Talk:Pacific sleeper shark

Fishes Mid‑importance

	Fish portal This article is part of WikiProject Fishes, an attempt to organise a detailed guide to all topics related to Fish taxa. To participate, you can edit the attached article, or contribute further at WikiProject Fishes. This project is an offshoot of the WikiProject Tree of Life.FishesWikipedia:WikiProject FishesTemplate:WikiProject FishesFishes articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sharks Mid‑importance

	Sharks portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sharks, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sharks on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SharksWikipedia:WikiProject SharksTemplate:WikiProject Sharksshark articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

Several references around the web say that the Sleeper Shark (also known as the Greenland Shark) is arctic, not antarctic. The species describe here sounds different.

And the "scientists are unsure" thing is just nonsense. Sharks are much thicker than giant squid, which are long, but narrow.

Pacific sleeper shark[edit]

The claim that eating urea-rich flesh seems to be unsupported trivia. Can a source be found for this claim? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.180.103.207 (talk) 01:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

was a Pacific sleeper shark deemed the largest shark ever filmed?

I'm not sure I understand what you mean... The two largest species of shark (and fish in general) are the Whale shark and the Basking shark, and I believe both have been filmed. --KFP 14:35, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the documentary I watched ment the largest toothed shark ever filmed.

I have seen the video footage of this shark it is much, much bigger than any whale shark could ever be. so big that its whole body could not be filmed.

Huh? Bigger than a whale shark? Better go read some Web sites where KNOWN shark species lengths and weights and other vital measurements are compared.68.13.191.153 23:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"300 pups in a litter" Unable to find info to verify that number. 300 is a LOT of little sharklets. Verification would be incredibly groovy.68.13.191.153 23:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sleeping Shark?[edit]

According to a couple of articles that i've found today, here and here reference is made to a Sleeping Shark, the largest shark in the world, that is a mystery as recently as 2003. Anyone know anythign really about this?--The Sporadic Update 21:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They refer to the pacific sleeping shark. Both those sites mentioned are incredibly inaccurate; one of them a famous russian tabloid; the other a creationist propaganda site. The tabloid has for some reason came to confuse "23-26 feet" with 23-26 metre (70-85 feet or so). Anyway, they both deal with the filming of a very large pacific sleeper shark by the coast of Japan in the early 1990's. It can be found here on YouTube. Experts said it was roughly 23 feet long. Luka 21:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Range of the shark[edit]

I was just reading the article on colossal squids and looked at the sleeper shark afterwards. The ranges seem to be in the wrong hemisphere-the squids are described as inhabiting the oceans around Antarctica and this shark seems to exclusively live around the Arctic. How can this be? JJ (talk) 17:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw the same thing, the article itself gives a much different range i think the picture is just plain wrong —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.110.13 (talk) 11:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the link to the range map, it is wrong according to fishbase, and notified the maker of the map, I'm pretty sure he has a correct map somewhere and misnamed them. --Stefan ^talk 13:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw a documentary, into the abyss and the scientist who first filmed the sleeper shark on film for the first time, filmed a second sleeper shark in a area that was thousands of miles from where it was previousley recorded, so their range is huge.70.129.20.225 (talk) 08:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC)B[reply]

The range of this shark is wrong again. The article itself mentions a shark examined that was caught off the coast of chile but the map doesn't show chile or any part of south america as the habitat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.5.109.34 (talk) 14:22, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Caused by former confusion with southern sleeper shark, a separate but closely related species of the southern oceans. 62.107.193.251 (talk) 14:11, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Newer footage of the Pacific Sleeper Shark was caught in the caldera of the volcano Kavachi, which is not included in this range map. Needs to be changed. --75.161.173.3 (talk) 20:35, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quotations?[edit]

Why are there quotations around the word Megalodon? It doesn't seem like the correct usage of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.22.202.105 (talk) 20:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Caudal Fin Storage?[edit]

"Pacific sleeper sharks have a short caudal fin, which allows them to store energy for fast and violent bursts of energy to catch prey." This sentence suggests that the sharks store energy in their caudal fins, which is highly unlikely. Equally unlikely is the notion that the sharks use energy bursts to catch prey. That makes it sound as if they have some sort of science fiction blaster gun. I'll check the associated citation to see if it's a syntax issue on the part of the Wiki contributor. RobotBoy66 (talk) 08:13, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]