Talk:Requiem shark

This  level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Fishes Mid‑importance 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 High‑importance 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

I have never heard of such large individuals, and even if there ever was such a large unique one, it's not representative of their species. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.22.29.107 (talk) 15:09, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why the name 'Requiem'???? 65.69.81.2 15:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Requiem' is an archaic term for sharks in general, I believe. It probably comes from the French requin, which in turn derives from the word for 'dog', or from the usual outcome of a shark catching a human being, or maybe from something else—nobody knows for sure. See [1] (in French) and [2] (in English). 68.54.206.193 20:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the etymological information in the article a bit and removed a dead link. "Nobody knows for sure" still seems to be the bottom line. 850 C (talk) 14:02, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not clarify why 'Requim' sharks differ from others of the same taxonomic group, and the meaning of 'Requim' is not even known for sure. This ssems to be more of a vernacular definition as opposed to an encyclopedic article. Should this article be deleted?Fireproeng 19:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence "The requiem sharks are members of the Carcharhinidae family ..." explains. The article is about a taxonomic family, using its common name instead of its scientific as per Wikipedia guidelines. GrahamBould 19:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I completely missed the idea that this is a synonym. The way it's worded, "...are members of...", I thought this was a subset of the Carcharhinidae. Should this be more explicitly worded? Fireproeng 19:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it, either - the intro should specify how this family is distinguished from other families, and what number of sharks we're talking about. Is this 80% of sharks? 20%? Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The intro does say "The eyes are round, and the pectoral fins are completely behind the five gillslits. Most species are viviparous, the young being born fully developed." Fishbase reference states "Distribution: global. Gill openings 5, the fifth behind origin of pectoral fin. Small to large sharks with round eyes, internal nictitating eyelids, no nasoral grooves or barbels, usually no spiracles. Teeth usually bladelike with one cusp. Development usually viviparous with young born fully developed. Includes several dangerous species, but most prefer to avoid divers." so some more can be added, but hard to state what distinguished this family from others, it is more a combination. I'm not really sure what you want, this is a pretty large group that is diverse. As for how big, maybe we could add that it is about 12% of all sharks species, but then we really need to define how many species there are and that is not that simple :-). I added a picture that shows the 'suurounding groups, it helps a bit to put the topic into context. --Stefan ^talk 03:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the image, partly because think that it only goes down to order and isn't particularly relevant to the family level, but also because it splits orders in the fashion of a dichotomous key (based on the most obvious physical characters) rather than arranging them by their evolutionary relationships, and so I don't think it belongs in a taxonomy-centered article like this one. A phylogenetic tree would be more appropriate if the goal is to provide context within larger groups. -- Yzx (talk) 05:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Requiem shark. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090724033127/http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/Sharks/Statistics/species2.htm to http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/sharks/statistics/species2.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:46, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I came into this article from the Tiger shark article, which states "the heads on juvenile tiger sharks are more conical and similar to other requiem sharks", implying the tiger sharks belong to the requiem sharks group, being part of the order Carcharhiniformes. But then in the "Classification" paragraph, tiger shark (Galeocerdo cuvier) isn't listed. On the other hand, it's mentioned in the "Hunting strategies" paragraph, where first it's treated as if one member of the requiem sharks, to later add, "It is worth mentioning that the the tiger shark, however, possibly belongs to the Galeocerdidae family". First of all, shouldn't that rather be Galeocerdonidae? And this whole chain of links is very confusing, because tiger sharks appear alternatively as the member of one genus and then the other. Kumagoro-42 (talk) 23:14, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]