Talk:Basking shark
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] ScottyBoy900Q's image
I've reverted ScottyBoy900Q's insertion of Image:Bskshrk.jpg due to copyright concerns. Scotty apparently took the image from this NEFSC page, presumably under the assumption that any content in a .gov domain is public domain. This is not true, however, and the image at hand is explicitly credited to Chris Gotschalk. As far as I can tell, Gotschalk is not a NOAA employee and therefore his image cannot be taken as public domain unless specifically released as such. This image should not be used until its copyright status is clarified. -- Hadal 18:03, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
- There is a difference between the statements "photo by" and "copyright." US Government websites tend to be pretty good about making that distinction. Take any given navy ship photo and you'll see that the image is usually attributed to someone else, and not to the Navy or its personnel. They give the navy permission to use it and it is still listed as "photo by" so and so on navy websites and that is still considered public domain unless it is marked "copyright" by so and so. I shot this Chris Gotschalk an email just to ask his thoughts. --ScottyBoy900Q 21:50, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
- After contacting the photographer, he not only gave full permission to use the image, he also sent a larger clearer version of the image. --ScottyBoy900Q 22:44, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
- Wow! Thanks for doing the legwork; I hope I didn't come off as peevish by challenging the image's legality, but I was only trying to keep the project's goals in mind. Your analysis of government disclosure practices is (in most cases) correct, but even they disclaim any assurances and recommend contacting the author before commercial use. (From one of NOAA's copyright notices: "Nor does the U.S. government warrant that use of the works is free of any claims of copyright infringement.") I've had mixed success when contacting biologists for their images (many have a concern that their images will be used to illustrate inaccurate text, and that this will somehow tarnish their reputation), but this case has turned out to be well worth the effort. The high-res version adds invaluable visual data to the article, and I thank you greatly for securing its use. (And much thanks to Chris, too, if you read this.) Cheers, -- Hadal 03:10, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
- Not a problem. --ScottyBoy900Q 04:59, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
- Wow! Thanks for doing the legwork; I hope I didn't come off as peevish by challenging the image's legality, but I was only trying to keep the project's goals in mind. Your analysis of government disclosure practices is (in most cases) correct, but even they disclaim any assurances and recommend contacting the author before commercial use. (From one of NOAA's copyright notices: "Nor does the U.S. government warrant that use of the works is free of any claims of copyright infringement.") I've had mixed success when contacting biologists for their images (many have a concern that their images will be used to illustrate inaccurate text, and that this will somehow tarnish their reputation), but this case has turned out to be well worth the effort. The high-res version adds invaluable visual data to the article, and I thank you greatly for securing its use. (And much thanks to Chris, too, if you read this.) Cheers, -- Hadal 03:10, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
- After contacting the photographer, he not only gave full permission to use the image, he also sent a larger clearer version of the image. --ScottyBoy900Q 22:44, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
- I thought this might be of interest to people. In my e-mailings with the photographer, Chris Gotschalk, he wrote this:
-
- I did take the photo. It was a pretty amazing day. April Fools Day, 1991. People were calling the marine lab saying that there were hundreds of sharks just offshore. Of course, we figured it was a joke until we saw all the big dorsal fins outside the kelp bed. Clear water, calm seas, about 50 of these things swimming around. Hasn't happened again since. Glad you can use the image.
- Just thought that was an interesting story. --ScottyBoy900Q 18:21, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
-
-
- I may have missed something, but saying that the Zuiyo Maru case was a Basking Shark does not seem to be correct. Whilst I do not sugest it is something else definitively, the corpse was never properly identified, so saying it is definately the decomposed corspe of a Basking Shark seems to be an assumption on the part of the author.
-
Very interested in the reported jumping by basking sharks. I saw this behaviour in 1978 on the Isle of Arran, Scotland. Basking sharks are common there. While walking a costal path I saw a large shark (5-6 metres) jump out the water twice. I then saw the shark swim away in its distinctive style. This was within 100m of the shore. I'm sure no other shark species of that size are found in those waters. So, for what its worth, I can confirm that they do indeed jump.Fairtrader 09:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)FairtraderFairtrader 09:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] References
While doing research for this article I will collect good web sites with possible references here, please add to this list. This is to read and add to the article and possibly add as references, I just do not want to clutter the articel now and possible have the links removed. Stefan 02:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Synonymy
The list of names given as "later described as" looks to me like a formal taxonomic synonymy. A couple of them are trinomials, which implies that the authors were describing a separate subspecies now thought not to be distinct enough to recognize. Some authors may not have "described" it at all, but merely renamed it. If we're going to mention the synonymy, a more tabular and less confusing presentation might be preferable. Myopic Bookworm (talk) 14:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Unusual assertion
Does anyone have a reference for this sentence:
The seemingly useless teeth of basking sharks may play a role in courtship behaviour, possibly as a means for the male to keep hold of the female during mating.
If not, I would suggest it be removed. OliAtlason (talk) 04:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- Can not find any reference that agrees, found another that states that they might be used before birth to eat eggs, added that and the ref. --Stefan talk 06:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for checking it ! OliAtlason (talk) 15:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)