few
morphometric characters which could be used to distinguish P. tengi from P. randalli (excluding the two TFRI
specimens) based on the specimens measured in this study are: pelvic–anal space (10.7–11.3 vs. 11.6–14.5% TL);
dorsal caudal margin (20.8–21.5 vs. 22.2–23.7% TL); prebranchial length (14.9–15.4 vs. 15.2–17.2% TL); lower
postventral caudal margin (3.3–3.4 vs. 2.3–3.0% TL), first dorsal-fin length (12.2–13.2 vs. 13.0–14.6), upper labial
furrow length (1.4–1.8 vs. 1.7–2.2% TL) and pre-second dorsal-fin length (60.3–61.4 vs. 57.4–59.9% TL). When
measurements of the two TFRI specimens (FRIP 03574) were compared with those of P. tengi and P. randalli, they
clearly aligned with those of P. randalli.
FIGURE 4. Lateral view of Paragaleus randalli. A. FRIP 03574 (female 488 mm TL); B. CSIRO H 7414–02, adult male 646 mm TL.
FIGURE 5. Ventral view of head of Paragaleus randalli, FRIP 03574 (female 488 mm TL).
A
Zootaxa 3752 (1) © 2013 Magnolia Press · 181
REDESCRIPTI ON OF PARAGALEUS TENGI
FIGURE 6. Upper (A) and lower teeth (B) series of Paragaleus randalli (PMH 129–02, female 807 mm TL).
In most Carcharhiniformes, the upper teeth are chiefly diagnostic as to the species or genus if at all
distinguishable. Specifically, this applies to most species that possess dignathic heterodonty as with all members of
Hemigaleidae. However, Paragaleus is the exception to this in that it possesses a reverse heterodonty, therefore
having more diagnostic features of the tooth morphology in the lower jaw than in the upper jaw. These characters
may in fact aid in the separation of all four species within the genus known as of this publication. Some of these
diagnostic characters are noted in Table 2 in conjunction with other morphological features of the dentition that
may further aid in separating P. tengi from P. randalli.
TABLE 2. Comparative morphological features of the dentition between Paragaleus tengi and Paragaleus randalli (see
Figures 3 and 6).
Two jaws of P. randalli examined by one of us (MH) were collected from off Kaohsiung in Taiwan. These are
the first records of P. randalli from Taiwanese waters and the most northerly record of this species in the western
North Pacific.
Paragaleus tengi can be readily distinguished from Paragaleus leucolomatus from eastern South Africa in
having: much lower number of vertebrae (total 127–135 vs. 180); no dusky markings on underside of snout (vs.
Paragaleus tengi Paragaleus randalli
Upper lateral teeth usually with 5 or 6 large distal cusplets
located somewhat apically and with a small primary cusp
Upper lateral teeth usually with 3 or 4 modestly sized distal
cusplets located centrally and with a long primary cusp
Lower anteriors mostly perpendicular to very slightly angular,
and only slightly angled distally in anterolaterals
Lower anteriors angular, becoming distally oblique in
anterolaterals
Lower laterals perpendicular Lower laterals oblique distally
Mesial and distal shoulders of lower anteriors to anterolaterals
with fairly well-developed, round to slightly angular, knob-like
basal cusplets; one per side
Lower anteriors to anterolaterals without mesial and distal basal
cusplets
Distal cusplet development in lower teeth usually beginning in
posterolaterals but not well developed until posteriors
Distal cusplet development in lower teeth usually beginning in
laterals, well developed by posterolaterals (see below for sexual
dimorphism comments)
Sexual dimorphism not evident in adults Sexual dimorphism evident. Adult males with more oblique
cusps, particularly in lower jaw, and weakly developed distal
cusplets
Transverse notch in upper teeth deep and strongly developed Transverse notch in upper teeth shallow and weakly developed
Lower posteriors usually with only 2–4 rows of carinate,
molariform teeth
Lower posteriors usually with 5–7 rows of carinate, molariform
teeth
In upper jaw cartilage, the otic flange of the palatoquadrate fairly
evenly expanded and not noticeably flared out just above
maxillary articulation
Otic flange of the palatoquadrate noticeably flared out to a
rounded protrusion followed by a deep concavity in the quadrate
ridge
A B
WHITE & HARRIS
182 · Zootaxa 3752 (1) © 2013 Magnolia Press
present); and fins without white margins (vs. with conspicuous white margins) (Compagno & Smale, 1985).
