Catch composition of a traditional Indonesian shark fishery operating in the MOU Box, northwestern Australia: Results of shark fin identification from Operation Snapshot (May 2015)

Abstract

This report characterises the shark catch of nine Indonesian fishing vessels operating in the eastern margin of the MOU Box1 during May 2015, based on the analysis of images and tissue samples of shark dorsal fins encountered on board. This sampling was undertaken by a team led by the Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA) as part of Operation Snapshot, an ongoing activity that aims to estimate the catches of a range of traditional Indonesian fisheries operating within these waters.
A number of factors are likely to have contributed to fishing pressure for sharks2 in these waters in recent decades, and there is evidence that shark numbers in parts of the MOU Box may have been considerably depleted. While Australian fisheries have operated within the MOU Box and adjacent waters in the past, there are currently no significant Australian fisheries operating in this region, and as such the traditional fishery is understood to be the primary current source of fishing mortality for shark species in these waters. Additionally, a number of species distributed throughout these waters are of global conservation and management concern, and subject to international treaties to which Australia is a signatory. In order to assess whether or not Australia is meeting its obligations under these treaties, and for the assessment of northern Australian fisheries stocks that span this region, including those of domestic management concern, it is necessary to know what species are being taken and exported from the MOU Box. However, as many shark species are difficult to identify, particularly as severed fins, field identification of shark species encountered on vessels is problematic for officers.
Here we identified, to species, 152 shark dorsal fins collected during Operation Snapshot (May 2015) using expert visual identification and DNA methods, and predicted the lengths, weights and estimated sexual maturity of the corresponding sharks. We further evaluated the success of two semi-automated methods that are currently under development for non-experts to identify the species of dorsal fins from photographs; a Morphometric method (Marshall 2011), and iSharkFin 1.0 © FAO 2014-2016.
The sampled dorsal fins represented 152 individual sharks from 16 species belonging to the families Carcharhinidae (whaler sharks) and Sphyrnidae (hammerhead sharks). The two most abundant species by number were Sandbar Sharks (Carcharhinus plumbeus) and Tiger Sharks (Galeocerdo cuvier), which made up 43.4% and 29.6% of the catch, respectively, followed by Spinner Sharks (Carcharhinus brevipinna) (7.2%) and Grey Reef Sharks (Carcharhinus amblyrhynchos) (5.3%). The total estimated weight of the catch was 10486 kg, dominated by Tiger Sharks (66.5%), followed by Sandbar Sharks (15.3%), and Spinner Sharks (8.2%). The catch comprised medium to large sharks (estimated total lengths 89 – 409 cm), with the majority (58.6%) estimated to be ‘maturing’ (i.e. between the minimum and maximum recorded lengths for maturity of the given species). Overall the catch was composed of inshore sharks that are common in northern Australian waters, including reef-associated species. This species composition was generally similar to that found on other Indonesian vessels fishing in northern Australian waters, however, there was a notable absence of smaller inshore shark species.
Evaluated against the DNA results, 100% of the 145 identifications made by the Expert Visual identification method were correct. The Morphometric identification method achieved a success rate of 69.1%, while iSharkFin 1.0 identified only 29.2 % of viable dorsal fin photographs correctly. We conclude that the iSharkFin identification program version 1.0 is not a feasible tool for AFMA officers to identify shark fin specimens to species in northern Australian waters. While our results highlight the value of expertise in the morphological identification of fins in this scenario, there remains a need to increase the capacity for AFMA officers to correctly identify shark fin specimens. We recommend supporting additional extensive catch investigation studies, such as Operation Snapshot, that use morphological and DNA approaches, in order to a) collect baseline species data to strengthen the development of non-expert morphological identification tools, and b) simultaneously collect catch composition data on the MOU Box fishery. Such baseline data should be used to develop a region-specific identification tool for AFMA officers working in northern Australia, including the MOU Box. We also recommend training for AFMA officers to increase their level of morphological shark fin identification expertise, and to recognise species listed under international treaties. Finally, we recommend that in any future Operation Snapshot activities, left pectoral fins also be photographed, as well as both sides of the fin, the fin base, and a close up of the skin surface.

Full text

Catch composition of a traditional Indonesian shark
fishery operating in the MOU Box, northwestern Australia:
Results of shark fin identification from Operation Snapshot (May 2015)
2016 / 001375
Lindsay Marshall, Jenny Giles, Grant Johnson

Shark fin ID from Operation Snapshot (May 2015) AFMA Project 2016/001375
© Commonwealth of Australia 2015
With the exception of the Commonwealth Coat of Arms, the agency’s logo, any material protected by a trade
mark and where otherwise noted all material presented in this document is provided under a Creative Commons
Attribution 3.0 Australia (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/) licence.
The details of the relevant licence conditions are available on the Creative Commons website (accessible using
the links provided) as is the full legal code for the CC BY 3.0 AU licence
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/legalcode).
The Australian Fisheries Management Authority must be attributed as the author of the material. As far as
practicable, material for which the copyright is owned by a third party will be clearly labelled. The agency has
made all reasonable efforts to ensure that this material has been reproduced in this document with the full
consent of the copyright owners.
Copyright requests and enquiries concerning further authorisation should be addressed to:
The Communications Manager, Australian Fisheries Management Authority, PO Box 7051 Canberra ACT 2601
or emailed to communications@afma.gov.au.
The terms of use for the Commonwealth Coat of Arms are available from the It's an Honour website.
Acknowledgments
This project was made possible by an opportunity to utilise the Australian Border Force Cutter THAIYAK to
operate in the remote eastern part of the MOU Box in May 2015. The project was further supported through an
arrangement with the Northern Territory Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries who allowed their
shark scientist to collaborate on the project. AFMA Manager, Jim Prescott, was instrumental in the planning of
this operation, and also in the review of the final report. AFMA Officer Will Hansen was also instrumental in the
collection of field data. AFMA provided funding for the morphological and DNA analyses to conclusively
identify the species of shark fins collected in this project.
Cover Photograph
Left: Traditional Indonesian fishing vessel Akrab intercepted by Border Force and the Australian Fisheries
Management Authority (AFMA) to determine shark catch composition in the MOU box,by NT DPIF/Grant
Johnson. Right: Tiger shark fins on deck of traditional Indonesian fishing vessel Reskuna , by NT DPIF/Grant
Johnson.
ISBN 978-0-9943005-2-2

Shark fin ID from Operation Snapshot (May 2015) AFMA Project 2016/001375
Catch composition of a traditional Indonesian shark fishery
operating in the MOU Box, northwestern Australia: Results of
shark fin identification from Operation Snapshot (May 2015)
Lindsay Marshall1, Jenny Giles2 and Grant Johnson3
1Consultant (Morphological analyses) drlindsayjgutteridge@gmail.com
2Consultant (DNA analyses) jennylgiles@gmail.com
3Shark Research Scientist, Northern Territory Department of Primary Industry
and Fisheries grant.johnson@nt.gov.au
February 2016
Report number 20016/001375

Shark fin ID from Operation Snapshot (May 2015) AFMA Project 2016/001375
Table of Contents
Non-technical Summary ................................................................................................................ 1
Background ..................................................................................................................................... 3
Need ................................................................................................................................................. 6
Objectives ........................................................................................................................................ 7
Methods ........................................................................................................................................... 8
Sample collection ......................................................................................................................... 8
Samples submitted ...................................................................................................................... 13
Shark fin species identification methods .................................................................................... 13
Expert Visual identification method ...................................................................................... 14
Morphometric identification method ..................................................................................... 14
iSharkFin identification method ............................................................................................. 14
DNA identification method .................................................................................................... 15
Final species identification ..................................................................................................... 15
Size, weight and maturity estimates. .......................................................................................... 15
Results ........................................................................................................................................... 16
Comparison of morphological species identification methods .................................................. 17
Total catch composition ............................................................................................................. 19
Size and maturity composition ................................................................................................... 22
Discussion ...................................................................................................................................... 27
Comparison of morphological identification methods ............................................................... 27
Improved data collection ............................................................................................................ 29
Catch composition ...................................................................................................................... 31
Conservation implications .......................................................................................................... 31
Benefits / Management Outcomes .............................................................................................. 32
Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 33
References ..................................................................................................................................... 35
Supplements & Appendices ......................................................................................................... 37

Shark fin ID from Operation Snapshot (May 2015) AFMA Project 2016/001375
1
Non-technical Summary
This report characterises the shark catch of nine Indonesian fishing vessels operating in the
eastern margin of the MOU Box1 during May 2015, based on the analysis of images and tissue
samples of shark dorsal fins encountered on board. This sampling was undertaken by a team led
by the Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA) as part of Operation Snapshot, an
ongoing activity that aims to estimate the catches of a range of traditional Indonesian fisheries
operating within these waters.
A number of factors are likely to have contributed to fishing pressure for sharks2 in these waters
in recent decades, and there is evidence that shark numbers in parts of the MOU Box may have
been considerably depleted. While Australian fisheries have operated within the MOU Box and
adjacent waters in the past, there are currently no significant Australian fisheries operating in this
region, and as such the traditional fishery is understood to be the primary current source of
fishing mortality for shark species in these waters. Additionally, a number of species distributed
throughout these waters are of global conservation and management concern, and subject to
international treaties to which Australia is a signatory. In order to assess whether or not Australia
is meeting its obligations under these treaties, and for the assessment of northern Australian
fisheries stocks that span this region, including those of domestic management concern, it is
necessary to know what species are being taken and exported from the MOU Box. However, as
many shark species are difficult to identify, particularly as severed fins, field identification of
shark species encountered on vessels is problematic for officers.
Here we identified, to species, 152 shark dorsal fins collected during Operation Snapshot (May
2015) using expert visual identification and DNA methods, and predicted the lengths, weights
and estimated sexual maturity of the corresponding sharks. We further evaluated the success of
two semi-automated methods that are currently under development for non-experts to identify the
species of dorsal fins from photographs; a Morphometric method (Marshall 2011), and iSharkFin
1.0 © FAO 2014-2016.
1 The MOU Box is an area of Australian waters in the Timor Sea where Indonesian traditional fishers are permitted
to operate subject to the Australia–Indonesia Memorandum of Understanding regarding the Operations of Indonesian
Traditional Fishermen in Areas of the Australian Fishing Zone and Continental Shelf – 1974, and its subsequent
amendments (Figure 1).
2 ‘Sharks’ are defined here as sharks and shark-like batoids (sawfishes, guitarfishes, and shovelnose rays)

Shark fin ID from Operation Snapshot (May 2015) AFMA Project 2016/001375
2
The sampled dorsal fins represented 152 individual sharks from 16 species belonging to the
families Carcharhinidae (whaler sharks) and Sphyrnidae (hammerhead sharks). The two most
abundant species by number were Sandbar Sharks (Carcharhinus plumbeus) and Tiger Sharks
(Galeocerdo cuvier), which made up 43.4% and 29.6% of the catch, respectively, followed by
Spinner Sharks (Carcharhinus brevipinna) (7.2%) and Grey Reef Sharks (Carcharhinus
amblyrhynchos) (5.3%). The total estimated weight of the catch was 10486 kg, dominated by
Tiger Sharks (66.5%), followed by Sandbar Sharks (15.3%), and Spinner Sharks (8.2%). The
catch comprised medium to large sharks (estimated total lengths 89 – 409 cm), with the majority
(58.6%) estimated to be ‘maturing’ (i.e. between the minimum and maximum recorded lengths
for maturity of the given species). Overall the catch was composed of inshore sharks that are
common in northern Australian waters, including reef-associated species. This species
composition was generally similar to that found on other Indonesian vessels fishing in northern
Australian waters, however, there was a notable absence of smaller inshore shark species.
Evaluated against the DNA results, 100% of the 145 identifications made by the Expert Visual
identification method were correct. The Morphometric identification method achieved a success
rate of 69.1%, while iSharkFin 1.0 identified only 29.2 % of viable dorsal fin photographs
correctly. We conclude that the iSharkFin identification program version 1.0 is not a feasible tool
for AFMA officers to identify shark fin specimens to species in northern Australian waters.
While our results highlight the value of expertise in the morphological identification of fins in
this scenario, there remains a need to increase the capacity for AFMA officers to correctly
identify shark fin specimens. We recommend supporting additional extensive catch investigation
studies, such as Operation Snapshot, that use morphological and DNA approaches, in order to a)
collect baseline species data to strengthen the development of non-expert morphological
identification tools, and b) simultaneously collect catch composition data on the MOU Box
fishery. Such baseline data should be used to develop a region-specific identification tool for
AFMA officers working in northern Australia, including the MOU Box. We also recommend
training for AFMA officers to increase their level of morphological shark fin identification
expertise, and to recognise species listed under international treaties. Finally, we recommend that
in any future Operation Snapshot activities, left pectoral fins also be photographed, as well as
both sides of the fin, the fin base, and a close up of the skin surface.

Shark fin ID from Operation Snapshot (May 2015) AFMA Project 2016/001375
3
Background
Indonesian traditional fishermen have historically accessed the waters off northern Australia for
centuries, and, for the majority of this time, the primary target species were demersal species
such as sea cucumbers and molluscs. The areas accessed included from the Gulf of Carpentaria in
the east to the Kimberley coast in the west including offshore islands and reefs like Ashmore
Reef. In recognition of these centuries-old fishing practices and as a gesture of friendship,
Australia entered into an MOU with Indonesia that was signed in November 1974. The MOU
provided continuing fishing access to the exclusive Australian Fishing Zone (AFZ) surrounding
Ashmore Reef, Cartier Islet, Seringapatam Reef, and Scott Reef.
In the years that followed, Australia made attempts to renegotiate the MOU to address
management and conservation concerns of certain species, particularly in the Ashmore Reef
National Nature Reserve proclaimed in 1983. In 1989, the Practical Guidelines for Implementing
the MOU were agreed upon with Indonesia. The new Guidelines defined ‘traditional fishing’ as
fishing that did not involve the use of motorised vessels or mechanised fishing gear, which
eliminated access by a large number of motorised vessels. At the same time, the negotiations
resulted in much larger effective MOU area than the original five reefs and islands. The resulting
‘MOU Box’ is an area of about 48,000 km2 (Figure 1).
A number of factors are likely to have contributed to fishing pressure for sharks in the MOU Box,
including an expanding Asian market for shark fins and associated products in recent decades
(e.g. Clarke et al. 2007, Field et al. 2009a), decreasing catch-per-unit-effort for sharks in
neighbouring Southeast Asian waters (e.g. Field et al. 2009b, White and Kyne 2010, Lam and
Sadovy de Mitcheson 2011), overfishing of the sedentary resources present (Fox 2002), and
increased illegal fishing for sharks more generally in northern Australia. This may have followed
a pattern of fishing termed ‘contagious exploitation’ by (Eriksson et al. 2015), which is defined
as the rapid spread of exploitation across ecosystems enabled by the increasing connectivity
between areas of demand and resource rich areas.

