Page 10 - Carcharodon2001
P. 10
ANNALES · Ser. hist. nat. · 11 · 2001 · 2 (25)
Alessandro DE MADDALENA et al.: AN ANAL YSIS OF THE PHOTO GRAPHIC EVIDENCES OF THE LARGEST GREAT WHITE SHARKS, ..., 193 -206
hand of a man placed near the axis of the pectoral fin (Fig. 10), the PP2-PP1 was estimated at 212 cm, corre-
(see Abel a, 1989 or Ellis & McCosker, 1991) are totally sponding to 668 cm TOT, 647 cm Tln, 525 cm PRC.
unacceptable to produce a size estimate. After a careful The high proximity of the three estimates obtained (668-
selection of many photos (including severa! unpublished 681 cm TOT) appears to be a solid confirmation of the
ones by john Gullaumier and other sources), we chose accuracy of the result. We also noted that, according to
three photos to evaluate the length of this specimen. The Mollet & Cailliet (1996), our estimates agreed with the
first, taken by John Gullaumier, is very similar to the one weights reported by Mr. Abela and Mr. Cutajar.
on the basis of which Fergusson (1998) estimated the TL
at 520-550 cm (Fig. 8) . The photo is a close-up, and Therefore w e concluded that there were no sufficient
both the head and the caudal part are clearly distorted reasons to totally refute the 714 cm TOT indicated by
by the perspective, so we chose to estimate the prepel- John Abela . lf he made an error measuring the shark,
vic-prepectoral space, PP2-PP1, that is al so on the same and we think it possible considering the way he meas-
leve! of the person chosen as reference (the man with ured the shark and in view of the results obtained by our
his hand raised and tartan shirt, and on the same piane study, the true shark's TOT was certainly not conspicu-
as the shark). Assuming that the man was 175 cm tali, ously shorter (33-46 cm by our estimates) than the one
the PP2-PP1 would be 216 cm, which corresponds to reported by him . According to our estimates and to the
681 cm TOT, 660 cm Tln and 535 cm PRC. observations by 5 eyewitnesses (Abela, Cutajar, Grech,
Buttigieg, Anonymous), the 520-550 cm TL indicated by
Two other photos (Figs. 9, 10) were also taken into
consideration that were taken from a longer distanc;e, Fergusson (1998) and Fergusson et al. (2000) is not ac-
and for this reason can be quite suitable for an estimate
to be made. In these cases, too, we estimated the PP2- ceptable.
PP1, since the head was in a strongly unnatural position .
In both of these, we chose as reference the man with Sète, France, January 91h 1991
glasses and a rape in his hand, located on the same
piane as the shark and, on the basis of his total height, A female white shark was caught on January 9'h 1991
assumed to be 175 cm, we calculated his visible partial off Sète, France. This specimen was bought by a whole-
height. For the first of these two photos (Fig. 9) we esti- sale fishmonger in Sète, offered for sale in the Rungis
mated the PP2-PP1 at 215 cm, corresponding to 678 cm market, and bought by a supermarket in Montargis
TOT, 657 cm Tln, 532 cm PRC. For the second photo (Anonymous, 1991; Quignard & Raibaut, 1993; Séret,
Fif 11: Specimen caught off Sète (France) on january 1996; De Maddalena et al., 2001 ). lt was reported by
9 1991. (Photo: R. de Neuvil/e) Anonymous (1991) as being 6 m long, by Sèret (1996)
and Fergusson (1996) as about 4.5 m long. The photo-
SI. 11: Primerek, ujet blizu Sèteja (Francija) 9. januarja graph published in Anonymous (1991 ). The same photo
1991. (Foto: R. de Neuvil/e) (Fig. 11) has been used here to produce a more precise
estimate (after the photograph made by today already
deceased Raymond de Neuville it has been impossible
to find any other photographs or a better reproduction of
the same).
The interpretation of the picture is particularly diffi-
cult, not only due to the position of the animai, but also
because of the proximity of the photographer to the
subject and the strong deformation given by the per-
spective. The persons cannot be used directly as refer-
ences, since none of them is on the same piane as the
shark; for this reason it has been necessary to project in
perspective on the piane of the shark the man located
on the left to be used as reference. We assumed that he
was 175 cm high and estimated the PRC at 464 cm, cor-
responding to 591 cm TOT, 572 cm Tln . Considering
even the particular position of the body of the specimen,
we validated this estimate on the basis of PD1: we esti-
mate it to be 222 cm, corresponding to 588 cm TOT,
570 cm Tln, 462 cm PRC. These last results strongly
confirm those previous obtained.
202