Paragaleus tengi can also be readily distinguished from Paragaleus pectoralis from the Eastern Atlantic in having:
plain grey dorsal coloration (vs. with horizontal yellow stripes); shorter snout (preoral length 6.3–6.4 vs. 7.2–7.7%
TL; preorbital length 6.4–6.5 vs. 7.2–7.7% TL); shorter pectoral anterior margin (12.1–13.9 vs. 15.1–15.5% TL);
shorter upper labial furrows (1.4–1.8 vs. 2.2–2.3% TL); shorter first dorsal fin (height 6.9–7.9 vs. 8.9–9.2% TL);
shorter caudal fin (dorsal caudal margin 20.8–21.5 vs. 23.2–25.6% TL); and 2 or 3 rows of lower anterolateral teeth
with distal cusplets (vs. 5 or more rows).
Compagno (1988) tentatively synonymised Negogaleus longicaudatus Bessednov, 1966 from the Gulf of
Tonkin with P. tengi, based on comparison of Bessednov’s description with Chen’s description plus three
specimens of P. tengi. Given that there are few distinct morphological differences between most Paragaleus
species and there is no information on vertebral counts and little information on dentition in Bessednov’s
description, it appears that this decision was based mainly on the fact that P. tengi was the only species previously
considered to occur in the western North Pacific. Some of the characters described in Bessednov (1966) give some
indication that perhaps this species actually refers to P. randalli rather than P. tengi. Firstly, dorsal caudal margin
for the two N. longicaudatus types was ~24% TL, which is closer to the range for P. randalli (22.2–23.7% TL) than
P. tengi (20.8–21.5% TL). Furthermore, the dorsal fins of N. longicaudatus have black anterior margins that more
closely resembles P. randalli (apices of dorsal fins sometimes blackish based on fresh specimens examined) than
P. tengi. An important point to mention here is that the two types of N. longicaudatus are smaller specimens (380
and 375 mm TL) than what has been examined for P. tengi, thus these differences may only represent ontogenetic
differences. Vertebral counts and detailed information on the dentition of the N. longicaudatus types are required to
accurately determine the identity of these specimens. If found to be conspecific with P. randalli, which there is
some indication they might be, then N. longicaudatus would be a senior synonym of this species. If this situation
did arise then, according to the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN), this species would need to
be referred to as P. longicaudatus with P. randalli as a junior synonym. It could be argued that P. randalli has been
used as a valid name in at least 25 works by at least 10 authors in the preceding 50 years and encompassing a span
of not less than 10 years (Article 23.9.1.2). However, since N. longicaudatus was described in 1966, it does not
meet Article 23.9.1.1 that “the senior synonym or homonym has not been used as a valid name after 1899”, thus
reversal of precedence cannot be enforced in this case. Until the types of N. longicaudatus can be examined, it
should be considered as a tentative synonym of P. tengi.
Key to the species of Hemigaleidae from the western North Pacific (adapted from Compagno, 1998)
1. Lower teeth near symphysis with long, strongly hooked cusps that prominently protrude from mouth when closed; gill slits
large, usually more than twice eye length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2
- Lower teeth near symphysis with short, straight or weakly hooked cusps that are mostly concealed when mouth is closed; gill
slits small, less than twice eye length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Snout obtusely wedge-shaped in ventral view; fins not falcate, with posterior margins of paired fins straight to slightly con-
cave; teeth present at symphysis of lower jaw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Chaenogaleus macrostoma (Indo–West Pacific)
- Snout bluntly rounded in ventral view; fins strongly falcate, with posterior margins of paired fins deeply concave; teeth absent
at symphysis of lower jaw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hemipristis elongata (Indo–West Pacific)
3. Lower teeth near symphysis with erect cusps and highly arched roots giving them an inverted Y-shape; no cusplets on lower
teeth; mouth very short and broadly arched; pelvic, both dorsal and lower caudal fins strongly falcate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hemigaleus microstoma (Indo–West Pacific)
- Lower teeth near symphysis with mostly erect cusps and slightly arched roots giving them an inverted T-shape; cusplets pres-
ent on lower teeth; mouth longer and narrowly arched; pelvic, dorsal and caudal fins not falcate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
4. 5 or more rows of lower anterolateral teeth with distal cusplets; lower anterior teeth mostly with oblique cusps; a pair of longi-
tudinal black lines on underside of prenarial snout; total vertebrae 164–187. . . . . . . . Paragaleus randalli (Indo–West Pacific)
- 2 or 3 rows of lower anterolateral teeth with distal cusplets; lower anterior teeth mostly with erect cusps; no black lines on
underside of prenarial snout; total vertebrae 127–135 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Paragaleus tengi (western North Pacific)
Zootaxa 3752 (1) © 2013 Magnolia Press · 183
REDESCRIPTI ON OF PARAGALEUS TENGI
Comparative material
Paragaleus pectoralis—AMNH 44120, female 890 mm TL, Congo River mouth near Malela, Democratic
Republic of the Congo, 1909, collected by H. Lang & J.P. Chapin; AMNH 97267, female 590 mm TL, Angola or
Namibia, collected by H. Lang & R. Boulton.