Shark fin ID from Operation Snapshot (May 2015) AFMA Project 2016/001375
4
Figure 1. The MOU Box, situated between northwestern Australia and the Island of Timor.
While shark fishing in the MOU Box is currently limited to crews using sail powered vessels and
hand-hauled longlines, there is evidence that shark populations in parts of these waters may have
been considerably depleted. Meekan et al. (2006a) suggest that overfishing in these waters is the
most plausible explanation for an observed difference in shark abundance between Scott Reef and
nearby Rowley Shoals, outside of the MOU Box. Data compiled by the Australian Fisheries
Management Authority (AFMA) suggest that the contemporary shark fishery in the MOU Box
largely operates on its eastern margins (where sampling was carried out for this project) well
away from Scott Reef, but including Cartier Reef. Little research has been conducted in this area

Shark fin ID from Operation Snapshot (May 2015) AFMA Project 2016/001375
5
aside from catch sampling undertaken by fishermen from Rote, Indonesia (Momigliano and
Jaiteh 2015). The eastern margin of the MOU Box, and the traditional shark fishing taking place
in this area, overlaps with the Western Australian Joint Authority Northern Shark Fishery
(JANSF). The official area of overlap is 1370 km2, more than twice the area of the Ashmore Reef
Marine Nature Reserve. In practice, however, the area of overlap appears likely to exceed the
official area, possibly by as much as double based on observations of traditional fishing activity
by AFMA patrols to the east and south of the MOU Box borders.
The JANSF is currently not operating, as it is unable to receive export approval from the
Department of Environment amid concerns about the status of Sandbar shark Carcharhinus
plumbeus, after catches in “recent years far exceeded their sustainable annual limit so the
breeding stock remains inadequate” (Department of Fisheries 2012). The basis for halting
operations of the JANSF highlights the need for assessment of ongoing catch taking place legally
in the MOU Box and illegally, beyond its eastern and southern borders. With the JANSF not
operating, and lack of other significant Australian fisheries operating in this region, the
traditional fishery is understood to be the primary source of fishing mortality for shark species in
the MOU Box and adjacent waters. Given the mobility and habitat use of the exploited shark
species, the traditional fishery is highly likely to draw on shark stocks from a much wider area.
Given the vulnerability of shark species to overexploitation on the basis of their life history
strategies (e.g. García et al. 2008), and atypically low observed shark population densities at reefs
in the MOU Box (e.g. Meekan et al. 2006b), species-specific description of shark catch in these
waters is pertinent for assessing the sustainability of the fishery. In addition to the Sandbar shark
example given above, many of the species known to occur in these waters have been identified as
at risk of overexploitation in a range of other northern Australian fisheries (e.g. Zhou and
Griffiths 2007).
In addition to concerns over management of northern Australian shark stocks, a number of
species distributed throughout these waters are of global overexploitation concern and subject to
international treaties of which Australia is a signatory. The Convention on International Trade in
Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) and the Convention on the Conservation

Shark fin ID from Operation Snapshot (May 2015) AFMA Project 2016/001375
6
of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (Bonn Convention) oblige the Commonwealth to manage
the international trade of listed taxa and the take of listed taxa, respectively. At least ten species
of sharks and rays on CITES Appendix I and II are believed to inhabit the MOU Box, and are
subject to strict export regulations from Australia, and strict import regulations into Indonesia.
The 13 migratory marine shark species listed on the Bonn convention (CMS) Appendices I and II
are afforded protections under Commonwealth law.
Need
In order to understand whether current practices comply with Australia’s obligations under the
Bonn Convention and CITES, it is necessary to know what species are being taken and exported
from the MOU Box. Further, considering that MOU Box fishery is currently understood to be the
largest source of fishing mortality in northwestern Australia, quantification of shark catches from
this fishery should be included in making the non-detriment findings that are necessary to allow
continued trade in CITES listed species. This information is also needed for the assessment of
northern Australian fisheries stocks which span this region, particularly as the region has a rich
shark and ray fauna including many species of species of regional and national domestic
conservation and management concern. To support the Australian Government with the scientific
data required for these assessments, the following are needed:
1) identification of the species being taken,
2) quantification of basic biological information pertaining to the take of these species,
3) collection of information about the fishing activities and, as far as possible,
4) assessment of the sustainability of the fishery or any other acute management or
conservation concerns.
In order to ensure legal compliance regarding the take and export of sharks, officers who are
responsible for such must be able to reliably differentiate species that are regulated from species
that are not. Many shark species are difficult to identify, and because officers often see sharks
represented as only severed fins, the identification becomes substantially more problematic.
Identification methods such as visual guides and software for non-experts to identify severed fins
are under development, however their applicability is currently challenging, owing to the rich and

Shark fin ID from Operation Snapshot (May 2015) AFMA Project 2016/001375
7
unique species compositions of northwestern Australia, alteration of fin shape with increasing
size/ maturity, within-species variability, and issues of deformation and damage. As a result, the
reliable identification of fins from complex species compositions requires considerable expertise.
This project creates an opportunity to test the utility of the iSharkFin software developed by FAO
as this has been suggested as an “off the shelf” solution.
In 2003, AFMA began Operation Snapshot, with the aim of estimating the catches of traditional
fishers operating in the MOU Box and the prices received for these products when they return to
Indonesia. The information is valuable from both a biological perspective (e.g. estimating rates
of exploitation of species) and an economic one (e.g. determining the economic incentives for
fishers to exploit resources in the MOU Box). Since its commencement Operation Snapshot has
been successful in documenting activities and quantifying catches, particularly the harvest of sea
cucumbers, by traditional Indonesian fishermen operating at Scott Reef. It has also been
successful in highlighting issues of concern, such as the use of explosives to harvest reef fish and
the intensive exploitation of Bumphead Parrotfish (Bolbometopon muricatum). Despite Operation
Snapshot’s successes to date, little work has been done in relation to sharks, and the traditional
Indonesian shark catch in the MOU Box remains poorly studied and catches unquantified. The
aim of Operation Snapshot (May 2015) was to determine the catch composition of sharks caught
in the MOU Box by traditional Indonesian fishers and document the incidence of catches of
species listed under international treaties.
Objectives
The initial objectives of this report were to;
1) Determine the species of shark fins collected during Operation Snapshot (May 2015) using
Expert Visual identification and DNA methods, and
2) Use morphological methods to determine the predicted lengths, weights and estimated sexual
maturity of the corresponding catch.
Additionally, this report will compare the efficacy of two semi-automated morphometric methods
that are currently under development for identifying species from photographs of dorsal fins.

Shark fin ID from Operation Snapshot (May 2015) AFMA Project 2016/001375
8
Methods
Sample collection
Shark catch from nine traditional Indonesian Type 23 longline vessels operating in the MOU Box
was sampled between the 8th and 15th May, 2015. Fishing vessels were initially located by aerial
surveillance, whereupon the Australian Border Force cutter THAIYAK, steamed to intercept
them (Figure 2). The THAIYAK’s tenders were used to send a boarding team, consisting of
AFMA, NT Fisheries and Border Force personnel, to each fishing vessel.
Figure 2. The traditional Indonesian Type 2 fishing vessel, Bintang Fajur, prior to being boarded. This vessel is
typical of the nine Indonesian fishing vessels inspected.
The skipper of the fishing vessel was interviewed to determine when they had departed their
home port, when they expected to return, how many crew were on board and the nature of the
fishing gear they used. Language was a barrier during most of these interviews, with most
skippers having only a limited command of English and the boarding party having only a very
3 Type 2 vessels are wooden Indonesian fishing vessels, 9-15 metres in length with a maximum speed of 1-6 knots,
3-8 crew and generally no electronics. If the vessel has any form of alternate mechanical propulsion it is no longer
considered a “traditional vessel” as detailed in the MOU agreement.

Shark fin ID from Operation Snapshot (May 2015) AFMA Project 2016/001375
9
limited command of Indonesian. On the final boarding a translator was present, which allowed a
significantly more detailed interview to occur.
Figure 3. Example of a fin photograph, taken for each dorsal fin on board each fishing vessel. Each photo included a
unique identifying number and a ruler, which acted as a scale.
Shark fins were inspected and a photo was taken of each dorsal fin. The photo was taken on a
blue background and included a scale and a unique identifying number (Figure 3). A tissue
sample was collected from each fin (<5g). This sample was initially frozen on board the
THAIYAK. Once the trip was completed samples were placed in 20% dimethyl sulfoxide
solution (DMSO) in 5M salt (NaCl) solution and stored at – 20 C for long-term preservation.
Each tissue sample was collected from a consistent location on the posterior margin of the dorsal
fin. The resulting notch acted as a marker identifying fins previously sampled.

Shark fin ID from Operation Snapshot (May 2015) AFMA Project 2016/001375
10
Figure 4. Shark fins drying on the deck of the traditional Type 2 fishing vessel, Akrab.
Eight of the vessels were anchored in the shelter of Browse Island and were boarded between the
9th and 10th of May 2015. A ninth vessel, the Sumi Jaya, was initially boarded at sea on the 8th
May 2015. The vessel had just commenced fishing activities, with the fins of only one shark
being present on board. This vessel was re-boarded on the 15th May 2015 at Ashmore Reef, when
it had completed fishing and was en route to its home port of Papela in Rote. The double
inspection of this vessel allowed the entire catch over the previous seven days to be sampled.

Shark fin ID from Operation Snapshot (May 2015) AFMA Project 2016/001375
11
Figure 5. Shark fins stored under the deck, prior to being sorted and sampled for Operation Snapshot.
The retained shark product on board the vessels was comprised mostly of shark fins. Drying fins
were located on deck (Figure 4), while dried fins were stored under deck (Figure 5). Various
other shark products were observed including dried meat, jaws, skin and cartilage. All the vessels
originated from Papela, Rote carrying, on average, six crew. Navigation equipment was limited to
handheld GPS and compass. Average trip length, based on information collected during the
interviews, was 23 days. All vessels used longlines to target sharks, with hook numbers varying
between 80 and 147 (average 104) (Figure 6). The average length of the longline was 850m with
rocks being used as weights to anchor the line. One of the vessels interviewed indicated that
longlines were set in the evening, permitted to soak overnight, and were retrieved early the next
morning. Hand gaffs were used to land large sharks (Figure 7).

Shark fin ID from Operation Snapshot (May 2015) AFMA Project 2016/001375
12
Figure 6. Stowed longline hooks and wire traces on board fishing vessel Sumi Jaya.
Aside from longlines, the Indonesian fishing vessels had other fishing gear on board. Handlines
were present on all vessels and were used for targeting demersal fish that appear to be used for
personal consumption and bait. Goggles were also present on all except one vessel, and these
were used to assist with freediving and spearfishing. Every vessel also had a sampan (small flat-
bottomed boat), which was used to fish and skin dive from in sheltered waters. The sampan were
also used to transport crew between vessels at anchor behind Browse Island. One vessel had three
ladong (spear for collecting sea cucumber) on board although no evidence of any sea cucumber
take was observed.

Shark fin ID from Operation Snapshot (May 2015) AFMA Project 2016/001375
13
Figure 7. Hand gaffs on board the fishing vessel, Sumi Jaya, used to haul large sharks on board for processing.
Samples submitted
Photographs of 152 shark dorsal fins and 149 tissue samples from shark dorsal fins collected
during Operation Snapshot’s May 2015 operation were submitted for species identification. A
total of 153 fins were represented (OS1_001-156) excluding OS1_005, 014, and 036 which were
not assigned and do not correspond to specimens. One specimen had no corresponding image
(OS1_151), and two specimens had corresponding images but no tissue sample (OS1_063, 084).
Shark fin species identification methods
The images were examined by shark fin identification expert Dr Lindsay Marshall for visual
species identifications, and then subjected to two additional morphological species identification

Shark fin ID from Operation Snapshot (May 2015) AFMA Project 2016/001375
14
methods that are currently under development; a Morphometric method after Marshall (2011),
and iSharkFin 1.0, both described below. The tissue samples were submitted to shark fin
identification expert Dr Jenny Giles for DNA species identification. Identifications by all three
morphological methods were made before the DNA identification results were made available.
Expert Visual identification method
Each of the 152 dorsal fin photographs was inspected by shark fin identification expert Dr
Lindsay Marshall, and a species identification was made based on visual characters such as fin
shape, fin colour and markings, fin tip colour and markings, and denticle appearance. Notes on
these characters for each photograph are listed in Appendix II.
Morphometric identification method
Each of the 152 dorsal fin photographs was assigned a species identification, by Dr Lindsay
Marshall, through a statistical assignment method using a combination of length measurements
and categorical visual data (fin colour and markings) using methods outlined in Chapter 5 of
Marshall (2011). As the fin base length (BL) of the fins in the 152 photographs ranged from 80 –
408 mm, smaller species (maximum BL < 80 mm) were eliminated from comparison in the
discriminant analysis. These species were Carcharhinus coatesi 4, Carcharhinus macloti,
Loxodon macrorhinus, Rhizoprionodon acutus and Rhizoprionodon taylori.
Fins that were markedly damaged or deformed were eliminated from both the Morphometric and
iSharkFin analyses (7 fins, see Appendix I).
iSharkFin identification method
Each of the 152 photos was assigned a species identification by Grant Johnson, an experienced
shark fisheries observer and field scientist, using the iSharkFin 1.0 software. Following the
program user manual, photos were loaded and the interactive identification tool used to predict
species. This required the dorsal fin tip colour to be defined as black, white, no tip colour or
decoloured. The basic points corresponding to the dorsal fin origin, fin insertion, free rear tip and
fin tip were then selected. The shape of the fin was defined by pressing the draw lines function
and moving the purple point on each of the 20 auxiliary lines to the edge of the fin. To ensure
4 Appears in Marshall (2011) under Carcharhinus dussumeri prior to recent redescription of the C. dussumieri- C.
sealei complex (White 2012)

Shark fin ID from Operation Snapshot (May 2015) AFMA Project 2016/001375
15
accuracy during this process, the program’s zoom facility was used so that the points were placed
precisely on the fin edge. The ‘calculate measurements’ function was then initiated, and the
species identity predicted by the software.
DNA identification method
Tissue samples corresponding to 149 shark dorsal fins were submitted to shark fin identification
expert Dr Jenny Giles for species identification by mtDNA sequencing (OS1_001- OS1_156
excl. OS1_005, 014, 036). OS1_003, 007, 063 and 084 were each either not submitted or
corresponded to an empty tube. Details of the analysis are given in the attached DNA analysis
report (Supplement I). Resulting identifications are given alongside morphological identifications
in Table 1 (summarised), and in Appendix I (itemised).
Final species identification
The species identifications from the DNA method were used in the subsequent catch composition
analysis. For samples where DNA results were unavailable (6 samples), the Expert Visual
identifications were used. Only those specimens with DNA results were considered in comparing
the efficacy of the three different morphological methods at correctly identifying the species in
the photograph.
Size, weight and maturity estimates.
After species identifications were assigned, body size was estimated by converting dorsal fin base
length (BL mm) to total length (TL cm) using species-specific conversion equations generated
using known shark specimens. Details on this method can be found in Chapter 4 of Marshall
(2011), with updated TL/BL equations on the basis of additional baseline data obtained from
2011-present. The weight of each shark was determined by converting TL (cm) or fork length
(FL cm) to total weight (TW kg) for those species that had published TL/TW or FL/TW
relationships. These can be found in Chapter 5 of Marshall (2011) with the exception of
Triaenodon obesus. For this species, the TL/TW relationship from (Robbins 2006) was used.
Maturity status was assessed using the absolute minimum and maximum size (TL cm) at maturity
for the combined sexes of each species (Last and Stevens 2009; Marshall 2011). Individuals were
deemed ‘Immature’ if they had an estimated TL (cm) less than the minimum size at maturity for

Shark fin ID from Operation Snapshot (May 2015) AFMA Project 2016/001375
16
both males and females of that species. If the estimated TL (cm) was greater than the minimum
TL at maturity but less than the maximum TL at maturity for both males and females of that
species, the individual was deemed ‘Maturing’. All individuals with greater estimated TL (cm)
than the maximum TL at maturity for both males and females of that species were deemed
‘Mature’.
Results
Final species identification
The 153 fins sampled in Operation Snapshot were identified as originating from the species listed
in the table below (Table 1). Final identifications were assigned on the basis of DNA methods
(149 submitted samples) and where DNA identifications were unavailable, Expert Visual
identification (152 submitted photographs). All Expert Visual identifications for viable
photographs concurred with the DNA identifications. The one specimen that was submitted for
DNA analysis but without a corresponding photograph (OS1_151, Galeocerdo cuvier) was not
included in the following catch composition analyses, as fin measurement data were not
available.

