Talk:Requiem shark

Sharks Stub‑class High‑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
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tiger sharks of 7,5 meters?

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]

Name 'Requiem'

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]

What's the point of the article?

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]