Paragaleus randalli—BPBM 21196 (holotype), adult male 719 mm TL, Bahrain, Arabian (Persian) Gulf. BPBM
19923 (paratype), adolescent male 594 mm TL, Oman; SU 67145 (paratype), adolescent male 621 mm TL,
Vizagapatam fish market, Andhra Pradesh State, India, 28 Dec 1940; AB 4B-260 A (2 specimens), adult male 702
mm TL, adult male 688 mm TL, Ras Musandam, Oman, 26°15’ N, 56°46’ E; CSIRO H 7409–01, juvenile male
520 mm TL, CSIRO H 7409–02, female 540 mm TL, Manggar, East Kalimantan, Indonesia, 01°12’54” S,
116°58'24” E, 21 Nov 2006; CSIRO H 7410–01, adult male 810 mm TL, Manggar, East Kalimantan, Indonesia,
01°12’54” S, 116°58’24” E, 22 Nov 2006; CSIRO H 7414–02, adult male 646 mm TL, Deira fish market, United
Arab Emirates, 11 Oct 2012; FAO/DAN, juvenile 587 mm TL, Bahrain, Arabian (Persian) Gulf, 26°31.5– 28.6’ N,
51°05– 03.4’ E, 16– 18 m depth; FRIP 03574 (2 specimens), subadult male 526 mm TL, female 488 mm TL,
Taiwan; SV uncatalog. (2 specimens), female 703 mm TL, adult male 618 mm TL, Bahrain, Arabian (Persian
Gulf); PMH 129–02, female 807 mm TL, PMH 129–03, female 650 mm TL, Kaohsiung, Taiwan; PMH 237–01,
male 760 mm TL, PMH 237–02, female 740 mm TL, PMH 237–03, male 640 mm TL, PMH 237–04, female 610
mm TL, Musandam, Oman; PMH 237–05, male 833 mm TL, PMH 237–06, male 825 mm TL, Cebu, Philippines;
PMH 237–07, female 625 mm TL, Palawan, Philippines; TRR 70–14, adult male 733 mm TL, Wedge Banks, Gulf
of Mannar, Sri Lanka, 27–28 Mar 1970.
Acknowledgements
This project was supported by a National Science Foundation (NSF) grant (Jaws and Backbone: Chondrichthyan
Phylogeny and a Spine for the Vertebrate Tree of Life; DEB-01132229). The National Science Council, Taiwan and
National Museum of Marine Biology and Aquarium, Taiwan supported a chondrichthyan biodiversity workshop in
Taiwan in March 2012 which allowed examination of material. We would like to thank David Ebert (Moss Landing
Marine Laboratories, USA) and Hsuan-Ching Ho (NMMB-P) for their invitation to attend the chondrichthyan
workshop and all help and support during and since. We would like to acknowledge the following museum staff for
their assistance accessing collection material examined during this study: Alastair Graham (CSIRO, Hobart);
Barbara Brown and curatorial staff (AMNH, New York); Chuan-Chen Wu (FRIP, Keelung); Michael Bougaardt,
Wayne Florence and Dylan Clarke (South African Museum, Cape Town). We would also like to thank the
following people for their important technical contributions to this paper: Peter Last (CSIRO, Hobart) for his
advice and vast knowledge of Indo-Pacific chondrichthyans; John Pogonoski (CSIRO, Hobart) for the radiographs
and technical editing of the manuscript; Carlie Devine for image preparation.
References
Bessednov, L.N. (1966) A new shark species from the Tonkin Gulf - Negogaleus longicaudatus Bessednov sp. n. (Pisces,
Carcharinidae). Zoologicheskii Zhurnal, 45, 302–304.
Bleeker, P. (1852) Bijdrage tot de kennis der Plagiostomen van den Indischen Archipel. Verhandelingen van het Bataviaasch
Genootschap van Kunsten en Wetenschappen, 24, 1–92.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/22134379-90000832
Budker, P. (1935) Description d'un genre nouveau de la famille des Carcharinidés. Bulletin du Muséum National d'Histoire
Naturelle (Série 2), 7, 107–112.