Shark fin ID from Operation Snapshot (May 2015) AFMA Project 2016/001375
17
Table 1. The final species identifications, for each specimen, that were used to describe the catch composition of the
boats surveyed during Operation Snapshot (May 2015). Table shows, for each species identified, the number of
specimens identified and the method used for the final identification. The Expert visual ID method was used for
specimens where DNA samples were unavailable for testing.
Comparison of morphological species identification methods
Of the three morphological identification methods from the photographs, by far the most
successful method was the Expert Visual identification method, with 100% of the 145 viable
dorsal fin photographs with corresponding DNA identifications identified correctly (Table 2).
The Morphometric identification method was the second most successful method with 69.1% of
viable dorsal fin photographs identified correctly (Table 2). The iSharkFin method was the least
successful, with only 29.2 % of viable dorsal fin photographs identified correctly (Table 2).
DNA Expert Visual ID Tot a l
Conclusion Common name (n)(n)(n)
Carcharhinus albimarginatus Silvertip shark 11
Carcharhinus altimus Bignose shark 1 1 2
Carcharhinus amblyrhynchos Grey reef shark 8 8
Carcharhinus amboinensis Pigeye shark 1 1
Carcharhinus brevipinna Spinner shark 11 11
Carcharhinus falciformis Silky shark 1 1
Carcharhinus leucas Bull shark 2 2
Carcharhinus limbatus/tilstoni Blacktip shark 6 6
Carcharhinus obscurus Dusky whaler 2 2
Carcharhinus plumbeus Sandbar shark 64 266
Carcharhinus sorrah Spot-tail shark 2 2
Galeocerdo cuvier Tiger shark 45 146
Negaprion acutidens Lemon shark 11
Triaenodon obesus Whitetip reef shark 2 2
Sphyrna lewini Scalloped hammerhead 1 1
Sphyrna mokarran Great hammerhead 1 1
Tot a l 147 6153

Shark fin ID from Operation Snapshot (May 2015) AFMA Project 2016/001375
18
Table 2. Comparison of the success rates of each of the three morphological methods used to identify each of the
shark dorsal fins in the 152 photographs, showing the number (n) of correct, incorrect and not applicable results per
method and the percentage (%) correct and incorrect results (for those samples that were applicable). An
identification was classified as correct if it corresponded with the DNA identification.
When the morphological identification methods were compared by species (the 14 species with
DNA identifications), the Expert Visual identification method performed well, with 100% correct
for all of the 14 species (Table 3). The Morphometric identification method performed well for
ten of the 14 species, which were 100% correctly classified, and reasonably well for one species
(Carcharhinus amblyrhynchos, n = 8) with 75% of specimens correctly classified (Table 3). The
Morphometric identification method did not perform well for three of the 14 species, with only
38.7% correctly classified for Carcharhinus plumbeus (n = 64), and no correct classifications for
C. obscurus (n = 2) or C. altimus (n = 1) (Table 3).
The iSharkFin 1.0 software performed well for three of the 14 species, with Carcharhinus
albimarginatus (n = 1), C. falciformis (n = 1), and C. sorrah (n = 2) identified 100% correctly,
and 66.7% and 50% correct classifications for C. brevipinna (n = 10) and C. leucas (n = 2),
respectively (Table 3). The iSharkFin method however did not perform well for nine of the 14
species, with only 20%, 19% and 40% correctly classified for Carcharhinus limbatus/tilstoni (n =
6), C. plumbeus (n = 62) and Galeocerdo cuvier (n = 41), respectively, and six species with 0%
correct classifications (C. altimus (n = 1), C. amblyrhynchos (n = 8), C. amboinensis (n = 1), C.
obscurus (n = 2), Negaprion acutidens (n = 1), and Triaenodon obesus (n = 2)) (Table 3).
(n)(%) (n)(%) (n)(%)
Correct 145 100.0 96 69.1 40 29.2
Incorrect 43 30.9 97 70.8
n/a 713 15
152 152 152
Morphometric ID iSharkfin IDExpert Visual ID

Shark fin ID from Operation Snapshot (May 2015) AFMA Project 2016/001375
19
Total catch composition
A total of 152 individual sharks from 16 species were identified from the 152 dorsal fin
photographs that were submitted for analysis. The two most abundant species, by number, were
Carcharhinus plumbeus (66 individual sharks), and Galeocerdo cuvier (45 individual sharks)
which made up 43.4% and 29.6% of the catch, respectively, followed by C. brevipinna (7.2%)
and C. amblyrhynchos (5.3%) (Figure 8, Table 4).
Table 3. Comparison, by species, of the success rates of each of the three morphological methods used to identify
each of the shark dorsal fins in the 152 photographs, showing the number (n) of correct, incorrect and not applicable
results per method and the percentage (%) correct and incorrect results (for those samples that were applicable). An
identification was classified as correct if it corresponded with the DNA identification. Fins not identified to species
for each method, and fins for which no DNA verification was available, are not given.
Species Correct Incorrect %
Correct Correct Incorrect %
Correct Correct Incorrect %
Correct
Carcharhinus albimarginatus 1100 1100 1100
Carcharhinus altimus 1100 1010
Carcharhinus amblyrhynchos 8100 62
75 80
Carcharhinus amboinensis 1100 1100 10
Carcharhinus brevipinna 10 100 9100 63
66.7
Carcharhinus falciformis 1100 1100 1100
Carcharhinus leucas 2100 2100 11
50
Carcharhinus limbatus/tilstoni 6100 6100 14
20
Carcharhinus obscurus 2100 2020
Carcharhinus plumbeus 64 100 24 38 38.7 12 50 19.4
Carcharhinus sorrah 2100 2100 2100
Galeocerdo cuvier 44 100 41 100 16 24 40
Negaprion acutidens 1100 1100 10
Triaenodon obesus 2100 2100 20
Total 145 100.0 96 43 69.1 40 97 29.2
Expert Visual ID iSharkfin IDMorphometric ID

Shark fin ID from Operation Snapshot (May 2015) AFMA Project 2016/001375
20
Figure 8. Species composition of the 152 dorsal fins photographed during Operation Snapshot, by number of
individuals per species.
In terms of estimated biomass, the sample was dominated by Galeocerdo cuvier (45 individual
sharks), which represented 66.5% of the total estimated biomass, with a combined estimated
weight of 6973.13 kg, followed by C. plumbeus (66 individual sharks) which represented 15.24%
of the catch and had a combined estimated weight of 1597.89 kg, and C. brevipinna (11
individual sharks) representing 8.22% of the catch and had a combined estimated weight of
862.26 kg (Figure 9, Table 4).

Shark fin ID from Operation Snapshot (May 2015) AFMA Project 2016/001375
21
Figure 9. Species composition of the 152 dorsal fins photographed during Operation Snapshot, by estimated biomass
per species.

Shark fin ID from Operation Snapshot (May 2015) AFMA Project 2016/001375
22
Table 4. The contribution of shark species photographed during Operation Snapshot by number (n), percent of total
number (% n), estimated biomass (bm) and percent of total estimated biomass (% bm).
Size and maturity composition
The majority of the total catch was composed of maturing sharks (58.6%) (Table 6). The
specimens of Negaprion acutidens and Sphyrna mokarran were estimated to be mature animals
(Table 6, Figure 10). The majority of the species Carcharhinus brevipinna (54.5%) were
estimated to be mature (Table 6, Figure 10). Carcharhinus leucas and C. sorrah had a 50% catch
of both mature and immature individuals, for each species, while and Triaenodon obesus had a
50% catch of both mature and maturing individuals (Table 6, Figure 10). The catch of
Carcharhinus albimarginatus, C. altimus, C. amboinensis, and C. falciformis was made up
entirely of immature individuals (Table 6, Figure 10).
Species n % n bm (kg) % bm
Carcharhinus albimarginatus 1 0.66 23.22 0.22
Carcharhinus altimus 2 1.32 60.54 0.58
Carcharhinus amblyrhynchos 8 5.26 147.85 1.41
Carcharhinus amboinensis 1 0.66 34.30 0.33
Carcharhinus brevipinna 11 7.24 862.26 8.22
Carcharhinus falciformis 1 0.66 11.29 0.11
Carcharhinus leucas 2 1.32 0.49 0.00
Carcharhinus limbatus/tilstoni 6 3.95 271.53 2.59
Carcharhinus obscurus 2 1.32 307.41 2.93
Carcharhinus plumbeus 66 43.42 1597.89 15.24
Carcharhinus sorrah 2 1.32 10.52 0.10
Galeocerdo cuvier 45 29.61 6973.13 66.50
Negaprion acutidens 1 0.66 78.59 0.75
Sphyrna lewini 1 0.66 30.23 0.29
Sphyrna mokarran 1 0.66 59.07 0.56
Triaenodon obesus 2 1.32 17.78 0.17
152 10486.08
Total number (n) and estimated
biomass (kg) of all sharks

Shark fin ID from Operation Snapshot (May 2015) AFMA Project 2016/001375
23
The smallest specimen present was (by estimation) a 89 cm TL, immature, spot-tail shark
(Carcharhinus sorrah), and the largest a 409 cm TL, mature, tiger shark (Galeocerdo cuvier)
(Table 5). The size range of the catch was composed of both medium and large sharks (89 – 409
cm TL) (Table 5).
Table 5. Minimum and maximum estimated total length (cm) and estimated weight (kg) for individuals within each
species category.
nMin Max Min Max
Carcharhinus albimarginatus 1 156.99 - 156.99 23.22 - 23.22
Carcharhinus altimus 2 145.46 - 186.25 18.66 - 41.88
Carcharhinus amblyrhynchos 8 116.60 - 161.39 10.75 - 28.33
Carcharhinus amboinensis 1 164.57 - 164.57 34.30 - 34.30
Carcharhinus brevipinna 11 148.20 - 282.65 19.14 - 164.34
Carcharhinus falciformis 1 123.94 - 123.94 11.29 - 11.29
Carcharhinus leucas 2 211.70 - 255.26 0.18 - 0.31
Carcharhinus limbatus/tilstoni 6 112.54 - 236.99 8.99 - 87.78
Carcharhinus obscurus 2 289.23 - 296.38 148.27 - 159.14
Carcharhinus plumbeus 66 94.10 - 177.54 4.84 - 39.58
Carcharhinus sorrah 2 89.12 - 116.39 3.24 - 7.28
Galeocerdo cuvier 45 142.49 - 408.67 12.80 - 550.67
Negaprion acutidens 1 236.94 - 236.94 78.59 - 78.59
Sphyrna lewini 1 186.40 - 186.40 30.23 - 30.23
Sphyrna mokarran 1 234.87 - 234.87 59.07 - 59.07
Triaenodon obesus 2 118.92 - 124.20 8.22 - 9.56
Estimated Weight
(kg)
TL (cm)

Shark fin ID from Operation Snapshot (May 2015) AFMA Project 2016/001375
24
Table 6. Maturity composition, showing the number (n) and percent (%) of immature, maturing and mature
individuals by species category.
n(n) (%) (n) (%) (n) (%)
Carcharhinus albimarginatus 1 1 100 - - - -
Carcharhinus altimus 2 2 100 - - - -
Carcharhinus amblyrhynchos 8 2 25 3 37.5 3 37.5
Carcharhinus amboinensis 1 1 100 - - - -
Carcharhinus brevipinna 11 3 27.3 2 18.2 6 54.5
Carcharhinus falciformis 1 1 100 - - - -
Carcharhinus leucas 2150--150
Carcharhinus limbatus/tilstoni 6 - - 4 66.7 2 33.3
Carcharhinus obscurus 2 - - 2 100 - -
Carcharhinus plumbeus 66 3 4.5 63 95.5 - -
Carcharhinus sorrah 2150--150
Galeocerdo cuvier 45 28 62.2 13 28.9 4 8.9
Negaprion acutidens 1 - - - - 1 100
Sphyrna lewini 1 - - 1 100 - -
Sphyrna mokarran 1 - - - - 1 100
Triaenodon obesus 2 - - 1 50 1 50
152 42 28 89 58.6 20 13.2
Immature Maturing Mature
Estimated Maturity Status
Species

Shark fin ID from Operation Snapshot (May 2015) AFMA Project 2016/001375
25
Figure 10. Length frequency histograms for the 152 individual dorsal fin specimens photographed during Operation
Snapshot, representing 16 species, for which total length (TL) was estimated. Colours represent estimated maturity
status as immature ( ), maturing ( ) and mature ( ). Length represents total length (cm) estimated using dorsal
fin base length.
Carcharhinus albimarginatus
Frequency
0
1
2
3
4
5
Carcharhinus falciformis
Total Length (cm)
050100150200250300350400450
Frequency
0
1
2
3
4
5
Frequency
0
1
2
3
4
5
Carcharhinus amboinensis
Frequency
0
1
2
3
4
5
Carcharhinus brevipinna
Frequency
0
2
4
6
8
10
Carcharhinus amblyrhynchos
Frequency
0
2
4
6
8
10
Carcharhinus altimus