Chen, J.T.F. (1963) A review of the sharks of Taiwan. Biological Bulletin Tunghai University Ichthyology Series Number, 1, 1–
102.
Chu, S. (1994) On the chondrichthyan fauna of the Taiwan Strait. In: Fourth Indo-Pacific Fish Conference, Bangkok, Thailand.
Kasetsart University Bangkok, Thailand, pp. 127–137.
Compagno, L.J.V. (1984) FAO species catalogue. Sharks of the World. An annotated and illustrated catalogue of shark species
known to date. Part 1. Carcharhiniformes. FAO Fisheries Synopsis, No. 125, v. 4 (part 2), pp 251–655.
Compagno, L.J.V. (1988) Sharks of the order Carcharhiniformes. The Blackburn Press, New Jersey, 486 pp.
Compagno, L.J.V. (1998) Hemigaleidae. Weasel sharks. In: Carpenter, K.E. & Niem, V.H. (Eds.), FAO identification guide for
fishery purposes. The Living Marine Resources of the Western Central Pacific. FAO, Rome, pp. 1305–1311.
WHITE & HARRIS
184 · Zootaxa 3752 (1) © 2013 Magnolia Press
Compagno, L.J.V. (2001) Sharks of the World: an annotated and illustrated catalogue of shark species known to date. Vol. 2.
Bullhead, mackerel and carpet sharks (Heterodontiformes, Lamniformes and Orectolobiformes). FAO, Rome, 269 pp.
Compagno, L., Dando, M. & Fowler, S. (2005) Field guide to the sharks of the world. Harper Collins Publishers Ltd, London,
368 pp.
Compagno, L.J.V., Krupp, F. & Carpenter, K.E. (1996) A new weasel shark of the genus Paragaleus from the northwestern
Indian Ocean and the Arabian Gulf (Carcharhiniformes: Hemigaleidae). Fauna of Saudi Arabia, 15, 391–402.
Compagno, L.J.V. & Smale, M.J. (1985) Paragaleus leucolomatus, a new shark from South Africa, with notes on the
systematics of hemigaleid sharks (Carcharhiniformes: Hemigaleidae). J.L.B. Smith Institute of Ichthyology Special
Publication, 37, 1–21.
Garman, S. (1906) New Plagiostomia. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology, 46, 203–208.
Ho, H.C. & Shao, K.T. (2011) Annotated checklist and type catalog of fish genera and species described from Taiwan. Zootaxa,
2957, 1–74.
Last, P.R., White, W.T., Caira, J.N., Dharmadi, Fahmi, Jensen, K., Lim, A.P.K., Manjaji-Matsumoto, B.M., Naylor, G.J.P.,
Pogonoski, J.J., Stevens, J.D. & Yearlsey, G.K. (2010) Sharks and rays of Borneo. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, 298 pp.
Nakabo, T. (Ed.) (2002) Fishes of Japan with pictorial keys to the species. English edn. Tokai University Press, Tomigawa,
1749 pp.
Naylor, G.J.P., Caira, J.N., Jensen, K., Rosana, K.A.M., White, W.T. & Last, P.R. (2012) A DNA sequence-based approach to
the identification of shark and ray species and its mplications for global elasmobranch diversity and parasitology. Bulletin
of the American Natural History Museum, 367, 1–263.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1206/754.1
Shao, K.T., Ho, H.C., Lin, P.L., Lee, P.F., Lee, M.Y., Tsai, C.Y., Liao, Y.C., Lin, Y.C., Chen, J.P. & Yeh, H.M. (2008) A
checklist of the fishes of southern Taiwan, northern South China Sea. The Raffles Bulletin of Zoology, Suppl. 19, 233–271.
Shen, S.C. (Ed.) (2011) Fishes of Taiwan. National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan, 956 pp.
Shen, S.-C., Lees, S.-C., Shao, K.-T., Mok, H.-K., Chen, C.-T. & Chen, C.-H. (Eds.) (1993) Fishes of Taiwan. National Taiwan
University, Taipei, Taiwan, 956 pp.
Weigmann, S. (2012) Contribution to the taxonomy and distribution of six shark species (Chondrichthyes, Elasmobranchii)
from the Gulf of Thailand. ISRN Zoology, 2012, 1–24.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5402/2012/860768
White, W.T., Last, P.R., Stevens, J.D., Yearsley, G.K., Fahmi & Dharmadi (2006) Economically important sharks and rays of
Indonesia. ACIAR Publishing, Canberra, 329 pp.
Whitley, G.P. (1931) New names for Australian fishes. Australian Zoologist, 6, 310–334.