Shark fin ID from Operation Snapshot (May 2015) AFMA Project 2016/001375
26
Figure 10 continued.
Carcharhinus leucas
Frequency
0
1
2
3
4
5
Galeocerdo cuvier
Total Length (cm)
050100150200250300350400450
Frequency
0
5
10
15
20
Carcharhinus limbatus/tilstoni
Frequency
0
1
2
3
4
5
Carcharhinus plumbeus
Frequency
0
10
20
30
40
50
Carcharhinus sorrah
Frequency
0
1
2
3
4
5
Carcharhinus obscurus
Frequency
0
1
2
3
4
5

Shark fin ID from Operation Snapshot (May 2015) AFMA Project 2016/001375
27
Figure 10 continued.
Discussion
Comparison of morphological identification methods
For undamaged fins that were captured in images viable for photographic analysis, the
Morphometric identification method and the iSharkFin 1.0 software, with overall success rates of
69.1% and 29.2% respectively, did not reach success rates comparable to the Expert Visual
identification, which had a 100% concurrence with the DNA identifications. For each of these
two semi-automated morphological methods under development, performance was much higher
for some species than for others. Success rates for these methods are likely to be affected by 1)
Negaprion acutidens
Frequency
0
1
2
3
4
5
Triaenodon obesus
Total Length (cm)
050100150200250300350400450
Frequency
0
1
2
3
4
5
Sphyrna lewini
Frequency
0
1
2
3
4
5
Sphyrna mokarran
Frequency
0
1
2
3
4
5

Shark fin ID from Operation Snapshot (May 2015) AFMA Project 2016/001375
28
the completeness of the comparison data set of known species (such as a paucity of specimens
within each taxon and across the possible size ranges of each species, and replication within each
size range to account for individual variation), 2) the ability to deal with image quality, variability
and distortion, 3) the quality and condition of the specimens in question, 4) the specificity of the
identification method to the area of fishing in question, and 5) the number and type of characters
used to determine diagnostic species identity and exclude others.
The completeness of the comparative reference dataset of shark specimens that are used to make
species identifications will impact the ability to successfully identify species and estimate their
size, weight and maturity status. A paucity of data for a particular species, or size class of shark
will lead to a reduced efficacy of the identification method for that group, and vice versa, and
abundance of data will lead to more robust classifications and estimates. Therefore,
supplementing the gaps in the baseline dataset is the first action that should be taken in order to
increase efficacy of the identification method and corresponding total length and maturity
estimates. For example, positive identification rates for C. altimus, C. amblyrhynchos and C.
plumbeus could be increased by supplementing the baseline sample size across all size classes.
The low positive identification rates observed for Carcharhinus plumbeus by both semi-
automated morphological methods are likely to be partly attributable to the individual variation in
shape observed in the sample, which may be remedied by better sampling for this species, and
other, comparative, species.
For a study where data collection is largely based on images of specimens, such as Operation
Snapshot, the quality of the photographs taken will greatly impact the ability to make
identifications. If the resolution and focus of the image is poor, the photograph does not show
enough of the fin, or if the image is distorted or taken at an angle, this will reduce the quality and
number of morphological characters that are available to make identifications with. Training in
photographic method is advised.
The quality and condition of the specimens that are investigated will impact the efficacy of the
morphological identification methods. In cases where fins are damaged, or the shape of the fin is
distorted, diagnostic morphometric characteristics may be obscured. Mostly automated

Shark fin ID from Operation Snapshot (May 2015) AFMA Project 2016/001375
29
morphometric programs, such as iSharkFin, with little judgement or input from the user are likely
to perform poorly on damaged or distorted fins. Whereas, in some cases where fins are damaged
or distorted, there are still enough characters to correctly identify the species using morphological
methods (e.g. the results of the Expert Visual method for samples OS1_019, 096, 105, 125, 139,
156 in Appendix I), the success of such will be correlated with the expertise and experience of
the person identifying the fin. For degraded or morphologically distorted samples where
insufficient diagnostic characters are visible for an expert to exclude one or more possibilities,
DNA methods must be used for species identification.
The geographic specificity and relevance of the reference material used for a given
morphological method is a major factor impacting its success. Dr Lindsay Marshall’s particular
expertise and experience investigating the catch of species in northern Australian waters was one
of the reasons why her identifications were so successful. The baseline data used for the
morphological identification method (the second most successful method) includes excellent
species coverage for northern Australian species compositions and has strong promise to assist
with determining species compositions and compliance of fisheries catch in these waters. The
iSharkFin program is designed to be used globally, with no regional specification, which is likely
to have affected its efficacy when used on northern Australian compositions.
The number and type of characters used to determine diagnostic species identity and exclude
others can affect the success of the identification method. This, in particular, is likely driving
some of the difference in success between the three morphological methods in this study, as the
inclusion of additional nominal (such as fin markings and denticle appearance) and ordinal (such
as excluding species by fin size) characters lead to a higher success rate in classifications per
method.
Improved data collection
In this report, it has been demonstrated that sampling a single photograph of a dorsal fin can yield
a wealth of information, while consuming little time. However, if slightly more time is afforded,
by expanding the sampling to include pectoral fins and three additional shots of the dorsal fin,

Shark fin ID from Operation Snapshot (May 2015) AFMA Project 2016/001375
30
even more useful information can be gathered. In cases such as Operation Snapshot, where the
sample is from a known source (i.e. a vessel, a single fishing trip, etc), it is likely that all the fins
have been removed from a set of whole sharks. In such cases, the number of first dorsal fins, left
(or right) pectoral fins and caudal fins are exactly, or (more typically) roughly, similar. For the
purposes of fisheries monitoring, it is reasonable to assume that these fins correspond to as a set
to whole animals. In this scenario, additional sampling of the pectoral fins can greatly assist with
providing more information for determining the species composition on the vessel, as these fins
add additional traits that assist in identification. It is therefore suggested that left pectoral fins
also be photographed in future (both left and right are not required as they are essentially
duplicates for this purpose). Images should be taken of both sides of all fins. For dorsal fins, these
are used to verify fin type, and as a replicate for image quality. For pectorals they provide two
sets of data, as the fin has different dorsal and ventral features.
In addition to the lateral shots of the dorsal fin, two additional images are recommended. Firstly,
a close-up shot of the denticles (modified scales on the skin surface), in a consistent position
showing the origin of the fin (at the point where the end of the fin closest to the head would meet
the body) and secondly, a shot of the fin base where it was previously attached to the shark.
Taking the additional lateral shot provides a duplicate likely to be particularly useful for selecting
an image of appropriate quality for semi-automated morphological methods, or for verifying the
correct fin type (i.e. dorsal or pectoral). The additional images of the skin and fin base capture
additional characters that will assist the morphological expert in making an identification where
insufficient diagnostic characters are visible in the lateral shot for any number of reasons.
Therefore, if time is allowed, the recommendation is to photograph left pectoral fins and take
additional photographs of each fin, namely both sides of all fins (dorsal and pectoral), a close-up
shot of the skin surface, and a photo of the fin base. A visual guide to the recommended
photographic procedure is provided in Supplement III.
With regard to equipment, it is recommended that field operators use a compact waterproof
digital camera (such as the RICOH WG-5 GPS, which includes a digital microscope), set at high

Shark fin ID from Operation Snapshot (May 2015) AFMA Project 2016/001375
31
resolution, to take photographs. Such cameras can easily be used in the field in wet situations and
can fit into the pocket of the observer.
Catch composition
The 152 individual sharks documented in the catch sampled by Operation Snapshot corresponded
to 16 shark species. This comprised 14 species in four genera of Family Carcharhinidae (whaler
sharks), and two species in one genus of Family Sphyrnidae (hammerhead sharks). The catch was
dominated by two species, with almost three quarters of the specimens originating from Sandbar
sharks Carcharhinus plumbeus and Tiger sharks Galeocerdo cuvier (43.4% and 29.6%
respectively), accounting for over three quarters of the total catch by estimated biomass (66.5%
and 15.24% respectively). All sampled C. plumbeus specimens were estimated to be not yet
mature, ranging from 0.9m to 1.8m, with the vast majority maturing and three immature
specimens. The majority of G. cuvier specimens were estimated to be immature, the smallest
1.4m long, with just under half as many maturing, and four mature specimens, the largest just
over 4m.
Overall the catch was composed of sharks species that are commonly found in inshore waters in
northern Australian, including reef-associated species, namely the Whitetip reef shark
Triaenodon obesus and Grey reef shark Carcharhinus amblyrhynchos. Regarding species
composition, this catch was generally similar to that found on other Indonesian vessels, fishing in
northern Australian waters (Chapter 5 of Marshall, 2011), however, there was a notable absence
of smaller inshore sharks, (e.g. Carcharhinus coatesi (previously C. dussumieri), C. macloti,
Loxodon macrorhinus and Rhizoprionodon spp), sawfish (e.g. Anoxypristis cuspidata), and
wedgefish (Rhynchobatus spp).
Conservation implications
The catch included two species listed on CITES Appendix II, Scalloped hammerhead Sphyrna
lewini (n=1, maturing) and Great hammerhead Sphyrna mokarran (n=1, mature), each of which
are also listed on the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS, or the Bonn Convention)

Shark fin ID from Operation Snapshot (May 2015) AFMA Project 2016/001375
32
Appendix II, along with Carcharhinus falciformis (n=1, immature). Almost half the catch was
composed of species assessed as Vulnerable on the IUCN Red List (45.4%, Carcharhinus
plumbeus, C. obscurus, Negaprion acutidens), 1.3% Endangered (S. lewini and S. mokarran),
5.9% data deficient (C. albimarginatus and C. amblyrhynchos), 3.9% from Near Threatened or
Least Concern (C. limbatus/C. tilstoni) and the remaining 43.4% from species assessed as Near
Threatened.
Almost half of all sharks in the sample were immature-maturing sandbar sharks (Carcharhinus
plumbeus). This is of particular concern considering that the Western Australian Joint Authority
Northern Shark Fishery (JANSF), which shares the area where the vessels sampled in this report
were fishing, is not operating partly due to concerns for the status of this species.
Benefits / Management Outcomes
This small project has provided the first description of the shark catch taken by traditional
Indonesian fishers in the MOU Box. It has shown conclusively that species listed on CITES
Appendix II and the Bonn Convention Appendix II are being taken in the fishery. The project
has also brought to attention the fact that the most numerous shark species in the sampled catch
was the Sandbar shark (Carcharhinus plumbeus), the sustainability of which was partly the
reason why the JANSF has failed to receive export accreditation, effectively stopping operations
in this fishery. The findings indicate that the shark management and conservation issues of this
fishery require more careful consideration than have been assumed previously.
The project has also highlighted that additional sampling should be undertaken in order to
increase the baseline data for species commonly taken in the MOU Box and northern Australian
waters in order to improve the performance of morphological methods of identification, and has
made suggestions for improved sampling methods including better photographic techniques.
Adoption of these recommendations would lead to expanded duties for officers boarding vessels
in the MOU Box but would also substantially add to the value of their operations in the long
term, by facilitating species identifications that are accurate and the production of data that could
feed into various shark management or conservation programs in and beyond the MOU Box, and
support Australia meeting its commitments under the CITES and Bonn Conventions.

Shark fin ID from Operation Snapshot (May 2015) AFMA Project 2016/001375
33
Conclusion
This project has met its objectives by delivering species identifications, predicted total lengths,
weights and maturity estimates for the 152 shark dorsal fin photographs that were submitted for
analysis. In addition, this report has provided an evaluation of two semi-automated
morphological identification methods, including the iSharkFin identification program, which has
been suggested as an “off the shelf” solution for AFMA officers.
It is concluded that the iSharkFin identification program version 1.0 is not a feasible tool for
AFMA officers who are attempting to identify shark fin specimens to species in northern
Australian waters, as the success rate of the identifications was very low. This study highlights
the value of expertise when dealing with a complex problem such as the morphological
identification of shark fins in the northern Australian region. The results demonstrate that
accurate morphological identifications of severed fins can be achieved, given the appropriate
level of expertise and field documentation of sufficient diagnostic morphological characters.
However, a more widespread solution is necessary to increase the capacity for AFMA officers to
be able to correctly identify specimens. The current Morphometric identification protocol still
requires some expertise to implement, and requires further development to increase its efficacy
for certain species for which current success rates are low owing to a need for more baseline data.
We suggest that more baseline sampling is needed for more representative sampling across all
size classes for all species present. This can be achieved by supporting more extensive catch
investigation studies, such as Operation Snapshot, that use DNA and morphological approaches
to collect baseline species data that strengthens the development of non-expert morphological
identification tools, while simultaneously collecting catch composition data on the MOU Box
fishery. Collection of data that can meet identified gaps in the morphometric method tested here
can be used to develop a region-specific identification tool for AFMA officers working in
northern Australia including the MOU Box. Training for AFMA officers to accompany such a
tool would aim to maximise the rate of correct identifications, by addressing the issues identified
above in relation to the photographs, and the use of the software. Training is also recommended
for AFMA officers to increase their level of morphological shark fin identification expertise, and

Shark fin ID from Operation Snapshot (May 2015) AFMA Project 2016/001375
34
in particular to recognise species listed under international treaties. It may further be valuable to
investigate the potential for collaborating with Indonesian agencies to provide training for
traditional Indonesian fishers fishing in the MOU Box to recognise shark species subject to
special management conditions.

Shark fin ID from Operation Snapshot (May 2015) AFMA Project 2016/001375
35
References
Clarke, S.C., Milner-Gulland, E.J., Bjørndal, T. 2007. Social, economic and regulatory drivers of
the shark fin trade. Marine Resource Economics 22:305–327
Eriksson, H., Österblom, H., Crona, B., Troell, M., Andrew, N., Wilen, J. and Folke, C. (2015)
Contagious exploitation of marine resources. Frontiers In Ecology And The Environment 13,
435–440
Field, I.C., Meekan, M.G., Buckworth, R.C. and Bradshaw, C.J.A. (2009a) Chapter 4
Susceptibility of Sharks, Rays and Chimaeras to Global Extinction. In: Advances in Marine
Biology, Vol. 56. Elsevier, pp 275–363
Field, I.C., Meekan, M.G., Buckworth, R.C. and Bradshaw, C.J.A. (2009b) Protein mining the
world’s oceans: Australasia as an example of illegal expansion‐and‐displacement fishing
Fish and Fisheries 10, 323–328
Department of Fisheries (2012) Accessed on line 21 January 2015
http://www.fish.wa.gov.au/Species/sharks/Pages/Shark-commercial-fishing.aspx
Fox, H.E. (2002) Damage from Blast Fishing and Ecological Factors Influencing Coral Reef
Recovery in Indonesia. PhD thesis, University of California, Berkeley
García, V.B., Lucifora, L.O. and Myers, R.A. (2008) The importance of habitat and life history to
extinction risk in sharks, skates, rays and chimaeras. Proceedings of the Royal Society of
London B: Biological Sciences 275, 83–89
iSharkFin © FAO 2014-2016. International Plan of Action For the Conservation and
Management of Sharks - Web site. iSharkFin. FI Institutional Websites. In: FAO Fisheries
and Aquaculture Department [online]. Rome. Updated 22 December 2015. [Cited 18
February 2016]. http://www.fao.org/fishery/ipoa-sharks/iSharkFin/en
Lam V.Y., Sadovy de Mitcheson Y. (2011) The sharks of southeast Asia – unknown,
unmonitored and unmanaged. Fish and Fisheries 12:51-74
Last P.R., Stevens J.D. (2009) Sharks and rays of Australia, second edition, CSIRO Publishing,
Melbourne
Marshall, L.J. (2011) The Fin Blue Line. PhD Thesis, University of Tasmaina, Tasmania
Meekan, M.G., Bradshaw, C., Press, M. and McLean, C. (2006a) Population size and structure of
whale sharks Rhincodon typus at Ningaloo Reef, Western Australia. Marine Ecology
Progress Series 319:275-85
Meekan, M.G., Cappo, M., Carleton, J. and Marriott, R.J. (2006b) Surveys of Shark and Fin-fish
Abundance on Reefs Within the MOU74 Box and Rowley Shoals Using Baited Remote
Underwater Video Systems. 28 pp. Australian Government Department of the Environment
and Heritage
Momigliano, P. and Jaiteh, V.F. (2015) First records of the grey nurse shark Carcharias taurus
(Lamniformes: Odontaspididae) from oceanic coral reefs in the Timor Sea. Marine
Biodiversity Records 8, e56
Robbins, W. (2006) Abundance, demography and population structure of the grey reef shark
(Carcharhinus amblyrhynchos) and the white tip reef shark (Triaenodon obesus) (Fam.
Charcharhinidae). PhD Thesis, James Cook University, Townsville
White,W.T., Kyne, P.M. (2010) The status of chondrichthyan conservation in the Indo-
Australasian region. J Fish Biol 76 (9):2090-2117
White, W. (2012) A redescription of Carcharhinus dussumieri and C. sealei, with resurrection of
C. coatesi and C. tjutjot as valid species (Chondrichthyes: Carcharhinidae). Zootaxa 3241:1-

Shark fin ID from Operation Snapshot (May 2015) AFMA Project 2016/001375
36
34
Zhou, S. and Griffiths, S.P. (2007) Estimating abundance from detection-nondetection data for
randomly distributed or aggregated elusive populations. Ecography 30, 537–549

Shark fin ID from Operation Snapshot (May 2015) AFMA Project 2016/001375
37
Supplements & Appendices
Appendix I. Species identifications by all four methods for each of the 153 shark dorsal fins that were sampled
during Operation Snapshot; DNA analysis, and the three morphological identification methods; Expert Visual
identification, Morphometric identification, and iSharkFin.
Appendix II. Species identifications assigned to each of the 152 shark dorsal fin photographs by Expert Visual
identification, indicating notes made while considering a range of macroscopic diagnostic characters used as a
rationale for identification.
Supplement I. DNA Analysis Report.
Supplement II. Images of the dorsal fins analysed for this report.
Supplement III. Recommended photograph guide for future Operation Snapshot activities characterising shark
catch.

Shark fin ID from Operation Snapshot (May 2015) AFMA Project 2016/001375
38
Appendix I. Species identifications resulting from DNA analysis and the three morphological identification methods; Expert Visual
identification, Morphometric identification, and iSharkFin for each of the a 153 shark fin dorsal fins that were sampled during
Operation Snapshot.
DNA identification (ID) Expert Visual ID iSharkFin ID
Species Species Species
Probability of
group
membership
Species
001_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_001 Triaenodon obesus Triaenodon obesus Triaenodon obesus 1.00 Carcharhinus leucas
002_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_002 Carcharhinus plumbeus Carcharhinus plumbeus Odontaspis ferox 1.00 Carcharhinus limbatus/tilstoni
003_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_003 no sample received for DNA testing Sphyrna mokarran Sphyrna mokarran 1.00 Sphyrna mokarran
004_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_004 Carcharhinus plumbeus Carcharhinus plumbeus Carcharhinus obscurus 0.54 Carcharhinus obscurus
006_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_006 Galeocerdo cuvier Galeocerdo cuvier Galeocerdo cuvier 1.00 Rhizoprionodon taylori
007_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_007 no sample received for DNA testing Sphyrna lewini Carcharhinus plumbeus 0.50 Sphyrna lewini
008_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_008 Carcharhinus plumbeus Carcharhinus plumbeus Carcharhinus limbatus/tilstoni 0.58 Carcharhinus obscurus
009_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_009 Carcharhinus plumbeus Carcharhinus plumbeus Carcharhinus obscurus 0.97 Carcharhinus plumbeus
010_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_010 Galeocerdo cuvier Galeocerdo cuvier Galeocerdo cuvier 1.00 Rhizoprionodon taylori
011_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_011 Galeocerdo cuvier Galeocerdo cuvier Galeocerdo cuvier 0.99 Rhizoprionodon acutus
012_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_012 Carcharhinus plumbeus Carcharhinus plumbeus Carcharhinus plumbeus 0.49 Carcharhinus plumbeus
013_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_013 Carcharhinus limbatus/tilstoni Carcharhinus limbatus/tilstoni Carcharhinus limbatus/tilstoni 0.92 Carcharhinus limbatus/tilstoni
015_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_015 Carcharhinus albimarginatus Carcharhinus albimarginatus Carcharhinus albimarginatus 1.00 Carcharhinus albimarginatus
016_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_016 Carcharhinus obscurus Carcharhinus obscurus Carcharhinus amblyrhynchos 0.60 Carcharhinus falciformis
017_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_017 Carcharhinus brevipinna Carcharhinus brevipinna Carcharhinus brevipinna 0.95 Carcharhinus sorrah
018_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_018 Carcharhinus plumbeus Carcharhinus plumbeus Carcharhinus plumbeus 0.85 Carcharhinus dussumieri
019_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_019 yes Carcharhinus plumbeus Carcharhinus plumbeus n/a Carcharhinus obscurus
020_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_020 Carcharhinus plumbeus Carcharhinus plumbeus Carcharhinus altimus 0.59 Carcharhinus obscurus
021_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_021 Carcharhinus brevipinna Carcharhinus brevipinna Carcharhinus brevipinna 1.00 Carcharhinus brevipinna
022_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_022 yes Carcharhinus brevipinna n/a n/a Carcharhinus obscurus
023_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_023 Carcharhinus plumbeus Carcharhinus plumbeus Sphyrna lewini 0.32 Carcharhinus obscurus
024_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_024 Carcharhinus plumbeus Carcharhinus plumbeus Hemipristis elongata 0.39 Carcharhinus obscurus
025_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_025 Carcharhinus plumbeus Carcharhinus plumbeus Carcharhinus plumbeus 0.83 Carcharhinus obscurus
026_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_026 Galeocerdo cuvier Galeocerdo cuvier Galeocerdo cuvier 1.00 Rhizoprionodon taylori
027_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_027 Carcharhinus plumbeus Carcharhinus plumbeus Carcharhinus plumbeus 0.58 Sphyrna lewini
028_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_028 Carcharhinus plumbeus Carcharhinus plumbeus Carcharhinus amblyrhynchos 0.51 Carcharhinus dussumieri
029_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_029 Galeocerdo cuvier Galeocerdo cuvier Galeocerdo cuvier 1.00 Rhizoprionodon taylori
030_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_030 Carcharhinus plumbeus Carcharhinus plumbeus Carcharhinus plumbeus 1.00 Carcharhinus plumbeus
Morphometric ID
Fin
damaged
or
deformed
Specimen
Number
Filename

Shark fin ID from Operation Snapshot (May 2015) AFMA Project 2016/001375
39
Appendix I. cont.
Appendix I. cont.
DNA ID Expert Visual ID iSharkFin ID
Species Species Species
Probability of
group
membership
Species
031_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_031 Carcharhinus plumbeus Carcharhinus plumbeus Carcharhinus plumbeus 0.90 Carcharhinus plumbeus
032_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_032 Carcharhinus plumbeus Carcharhinus plumbeus Carcharhinus plumbeus 0.71 Carcharhinus amboinensis
033_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_033 Carcharhinus plumbeus Carcharhinus plumbeus Carcharhinus plumbeus 0.96 Carcharhinus obscurus
034_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_034 Galeocerdo cuvier Galeocerdo cuvier Galeocerdo cuvier 0.99 Galeocerdo cuvier
035_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_035 Galeocerdo cuvier Galeocerdo cuvier Galeocerdo cuvier 1.00 Galeocerdo cuvier
037_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_037 Carcharhinus plumbeus Carcharhinus plumbeus Carcharhinus plumbeus 0.98 Carcharhinus obscurus
038_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_038 Negaprion acutidens Negaprion acutidens Negaprion acutidens 1.00 Carcharhinus cautus
039_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_039 Carcharhinus brevipinna Carcharhinus brevipinna Carcharhinus brevipinna 0.55 Carcharhinus brevipinna
040_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_040 Carcharhinus leucas Carcharhinus leucas Carcharhinus leucas 0.72 Carcharhinus cautus
041_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_041 Carcharhinus amblyrhynchos Carcharhinus amblyrhynchos Carcharhinus amblyrhynchos 0.89 Carcharhinus falciformis
042_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_042 Carcharhinus plumbeus Carcharhinus plumbeus Carcharhinus amblyrhynchos 0.29 Carcharhinus obscurus
043_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_043 Carcharhinus falciformis Carcharhinus falciformis Carcharhinus falciformis 1.00 Carcharhinus falciformis
044_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_044 Carcharhinus plumbeus Carcharhinus plumbeus Carcharhinus plumbeus 0.92 Carcharhinus obscurus
045_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_045 Carcharhinus amblyrhynchos Carcharhinus amblyrhynchos Carcharhinus amblyrhynchos 0.58 Carcharhinus falciformis
046_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_046 Carcharhinus plumbeus Carcharhinus plumbeus Sphyrna lewini 0.94 Carcharhinus obscurus
047_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_047 Carcharhinus plumbeus Carcharhinus plumbeus Sphyrna lewini 0.59 Carcharhinus obscurus
048_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_048 Carcharhinus amboinensis Carcharhinus amboinensis Carcharhinus amboinensis 0.94 Carcharhinus dussumieri
049_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_049 Carcharhinus amblyrhynchos Carcharhinus amblyrhynchos Carcharhinus amblyrhynchos 0.93 Carcharhinus falciformis
050_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_050 Carcharhinus plumbeus Carcharhinus plumbeus Carcharhinus amboinensis 0.78 Carcharhinus obscurus
051_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_051 Carcharhinus plumbeus Carcharhinus plumbeus Carcharhinus cautus 0.67 Carcharhinus dussumieri
052_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_052 Carcharhinus plumbeus Carcharhinus plumbeus Carcharhinus obscurus 0.64 Carcharhinus plumbeus
053_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_053 Carcharhinus brevipinna Carcharhinus brevipinna Carcharhinus brevipinna 0.97 Carcharhinus brevipinna
054_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_054 Carcharhinus plumbeus Carcharhinus plumbeus Carcharhinus plumbeus 0.76 Carcharhinus plumbeus
055_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_055 Carcharhinus leucas Carcharhinus leucas Carcharhinus leucas 0.86 Carcharhinus leucas
056_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_056 Carcharhinus plumbeus Carcharhinus plumbeus Sphyrna lewini 0.85 Carcharhinus plumbeus
057_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_057 Carcharhinus amblyrhynchos Carcharhinus amblyrhynchos Carcharhinus obscurus 0.85 Carcharhinus obscurus
058_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_058 Carcharhinus brevipinna Carcharhinus brevipinna Carcharhinus brevipinna 0.67 Carcharhinus brevipinna
059_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_059 Carcharhinus plumbeus Carcharhinus plumbeus Sphyrna lewini 0.86 Sphyrna lewini
Filename Specimen
Number
Fin
damaged
or
deformed
Morphometric ID

Shark fin ID from Operation Snapshot (May 2015) AFMA Project 2016/001375
40
DNA ID Expert Visual ID iSharkFin ID
Species Species Species
Probability of
group
membership
Species
060_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_060 Carcharhinus plumbeus Carcharhinus plumbeus Carcharhinus plumbeus 0.54 Carcharhinus obscurus
061_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_061 Carcharhinus amblyrhynchos Carcharhinus amblyrhynchos Carcharhinus obscurus 0.70 Carcharhinus obscurus
062_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_062 Carcharhinus plumbeus Carcharhinus plumbeus Carcharhinus plumbeus 0.99 Carcharhinus obscurus
063_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_063 no sample received for DNA testing Carcharhinus plumbeus Carcharhinus plumbeus 0.92 Carcharhinus obscurus
064_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_064 Carcharhinus plumbeus Carcharhinus plumbeus Carcharhinus plumbeus 0.89 Carcharhinus obscurus
065_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_065 Carcharhinus limbatus/tilstoni Carcharhinus limbatus/tilstoni Carcharhinus limbatus/tilstoni 0.97 Carcharhinus dussumieri
066_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_066 Carcharhinus amblyrhynchos Carcharhinus amblyrhynchos Carcharhinus amblyrhynchos 0.97 Carcharhinus obscurus
067_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_067 Carcharhinus limbatus/tilstoni Carcharhinus limbatus/tilstoni Carcharhinus limbatus/tilstoni 0.77 Carcharhinus sorrah
068_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_068 Triaenodon obesus Triaenodon obesus Triaenodon obesus 1.00 Carcharhinus albimarginatus
069_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_069 Carcharhinus plumbeus Carcharhinus plumbeus Carcharhinus plumbeus 0.83 Carcharhinus plumbeus
070_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_070 Carcharhinus plumbeus Carcharhinus plumbeus Carcharhinus amboinensis 0.82 Carcharhinus plumbeus
071_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_071 Carcharhinus amblyrhynchos Carcharhinus amblyrhynchos Carcharhinus amblyrhynchos 0.91 Carcharhinus sorrah
072_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_072 Carcharhinus plumbeus Carcharhinus plumbeus Sphyrna lewini 0.94 Carcharhinus obscurus
073_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_073 Carcharhinus amblyrhynchos Carcharhinus amblyrhynchos Carcharhinus amblyrhynchos 0.66 Carcharhinus obscurus
074_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_074 Carcharhinus brevipinna Carcharhinus brevipinna Carcharhinus brevipinna 0.59 Carcharhinus brevipinna
075_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_075 Carcharhinus brevipinna Carcharhinus brevipinna Carcharhinus brevipinna 0.94 Carcharhinus brevipinna
076_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_076 Carcharhinus plumbeus Carcharhinus plumbeus Sphyrna lewini 0.65 Carcharhinus obscurus
077_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_077 Galeocerdo cuvier Galeocerdo cuvier Galeocerdo cuvier 1.00 Rhizoprionodon acutus
078_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_078 Carcharhinus brevipinna Carcharhinus brevipinna Carcharhinus brevipinna 0.63 Carcharhinus altimus
079_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_079 Carcharhinus plumbeus Carcharhinus plumbeus Carcharhinus plumbeus 0.98 Carcharhinus obscurus
080_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_080 Carcharhinus plumbeus Carcharhinus plumbeus Carcharhinus plumbeus 0.73 Carcharhinus obscurus
081_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_081 Carcharhinus sorrah Carcharhinus sorrah Carcharhinus sorrah 1.00 Carcharhinus sorrah
082_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_082 Carcharhinus plumbeus Carcharhinus plumbeus Carcharhinus plumbeus 0.63 Carcharhinus obscurus
083_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_083 Carcharhinus limbatus/tilstoni Carcharhinus tilstoni Carcharhinus limbatus/tilstoni 0.79 Carcharhinus sorrah
084_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_084 no sample received for DNA testing Carcharhinus plumbeus Sphyrna lewini 0.92 Alopias superciliosus
085_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_085 Carcharhinus plumbeus Carcharhinus plumbeus Alopias pelagicus 1.00 Carcharhinus falciformis
086_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_086 Carcharhinus plumbeus Carcharhinus plumbeus Carcharhinus limbatus/tilstoni 0.81 Carcharhinus dussumieri
087_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_087 Carcharhinus plumbeus Carcharhinus plumbeus Carcharhinus obscurus 0.55 Carcharhinus obscurus
Filename Specimen
Number
Fin
damaged
or
deformed
Morphometric ID

Shark fin ID from Operation Snapshot (May 2015) AFMA Project 2016/001375
41
Appendix I. cont.
Appendix I. cont.
DNA ID Expert Visual ID iSharkFin ID
Species Species Species
Probability of
group
membership
Species
088_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_088 Carcharhinus plumbeus Carcharhinus plumbeus Carcharhinus limbatus/tilstoni 0.96 Carcharhinus obscurus
089_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_089 Carcharhinus plumbeus Carcharhinus plumbeus Carcharhinus amboinensis 0.88 Carcharhinus dussumieri
090_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_090 Carcharhinus plumbeus Carcharhinus plumbeus Carcharhinus plumbeus 0.96 Carcharhinus plumbeus
091_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_091 Carcharhinus plumbeus Carcharhinus plumbeus Carcharhinus plumbeus 0.32 Carcharhinus obscurus
092_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_092 Carcharhinus plumbeus Carcharhinus plumbeus Carcharhinus plumbeus 0.46 Carcharhinus obscurus
093_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_093 Carcharhinus plumbeus Carcharhinus plumbeus Carcharhinus amboinensis 0.98 Carcharhinus plumbeus
094_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_094 Carcharhinus plumbeus Carcharhinus plumbeus Carcharhinus amboinensis 0.85 Carcharhinus obscurus
095_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_095 Carcharhinus plumbeus Carcharhinus plumbeus Carcharhinus amboinensis 0.86 Carcharhinus obscurus
096_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_096 yes Carcharhinus plumbeus Carcharhinus plumbeus n/a n/a
097_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_097 Carcharhinus plumbeus Carcharhinus plumbeus Sphyrna lewini 0.89 Carcharhinus obscurus
098_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_098 Carcharhinus plumbeus Carcharhinus plumbeus Carcharhinus amboinensis 0.52 Carcharhinus obscurus
099_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_099 Carcharhinus plumbeus Carcharhinus plumbeus Hemipristis elongata 0.37 Carcharhinus dussumieri
100_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_100 Carcharhinus plumbeus Carcharhinus plumbeus Carcharhinus amboinensis 0.62 Carcharhinus dussumieri
101_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_101 Carcharhinus plumbeus Carcharhinus plumbeus Carcharhinus plumbeus 0.78 Carcharhinus plumbeus
102_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_102 Carcharhinus plumbeus Carcharhinus plumbeus Sphyrna lewini 0.94 Carcharhinus obscurus
103_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_103 Carcharhinus plumbeus Carcharhinus plumbeus Carcharhinus limbatus/tilstoni 0.60 Carcharhinus amblyrhynchos
104_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_104 Carcharhinus plumbeus Carcharhinus plumbeus Carcharhinus obscurus 0.75 Carcharhinus obscurus
105_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_105 yes Carcharhinus brevipinna Carcharhinus brevipinna n/a Carcharhinus sorrah
106_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_106 Carcharhinus plumbeus Carcharhinus plumbeus Carcharhinus amboinensis 0.82 Carcharhinus obscurus
107_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_107 Carcharhinus plumbeus Carcharhinus plumbeus Sphyrna lewini 0.90 Carcharhinus obscurus
108_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_108 Carcharhinus plumbeus Carcharhinus plumbeus Carcharhinus plumbeus 0.88 Carcharhinus obscurus
109_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_109 Carcharhinus sorrah Carcharhinus sorrah Carcharhinus sorrah 1.00 Carcharhinus sorrah
110_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_110 Carcharhinus limbatus/tilstoni Carcharhinus limbatus/tilstoni Carcharhinus limbatus/tilstoni 0.96 n/a
111_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_111 Carcharhinus brevipinna Carcharhinus brevipinna Carcharhinus brevipinna 0.97 Carcharhinus sorrah
112_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_112 Carcharhinus plumbeus Carcharhinus plumbeus Carcharhinus plumbeus 0.71 Carcharhinus obscurus
113_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_113 Galeocerdo cuvier Galeocerdo cuvier Galeocerdo cuvier 1.00 Galeocerdo cuvier
114_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_114 Carcharhinus plumbeus Carcharhinus plumbeus Carcharhinus amblyrhynchos 0.72 Carcharhinus amblyrhynchos
115_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_115 Carcharhinus limbatus/tilstoni Carcharhinus tilstoni Carcharhinus limbatus/tilstoni 0.75 Carcharhinus sorrah
Filename Specimen
Number
Fin
damaged
or
deformed
Morphometric ID

Shark fin ID from Operation Snapshot (May 2015) AFMA Project 2016/001375
42
DNA ID Expert Visual ID iSharkFin ID
Species Species Species
Probability of
group
membership
Species
116_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_116 Carcharhinus plumbeus Carcharhinus plumbeus Carcharhinus amboinensis 0.45 Carcharhinus obscurus
117_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_117 Galeocerdo cuvier Galeocerdo cuvier Galeocerdo cuvier 1.00 Rhizoprionodon acutus
118_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_118 Galeocerdo cuvier Galeocerdo cuvier Galeocerdo cuvier 1.00 Rhizoprionodon taylori
119_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_119 Galeocerdo cuvier Galeocerdo cuvier Galeocerdo cuvier 1.00 Rhizoprionodon taylori
120_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_120 Galeocerdo cuvier Galeocerdo cuvier Galeocerdo cuvier 1.00 Rhizoprionodon acutus
121_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_121 Galeocerdo cuvier Galeocerdo cuvier Galeocerdo cuvier 1.00 Galeocerdo cuvier
122_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_122 NO RESULT No sequence obtained Carcharhinus altimus Carcharhinus amblyrhynchos 0.92 Carcharhinus falciformis
123_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_123 Galeocerdo cuvier Galeocerdo cuvier Galeocerdo cuvier 1.00 Rhizoprionodon acutus
124_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_124 Galeocerdo cuvier Galeocerdo cuvier Galeocerdo cuvier 1.00 Galeocerdo cuvier
125_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_125 yes Galeocerdo cuvier Galeocerdo cuvier n/a Galeocerdo cuvier
126_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_126 Galeocerdo cuvier Galeocerdo cuvier Galeocerdo cuvier 1.00 Rhizoprionodon taylori
127_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_127 Galeocerdo cuvier Galeocerdo cuvier Galeocerdo cuvier 1.00 Rhizoprionodon taylori
128_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_128 Galeocerdo cuvier Galeocerdo cuvier Galeocerdo cuvier 1.00 Galeocerdo cuvier
129_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_129 Galeocerdo cuvier Galeocerdo cuvier Galeocerdo cuvier 1.00 Rhizoprionodon acutus
130_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_130 Galeocerdo cuvier Galeocerdo cuvier Galeocerdo cuvier 1.00 Galeocerdo cuvier
131_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_131 Galeocerdo cuvier Galeocerdo cuvier Galeocerdo cuvier 1.00 Rhizoprionodon taylori
132_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_132 NO RESULT No sequence obtained Galeocerdo cuvier Galeocerdo cuvier 1.00 Carcharhinus falciformis
133_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_133 Galeocerdo cuvier Galeocerdo cuvier Galeocerdo cuvier 1.00 Galeocerdo cuvier
134_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_134 Galeocerdo cuvier Galeocerdo cuvier Galeocerdo cuvier 0.62 Galeocerdo cuvier
135_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_135 Galeocerdo cuvier Galeocerdo cuvier Galeocerdo cuvier 0.86 Rhizoprionodon acutus
136_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_136 Galeocerdo cuvier Galeocerdo cuvier Galeocerdo cuvier 1.00 Rhizoprionodon acutus
137_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_137 Galeocerdo cuvier Galeocerdo cuvier Galeocerdo cuvier 1.00 Rhizoprionodon taylori
138_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_138 Galeocerdo cuvier Galeocerdo cuvier Galeocerdo cuvier 1.00 Rhizoprionodon acutus
139_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_139 yes Galeocerdo cuvier Galeocerdo cuvier n/a Rhizoprionodon acutus
140_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_140 Galeocerdo cuvier Galeocerdo cuvier Galeocerdo cuvier 1.00 Rhizoprionodon acutus
141_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_141 Galeocerdo cuvier Galeocerdo cuvier Galeocerdo cuvier 1.00 Rhizoprionodon acutus
142_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_142 Galeocerdo cuvier Galeocerdo cuvier Galeocerdo cuvier 1.00 Rhizoprionodon taylori
143_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_143 Galeocerdo cuvier Galeocerdo cuvier Galeocerdo cuvier 1.00 Rhizoprionodon taylori
Filename Specimen
Number
Fin
damaged
or
deformed
Morphometric ID

Shark fin ID from Operation Snapshot (May 2015) AFMA Project 2016/001375
43
Appendix I. cont.
DNA ID Expert Visual ID iSharkFin ID
Species Species Species
Probability of
group
membership
Species
144_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_144 Galeocerdo cuvier Galeocerdo cuvier Galeocerdo cuvier 1.00 Rhizoprionodon taylori
145_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_145 Galeocerdo cuvier Galeocerdo cuvier Galeocerdo cuvier 1.00 Galeocerdo cuvier
146_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_146 Galeocerdo cuvier Galeocerdo cuvier Galeocerdo cuvier 1.00 n/a
147_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_147 Carcharhinus altimus Carcharhinus altimus Carcharhinus amblyrhynchos 0.92 Carcharhinus falciformis
148_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_148 Galeocerdo cuvier Galeocerdo cuvier Galeocerdo cuvier 0.70 Galeocerdo cuvier
149_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_149 Carcharhinus obscurus Carcharhinus obscurus Carcharhinus amblyrhynchos 0.57 Carcharhinus falciformis
150_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_150 Galeocerdo cuvier Galeocerdo cuvier Galeocerdo cuvier 1.00 Galeocerdo cuvier
No image VTF_OS1_151 Galeocerdo cuvier n/a n/a n/a
152_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_152 Galeocerdo cuvier Galeocerdo cuvier Galeocerdo cuvier 1.00 Galeocerdo cuvier
153_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_153 Galeocerdo cuvier Galeocerdo cuvier Galeocerdo cuvier 0.99 Galeocerdo cuvier
154_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_154 Galeocerdo cuvier Galeocerdo cuvier Galeocerdo cuvier 1.00 Galeocerdo cuvier
155_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_155 Galeocerdo cuvier Galeocerdo cuvier Galeocerdo cuvier 1.00 Galeocerdo cuvier
156_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_156 yes Galeocerdo cuvier Galeocerdo cuvier n/a n/a
Filename Specimen
Number
Fin
damaged
or
deformed
Morphometric ID

Shark fin ID from Operation Snapshot (May 2015) AFMA Project 2016/001375
44
Appendix II. Species identifications assigned to each of the 152 shark dorsal fin
photographs by Expert Visual identification, indicating notes made while considering a
range of macroscopic diagnostic characters used as a rationale for identification.
Filename Specimen Number LM Visual ID LM ID Notes/Rationale for ID
001_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_001 Triaenodon obesus Tip m ark ings , and shape d istinc tly T. obe sus.
002_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_002 Carcharhinus plumbeus Ta l l fi n . D en t ic l es la r ge an d s h in y. F i n l ig h te r i n c o lo ur .
003_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_003 Sphyrna mokarran
Very tall fin. Small FRT. Colour more consistent with S. mokarran than
E. blochii. Morphology congruent with S. mokarran (not E. blochi) in
discriminant analysis.
004_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_004 Carcharhinus plumbeus Ta l l fi n . D en t ic l es la r ge an d s h in y. F i n l ig h te r i n c o lo ur .
006_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_006 Galeocerdo cuvier Denticles like GC. Long FRT. slight barring markings like GC. Not
shiny.
007_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_007 Sphyrna lewini
Not shiny (small denticles). Tall fin. Short FRT. Consistent with
Sphyrna. Skin grey, not olive/brown (not zygaena). Upper posterior
margin straight, not convex, consistent with S. lewini not S. zygaena.
008_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_008 Carcharhinus plumbeus Ta l l fi n . D en t ic l es la r ge an d s h in y. F i n l ig h te r i n c o lo ur .
009_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_009 Carcharhinus plumbeus Ta l l fi n . D en t ic l es la r ge . F i n l ig ht e r i n c ol o ur .
010_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_010 Galeocerdo cuvier Denticles like GC. Long FRT. slight barring markings like GC. Not
shiny.
011_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_011 Galeocerdo cuvier Denticles like GC. Long FRT. slight barring markings like GC. Not
shiny.
012_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_012 Carcharhinus plumbeus Ta l l fi n . D en t ic l es la r ge . F i n l ig ht e r i n c ol o ur .
013_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_013 Carcharhinus limbatus/tilstoni Tal l f i n. Ti p c ol o ur li k e l im b at us . F i n c ol o ur an d d e nt i cl e s.
015_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_015 Carcharhinus albimarginatus Tip c olour lik e albim argina tus , not T. o besus, not C. amblyr hyncho s
016_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_016 Carcharhinus obscurus Skin colour darker. Area above FRT on posterior margin low/thin like
obscurus. Colour and denticles unlike plumbeus.
017_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_017 Carcharhinus brevipinna Fin tip inky blotch like brevipinna.
018_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_018 Carcharhinus plumbeus Ta l l fi n . D en t ic l es la r ge . F i n l ig ht e r i n c ol o ur .
019_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_019 Carcharhinus plumbeus Ta l l fi n . D en t ic l es la r ge an d s h in y. F i n l ig h te r i n c o lo ur .
020_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_020 Carcharhinus plumbeus Ta l l fi n . D en t ic l es la r ge an d s h in y. F i n l ig h te r i n c o lo ur .
021_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_021 Carcharhinus brevipinna Fin tip inky blotch like brevipinna.
022_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_022 Damaged Fin Damaged. Can not see tip colour.
023_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_023 Carcharhinus plumbeus Ta l l fi n . D en t ic l es la r ge . F i n l ig ht e r i n c ol o ur .
024_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_024 Carcharhinus plumbeus Ta l l fi n . D en t ic l es la r ge . F i n l ig ht e r i n c ol o ur .
025_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_025 Carcharhinus plumbeus Ta l l fi n . D en t ic l es la r ge . F i n l ig ht e r i n c ol o ur .
026_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_026 Galeocerdo cuvier Denticles like GC. Long FRT. slight barring markings like GC. Not
shiny.
027_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_027 Carcharhinus plumbeus Ta l l fi n . D en t ic l es la r ge . F i n l ig ht e r i n c ol o ur .
028_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_028 Carcharhinus plumbeus Ta l l fi n . D en t ic l es la r ge an d s h in y. F i n l ig h te r i n c o lo ur .
029_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_029 Galeocerdo cuvier Denticles like GC. Long FRT. slight barring markings like GC. Not
shiny.
030_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_030 Carcharhinus plumbeus Ta l l fi n . D en t ic l es la r ge . F i n l ig ht e r i n c ol o ur .
031_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_031 Carcharhinus plumbeus Ta l l fi n . D en t ic l es la r ge . F i n l ig ht e r i n c ol o ur .
032_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_032 Carcharhinus plumbeus Ta l l fi n . D en t ic l es la r ge . F i n l ig ht e r i n c ol o ur .
033_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_033 Carcharhinus plumbeus Ta l l fi n . D en t ic l es la r ge . F i n l ig ht e r i n c ol o ur .
034_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_034 Galeocerdo cuvier Denticles like GC. Long FRT. slight barring markings like GC. Not
shiny.

Shark fin ID from Operation Snapshot (May 2015) AFMA Project 2016/001375
45
Appendix II. Continued.
Filename Specimen Number LM Visual ID LM ID Notes/Rationale for ID
035_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_035 Galeocerdo cuvier Denticles like GC. Long FRT. slight barring markings like GC. Not
shiny.
037_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_037 Carcharhinus plumbeus Ta l l fi n . D en t ic l es la r ge . F i n l ig ht e r i n c ol o ur .
038_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_038 Negaprion acutidens
Distinct yellow skin colour. Look like first and second dorsal cons. with
Negaprion. No dark anterior margin (not cautus). Sharply pointed tip.
Raked back.
039_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_039 Carcharhinus brevipinna Fin tip inky blotch like brevipinna.
040_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_040 Carcharhinus leucas Thin tip, sharply pointed. Squat fin L/B. General shape.
041_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_041 Carcharhinus amblyrhynchos Ye ll ow c ol ou r. Sm al le r de nt ic le s. S ha pe g en er al . T hi n, d es ic ca te d
posterior margin.
042_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_042 Carcharhinus plumbeus Ta l l fi n . D en t ic l es la r ge an d s h in y. ' P op p in g o u t' . F i n li g ht e r i n c ol o ur .
043_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_043 Carcharhinus falciformis Rounded, protruding posterior margin like falciformis. Fin colour dark
like falci. Long free rear tip like falci.
044_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_044 Carcharhinus plumbeus Ta l l fi n . D en t ic l es la r ge . F i n l ig ht e r i n c ol o ur .
045_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_045 Carcharhinus amblyrhynchos Ye ll ow c ol ou r. Sm al le r de nt ic le s. S ha pe g en er al . T hi n, d es ic ca te d
posterior margin.
046_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_046 Carcharhinus plumbeus Ta l l fi n . D en t ic l es la r ge . F i n l ig ht e r i n c ol o ur .
047_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_047 Carcharhinus plumbeus Ta l l fi n . D en t ic l es la r ge . F i n l ig ht e r i n c ol o ur .
048_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_048 Carcharhinus amboinensis Thin tip but rounded. Thicker above free rear tip along posterior margin
(not like obscurus).
049_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_049 Carcharhinus amblyrhynchos Ye ll ow c ol ou r. Sm al le r de nt ic le s. S ha pe g en er al . T hi n, d es ic ca te d
posterior margin.
050_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_050 Carcharhinus plumbeus Ta l l fi n . D en t ic l es la r ge . F i n l ig ht e r i n c ol o ur .
051_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_051 Carcharhinus plumbeus Ta l l fi n . D en t ic l es la r ge . F i n l ig ht e r i n c ol o ur .
052_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_052 Carcharhinus plumbeus Ta l l fi n . D en t ic l es la r ge . F i n l ig ht e r i n c ol o ur .
053_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_053 Carcharhinus brevipinna Fin tip inky blotch like brevipinna.
054_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_054 Carcharhinus plumbeus Ta l l fi n . D en t ic l es la r ge . F i n l ig ht e r i n c ol o ur .
055_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_055 Carcharhinus leucas Thin tip, sharply pointed. Squat fin L/B. General shape.
056_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_056 Carcharhinus plumbeus Ta l l fi n . D en t ic l es la r ge . F i n l ig ht e r i n c ol o ur .
057_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_057 Carcharhinus amblyrhynchos Ye ll ow c ol ou r. Sm al le r de nt ic le s. S ha pe g en er al . T hi n, d es ic ca te d
posterior margin.
058_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_058 Carcharhinus brevipinna Fin tip inky blotch like brevipinna.
059_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_059 Carcharhinus plumbeus Ta l l fi n . D en t ic l es la r ge . F i n l ig ht e r i n c ol o ur .
060_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_060 Carcharhinus plumbeus Ta l l fi n . D en t ic l es la r ge . F i n l ig ht e r i n c ol o ur .
061_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_061 Carcharhinus amblyrhynchos Ye ll ow c ol ou r. Sm al le r de nt ic le s. S ha pe g en er al . T hi n, d es ic ca te d
posterior margin.
062_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_062 Carcharhinus plumbeus Ta l l fi n . D en t ic l es la r ge . F i n l ig ht e r i n c ol o ur .
063_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_063 Carcharhinus plumbeus Ta l l fi n . D en t ic l es la r ge . F i n l ig ht e r i n c ol o ur .
064_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_064 Carcharhinus plumbeus Ta l l fi n . D en t ic l es la r ge an d s h in y. F i n l ig h te r i n c o lo ur .
065_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_065 Carcharhinus limbatus/tilstoni Tal l f i n. De n ti c le s s m al l er th an pl u mb e us bu t l a rg e r t ha n S p hy rn a .
Shiny, unlike Sphyrna.
066_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_066 Carcharhinus amblyrhynchos Ye ll ow c ol ou r. Sm al le r de nt ic le s. S ha pe g en er al . T hi n, d es ic ca te d
posterior margin.
067_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_067 Carcharhinus limbatus/tilstoni Tal l f i n. De n ti c le s s m al l er th an pl u mb e us bu t l a rg e r t ha n S p hy rn a .
Shiny, unlike Sphyrna. Tip colour like tilstoni.

Shark fin ID from Operation Snapshot (May 2015) AFMA Project 2016/001375
46
Appendix II. Continued
Filename Specimen Number LM Visual ID LM ID Notes/Rationale for ID
068_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_068 Triaenodon obesus Tip m ark ings, a nd sha pe distinc tly T. obe sus.
069_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_069 Carcharhinus plumbeus Ta l l fi n . D en t ic l es la r ge an d s h in y. F i n l ig h te r i n c o lo ur .
070_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_070 Carcharhinus plumbeus Ta l l fi n . D en t ic l es la r ge . F i n l ig h te r i n c ol o ur .
071_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_071 Carcharhinus amblyrhynchos Ye ll ow c ol ou r. Sm al le r de nt ic le s. S ha pe g en er al . T hi n, d es ic ca te d
posterior margin.
072_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_072 Carcharhinus plumbeus Ta l l fi n . D en t ic l es la r ge . F i n l ig h te r i n c ol o ur .
073_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_073 Carcharhinus amblyrhynchos Ye ll ow c ol ou r. Sm al le r de nt ic le s. S ha pe g en er al . T hi n, d es ic ca te d
posterior margin.
074_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_074 Carcharhinus brevipinna Fin tip inky blotch like brevipinna.
075_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_075 Carcharhinus brevipinna Fin tip inky blotch like brevipinna.
076_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_076 Carcharhinus plumbeus Ta l l fi n . D en t ic l es la r ge . F i n l ig h te r i n c ol o ur .
077_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_077 Galeocerdo cuvier Denticles like GC. Long FRT. slight barring markings like GC. Not
shiny.
078_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_078 Carcharhinus brevipinna Fin tip inky blotch like brevipinna.
079_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_079 Carcharhinus plumbeus Ta l l fi n . D en t ic l es la r ge . F i n l ig h te r i n c ol o ur .
080_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_080 Carcharhinus plumbeus Ta l l fi n . D en t ic l es la r ge . F i n l ig h te r i n c ol o ur .
081_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_081 Carcharhinus sorrah Small fin. long FRT. Not macloti. Skin and colour like sorrah.
082_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_082 Carcharhinus plumbeus Ta l l fi n . D en t ic l es la r ge . F i n l ig h te r i n c ol o ur .
083_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_083 Carcharhinus tilstoni Tip marki ngs li ke tils toni
084_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_084 Carcharhinus plumbeus Ta l l fi n . D en t ic l es la r ge . F i n l ig h te r i n c ol o ur .
085_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_085 Carcharhinus plumbeus Ta l l fi n . D en t ic l es la r ge . F i n l ig h te r i n c ol o ur .
086_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_086 Carcharhinus plumbeus Ta l l fi n . D en t ic l es la r ge . F i n l ig h te r i n c ol o ur .
087_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_087 Carcharhinus plumbeus Ta l l fi n . D en t ic l es la r ge . F i n l ig h te r i n c ol o ur .
088_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_088 Carcharhinus plumbeus Ta l l fi n . D en t ic l es la r ge . F i n l ig h te r i n c ol o ur .
089_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_089 Carcharhinus plumbeus Ta l l fi n . D en t ic l es la r ge . F i n l ig h te r i n c ol o ur .
090_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_090 Carcharhinus plumbeus Ta l l fi n . D en t ic l es la r ge . F i n l ig h te r i n c ol o ur .
091_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_091 Carcharhinus plumbeus Ta l l fi n . D en t ic l es la r ge . F i n l ig h te r i n c ol o ur .
092_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_092 Carcharhinus plumbeus Ta l l fi n . D en t ic l es la r ge . F i n l ig h te r i n c ol o ur .
093_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_093 Carcharhinus plumbeus Ta l l fi n . D en t ic l es la r ge . F i n l ig h te r i n c ol o ur .
094_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_094 Carcharhinus plumbeus Ta l l fi n . D en t ic l es la r ge . F i n l ig h te r i n c ol o ur .
095_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_095 Carcharhinus plumbeus Ta l l fi n . D en t ic l es la r ge . F i n l ig h te r i n c ol o ur .
096_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_096 Carcharhinus plumbeus Ta l l fi n . D en t ic l es la r ge . F i n l ig h te r i n c ol o ur .
097_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_097 Carcharhinus plumbeus Ta l l fi n . D en t ic l es la r ge . F i n l ig h te r i n c ol o ur .
098_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_098 Carcharhinus plumbeus Ta l l fi n . D en t ic l es la r ge . F i n l ig h te r i n c ol o ur .
099_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_099 Carcharhinus plumbeus Ta l l fi n . D en t ic l es la r ge . F i n l ig h te r i n c ol o ur .

Shark fin ID from Operation Snapshot (May 2015) AFMA Project 2016/001375
47
Appendix II. Continued
Filename Specimen Number LM Visual ID LM ID Notes/Rationale for ID
100_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_100 Carcharhinus plumbeus Ta l l fi n . D en t ic l es la r ge . F i n l ig h te r i n c ol o ur .
101_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_101 Carcharhinus plumbeus Ta l l fi n . D en t ic l es la r ge . F i n l ig h te r i n c ol o ur .
102_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_102 Carcharhinus plumbeus Ta l l fi n . D en t ic l es la r ge . F i n l ig h te r i n c ol o ur .
103_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_103 Carcharhinus plumbeus Ta l l fi n . D en t ic l es la r ge . F i n l ig h te r i n c ol o ur .
104_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_104 Carcharhinus plumbeus Ta l l fi n . D en t ic l es la r ge . F i n l ig h te r i n c ol o ur .
105_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_105 Carcharhinus brevipinna Fin tip inky blotch like brevipinna.
106_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_106 Carcharhinus plumbeus Ta l l fi n . D en t ic l es la r ge . F i n l ig h te r i n c ol o ur .
107_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_107 Carcharhinus plumbeus Ta l l fi n . D en t ic l es la r ge . F i n l ig h te r i n c ol o ur .
108_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_108 Carcharhinus plumbeus Ta l l fi n . D en t ic l es la r ge . F i n l ig h te r i n c ol o ur .
109_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_109 Carcharhinus sorrah Small fin. Tip colouring like sorrah. long FRT
110_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_110 Carcharhinus limbatus/tilstoni Tal l f in . D e nt ic l es sm a ll e r t ha n p l um b eu s b ut la r ge r t h an Sp h yr n a.
Shiny, unlike Sphyrna. Tip colour like tilstoni.
111_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_111 Carcharhinus brevipinna Fin tip inky blotch like brevipinna.
112_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_112 Carcharhinus plumbeus Tal l f i n. De n ti c le s l ar g e. Fi n l i gh t er in co l ou r.
113_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_113 Galeocerdo cuvier Denticles like GC. Long FRT. slight barring markings like GC. Not
shiny.
114_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_114 Carcharhinus plumbeus Tal l f i n. De n ti c le s l ar g e a nd sh i ny . Fi n l i gh t er in co l ou r.
115_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_115 Carcharhinus tilstoni Tip markin gs like tilst oni
116_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_116 Carcharhinus plumbeus Tal l f i n. De n ti c le s l ar g e. Fi n l i gh t er in co l ou r.
117_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_117 Galeocerdo cuvier Denticles like GC. Long FRT. slight barring markings like GC. Not
shiny.
118_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_118 Galeocerdo cuvier Denticles like GC. Long FRT. slight barring markings like GC. Not
shiny.
119_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_119 Galeocerdo cuvier Denticles like GC. Long FRT. slight barring markings like GC. Not
shiny.
120_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_120 Galeocerdo cuvier Denticles like GC. Long FRT. slight barring markings like GC. Not
shiny.
121_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_121 Galeocerdo cuvier Denticles like GC. Long FRT. slight barring markings like GC. Not
shiny.
122_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_122 Carcharhinus altimus Shape of rounded tip. Thin posterior margin.
123_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_123 Galeocerdo cuvier Denticles like GC. Long FRT. slight barring markings like GC. Not
shiny.
124_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_124 Galeocerdo cuvier Denticles like GC. Long FRT. slight barring markings like GC. Not
shiny.
125_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_125 Galeocerdo cuvier Denticles like GC. slight barring markings like GC. Not shiny.
126_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_126 Galeocerdo cuvier Denticles like GC. Long FRT. slight barring markings like GC. Not
shiny.
127_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_127 Galeocerdo cuvier Denticles like GC. Long FRT. slight barring markings like GC. Not
shiny.
128_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_128 Galeocerdo cuvier Denticles like GC. Long FRT. slight barring markings like GC. Not
shiny.
129_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_129 Galeocerdo cuvier Denticles like GC. Long FRT. slight barring markings like GC. Not
shiny.
130_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_130 Galeocerdo cuvier Denticles like GC. Long FRT. slight barring markings like GC. Not
shiny.
131_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_131 Galeocerdo cuvier Denticles like GC. Long FRT. slight barring markings like GC. Not
shiny.

Shark fin ID from Operation Snapshot (May 2015) AFMA Project 2016/001375
48
Appendix II. Continued
Filename Specimen Number LM Visual ID LM ID Notes/Rationale for ID
132_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_132 Galeocerdo cuvier Denticles like GC. Long FRT. slight barring markings like GC. Not
shiny.
133_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_133 Galeocerdo cuvier Denticles like GC. Long FRT. slight barring markings like GC. Not
shiny.
134_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_134 Galeocerdo cuvier Denticles like GC. Long FRT. slight barring markings like GC. Not
shiny.
135_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_135 Galeocerdo cuvier Denticles like GC. Long FRT. slight barring markings like GC. Not
shiny.
136_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_136 Galeocerdo cuvier Denticles like GC. Long FRT. slight barring markings like GC. Not
shiny.
137_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_137 Galeocerdo cuvier Denticles like GC. Long FRT. slight barring markings like GC. Not
shiny.
138_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_138 Galeocerdo cuvier Denticles like GC. Long FRT. slight barring markings like GC. Not
shiny.
139_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_139 Galeocerdo cuvier Denticles like GC. Long FRT. slight barring markings like GC. Not
shiny.
140_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_140 Galeocerdo cuvier Denticles like GC. Long FRT. slight barring markings like GC. Not
shiny.
141_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_141 Galeocerdo cuvier Denticles like GC. Long FRT. slight barring markings like GC. Not
shiny.
142_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_142 Galeocerdo cuvier Denticles like GC. Long FRT. slight barring markings like GC. Not
shiny.
143_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_143 Galeocerdo cuvier Denticles like GC. Long FRT. slight barring markings like GC. Not
shiny.
144_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_144 Galeocerdo cuvier Denticles like GC. Long FRT. slight barring markings like GC. Not
shiny.
145_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_145 Galeocerdo cuvier Denticles like GC. Long FRT. slight barring markings like GC. Not
shiny.
146_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_146 Galeocerdo cuvier Denticles like GC. Long FRT. slight barring markings like GC. Not
shiny.
147_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_147 Carcharhinus altimus Shape of rounded tip. Thin posterior margin.
148_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_148 Galeocerdo cuvier Long FRT. slight barring markings like GC. Not shiny.
149_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_149 Carcharhinus obscurus
Skin colour darker. Area above FRT on posterior margin low/thin like
obscrurus. Colour and denticles unlike plumbeus. Too large to be
sorrah.
150_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_150 Galeocerdo cuvier Denticles like GC. Long FRT. slight barring markings like GC. Not
shiny.
152_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_152 Galeocerdo cuvier Denticles like GC. Long FRT. slight barring markings like GC. Not
shiny.
153_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_153 Galeocerdo cuvier Denticles like GC. Long FRT. slight barring markings like GC. Not
shiny.
154_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_154 Galeocerdo cuvier Denticles like GC. Long FRT. slight barring markings like GC. Not
shiny.
155_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_155 Galeocerdo cuvier Denticles like GC. Long FRT. slight barring markings like GC. Not
shiny.
156_GJ.JPG VTF_OS1_156 Galeocerdo cuvier Denticles like GC. Long FRT. slight barring markings like GC. Not
shiny.

Operation Snapshot DNA Report
Page 1 of 13
OPERATION SNAPSHOT DNA ANALYSIS REPORT
Consultant: Dr. Jenny Giles
Examination requested: Species identification for research purposes.
Submitted items: Tissue samples corrresponding to 149 shark dorsal fins, OS1_001-OS1_156.
OS1_003, 007, 063 and 084 were each either not submitted or corresponded to an empty tube.
OS1_005, 014 and 036 were not assigned and do not correspond to specimens.
CONCLUSIONS
I identified the submitted items as originating from the species listed below in the conclusion
summary table, and in the full conclusions table on page 6. Common names used follow the
nomenclature in Last and Stevens (2009).
Conclusion summary table: Number of items originating from each species.
Conclusion
Common name
Number
of items
Carcharhinus amboinensis
Pigeye shark
1
Carcharhinus albimarginatus
Silvertip shark
1
Carcharhinus altimus
Bignose shark
1
Carcharhinus amblyrhynchos
Grey reef shark
8
Carcharhinus brevipinna
Spinner shark
11
Carcharhinus falciformis
Silky shark
1
Carcharhinus leucas
Bull shark
2
Carcharhinus limbatus/tilstoni
Common/Australian blacktip shark
6
Carcharhinus obscurus
Dusky shark
2
Carcharhinus plumbeus
Sandbar shark
64
Carcharhinus sorrah
Spot-tail shark
2
Galeocerdo cuvier
Tiger shark
45
Negaprion acutidens
Lemon shark
1
Triaenodon obesus
Whitetip reef shark
2
No result
2
Total
149
DETAILS OF EXAMINATION
Methods: A small tissue subsample was taken from the 149 submitted items. The analyst’s
standard laboratory protocols were used for molecular genetic analysis. DNA was extracted
from the subsampled tissue. Extracted DNA, positive and negative PCR controls and
extraction reagent blanks were amplified from the mtDNA control region and sequenced.
Resulting sequences were evaluated for quality, edited, and compared to appropriate reference
sequences, following standardized procedures.
The sequence data from each of the unknown samples were compared with reference
sequences and identifications were made based on sequence similarity.
Results: Sequences for the submitted items produced a 465-491 bp alignment, depending on
the taxonomic origin of the sample. The most similar reference library sequence for each item
is given in the Results Table. No interpretable sequence was obtained for samples OS1_122
and OS1_132. The final identification for each item is given in the Conclusions Table.
Carcharhinus limbatus/ tilstoni refers to specimens that may originate from either of these
Supplement I. 

Operation Snapshot DNA Report
Page 2 of 13
species or hybrids. To visualise the results, the sequences for submitted items are shown in
neighbour-joining trees alongside the most similar reference sequence in each case
(Appendices I-V).
Results table. Item numbers, most similar source species and reference sequence, and the
number of base pairs (bp) in the sample sequence identical to those in the most similar
reference sequence.
Submitted
item
Most similar species
Most similar
reference
sequence
Identical
# bp/
total #
bp
OS1_001
Triaenodon obesus
JG18221
487/488
OS1_002
Carcharhinus plumbeus
JG18105
488/489
OS1_004
Carcharhinus plumbeus
JG18112
489/489
OS1_006
Galeocerdo cuvier
JG18169
491/491
OS1_008
Carcharhinus plumbeus
JG18112
488/489
OS1_009
Carcharhinus plumbeus
JG18112
489/489
OS1_010
Galeocerdo cuvier
JG18169
491/491
OS1_011
Galeocerdo cuvier
JG18169
491/491
OS1_012
Carcharhinus plumbeus
JG18111
489/489
OS1_013
Carcharhinus limbatus
JG18232
488/489
OS1_015
Carcharhinus albimarginatus
JG18004
489/489
OS1_016
Carcharhinus obscurus
JG18094
489/489
OS1_017
Carcharhinus brevipinna
JG18023
489/489
OS1_018
Carcharhinus plumbeus
JG18105
488/489
OS1_019
Carcharhinus plumbeus
JG18113
489/489
OS1_020
Carcharhinus plumbeus
JG18112
489/489
OS1_021
Carcharhinus brevipinna
JG18031
489/489
OS1_022
Carcharhinus brevipinna
JG18029
489/489
OS1_023
Carcharhinus plumbeus
JG18112
488/489
OS1_024
Carcharhinus plumbeus
JG18109
489/489
OS1_025
Carcharhinus plumbeus
JG18112
489/489
OS1_026
Galeocerdo cuvier
JG18170
491/491
OS1_027
Carcharhinus plumbeus
JG18110
488/489
OS1_028
Carcharhinus plumbeus
JG18112
489/489
OS1_029
Galeocerdo cuvier
JG18170
491/491
OS1_030
Carcharhinus plumbeus
JG18112
489/489
OS1_031
Carcharhinus plumbeus
JG18112
489/489
OS1_032
Carcharhinus plumbeus
JG18112
488/489
OS1_033
Carcharhinus plumbeus
JG18105
488/489
OS1_034
Galeocerdo cuvier
JG18170
491/491
OS1_035
Galeocerdo cuvier
JG18168
491/491
OS1_037
Carcharhinus plumbeus
JG18112
489/489
OS1_038
Negaprion acutidens
JG18180
485/485
OS1_039
Carcharhinus brevipinna
JG18031
489/489
OS1_040
Carcharhinus leucas
JG18070
491/491

Operation Snapshot DNA Report
Page 3 of 13
OS1_041
Carcharhinus amblyrhynchos
JG18016
488/489
OS1_042
Carcharhinus plumbeus
JG18110
489/489
OS1_043
Carcharhinus falciformis
JG18059
489/489
OS1_044
Carcharhinus plumbeus
JG18109
488/489
OS1_045
Carcharhinus amblyrhynchos
JG18016
489/489
OS1_046
Carcharhinus plumbeus
JG18105
488/489
OS1_047
Carcharhinus plumbeus
JG18113
489/489
OS1_048
Carcarhinus amboinensis
JG18019
488/488
OS1_049
Carcharhinus amblyrhynchos
JG18016
489/489
OS1_050
Carcharhinus plumbeus
JG18112
489/489
OS1_051
Carcharhinus plumbeus
JG18109
489/489
OS1_052
Carcharhinus plumbeus
JG18109
488/489
OS1_053
Carcharhinus brevipinna
JG18022
489/489
OS1_054
Carcharhinus plumbeus
JG18109
489/489
OS1_055
Carcharhinus leucas
JG18070
488/488
OS1_056
Carcharhinus plumbeus
JG18110
489/489
OS1_057
Carcharhinus amblyrhynchos
JG18016
489/489
OS1_058
Carcharhinus brevipinna
JG18031
489/489
OS1_059
Carcharhinus plumbeus
JG18109
489/489
OS1_060
Carcharhinus plumbeus
JG18110
489/489
OS1_061
Carcharhinus amblyrhynchos
JG18016
489/489
OS1_062
Carcharhinus plumbeus
JG18112
488/489
OS1_064
Carcharhinus plumbeus
JG18109
489/489
OS1_065
Carcharhinus limbatus
JG18232
488/489
OS1_066
Carcharhinus amblyrhynchos
JG18016
488/489
OS1_067
Carcharhinus tilstoni
JG18162
488/488
OS1_068
Triaenodon obesus
JG18221
487/488
OS1_069
Carcharhinus plumbeus
JG18111
489/489
OS1_070
Carcharhinus plumbeus
JG18111
489/489
OS1_071
Carcharhinus amblyrhynchos
JG18016
488/489
OS1_072
Carcharhinus plumbeus
JG18111
489/489
OS1_073
Carcharhinus amblyrhynchos
JG18016
489/489
OS1_074
Carcharhinus brevipinna
JG18031
489/489
OS1_075
Carcharhinus brevipinna
JG18031
489/489
OS1_076
Carcharhinus plumbeus
JG18105
488/489
OS1_077
Galeocerdo cuvier
JG18170
491/491
OS1_078
Carcharhinus brevipinna
JG18031
489/489
OS1_079
Carcharhinus plumbeus
JG18112
488/489
OS1_080
Carcharhinus plumbeus
JG18112
489/489
OS1_081
Carcharhinus sorrah
JG18123
489/489
OS1_082
Carcharhinus plumbeus
JG18106
488/489
OS1_083
Carcharhinus tilstoni
JG18162
488/488
OS1_085
Carcharhinus plumbeus
JG18109
488/489
OS1_086
Carcharhinus plumbeus
JG18110
489/489
OS1_087
Carcharhinus plumbeus
JG18112
488/489

Operation Snapshot DNA Report
Page 4 of 13
OS1_088
Carcharhinus plumbeus
JG18112
489/489
OS1_089
Carcharhinus plumbeus
JG18112
488/489
OS1_090
Carcharhinus plumbeus
JG18109
487/489
OS1_091
Carcharhinus plumbeus
JG18112
489/489
OS1_092
Carcharhinus plumbeus
JG18105
488/489
OS1_093
Carcharhinus plumbeus
JG18109
489/489
OS1_094
Carcharhinus plumbeus
JG18109
489/489
OS1_095
Carcharhinus plumbeus
JG18111
489/489
OS1_096
Carcharhinus plumbeus
JG18112
488/489
OS1_097
Carcharhinus plumbeus
JG18109
488/489
OS1_098
Carcharhinus plumbeus
JG18111
489/489
OS1_099
Carcharhinus plumbeus
JG18112
488/489
OS1_100
Carcharhinus plumbeus
JG18105
488/489
OS1_101
Carcharhinus plumbeus
JG18112
489/489
OS1_102
Carcharhinus plumbeus
JG18109
489/489
OS1_103
Carcharhinus plumbeus
JG18112
489/489
OS1_104
Carcharhinus plumbeus
JG18112
488/489
OS1_105
Carcharhinus brevipinna
JG18029
487/489
OS1_106
Carcharhinus plumbeus
JG18112
484/485
OS1_107
Carcharhinus plumbeus
JG18109
489/489
OS1_108
Carcharhinus plumbeus
JG18112
489/489
OS1_109
Carcharhinus sorrah
JG18123
489/489
OS1_110
Carcharhinus limbatus
JG18232
488/489
OS1_111
Carcharhinus brevipinna
JG18028
488/489
OS1_112
Carcharhinus plumbeus
JG18112
489/489
OS1_113
Galeocerdo cuvier
JG18169
491/491
OS1_114
Carcharhinus plumbeus
JG18109
489/489
OS1_115
Carcharhinus limbatus
JG18075
488/489
OS1_116
Carcharhinus plumbeus
JG18112
489/489
OS1_117
Galeocerdo cuvier
JG18170
491/491
OS1_118
Galeocerdo cuvier
JG18169
490/491
OS1_119
Galeocerdo cuvier
JG18169
491/491
OS1_120
Galeocerdo cuvier
JG18170
491/491
OS1_121
Galeocerdo cuvier
JG18169
491/491
OS1_122
No result
OS1_123
Galeocerdo cuvier
JG18168
491/491
OS1_124
Galeocerdo cuvier
JG18168
491/491
OS1_125
Galeocerdo cuvier
JG18169
491/491
OS1_126
Galeocerdo cuvier
JG18169