# Talk:Blacktip shark

It is not very clear as to which sharks we're talking about...blacktip reef shark or oceanic blacktip shark. 2 complete different sharks. Images and stories contradict each other. 196.210.199.237 (talk) 15:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

There's no such thing as an oceanic blacktip shark. I think you want oceanic whitetip shark. -- Yzx (talk) 18:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Found an image here : http://www.hawaii.gov/dlnr/dar/sharks/inshore.html but can't verify it is public domain. A lot of other shark pages use images from here, so I assume it is. Yomangani 16:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
This is incorrect:
Importance to humans
Its flesh is used fresh, dried or salted for consumption, its hide is used for leather and its liver for oil. It is occasionally taken as a game fish and often by shore anglers. It has not been indicated in unprovoked attacks against humans but is potentially dangerous.
This is correct:
Danger to Humans
The International Shark Attack File (ISAF) indicates that blacktip sharks are historically responsible for 28 unprovoked attacks on humans around the world. Attacks were reported in the United States (Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, and Alabama), the Caribbean (Bahamas and British Virgin Islands), and South Africa. None of these attacks ended in fatality, but commonly resulted in relatively minor bite wounds. Blacktip sharks are responsible for roughly 16% of the attacks that occur in Florida waters, often striking surfers.
From:
http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/Gallery/descript/blacktip/blacktipshark.html  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tedbrid (talk • contribs) 23:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC) 

how in the hell is this a GA when the opening line of the second paragraph specifically mentions the BLACKTIP REEF SHARK when at the begining of the page it says "not to be confused with the 'Blacktip_reef_shark'"  Either the info is wrong or the reference is wrong.

Fixed. Thanks for catching it. -- Yzx (talk) 21:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

This shark doesn't lives in Mediterranean, I changed the map but it didn't influence. Please help me!--Westnest message 19:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted the map. IUCN, Compagno et al (2005), and other sources give the range as including the Mediterranean. If a more recent source says that this species is not found there, you need to provide a citation. -- Yzx (talk) 22:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Science currently accepts two blacktip sharks (apart of course from the blacktip reef shark): the Common Blacktip Shark (Carcharhinus limbatus) and the Australian Blacktip shark (Carcharhinus tilstoni). This page on the Carcharhinus limbatus should clearly state in its heading that its about the COMMON Blacktip shark and furthermore it should differentiate it, in italics on top of the page, from the Australian Blacktip Shark as well as from the Blacktip Reef Shark (the latter is already done). 
On the fifth paragraph, the Australian Blacktip Shark must be added as the most similar species, much more so than the already mentioned graceful shark and spinner shark.
Alternatively to all this, this page would have to be expanded to include a section on the Australian Blacktip Shark, but that would be wrong, because if this is the page on Carcharhinus limbatus, then it's only on the Common Blacktip Shark
Additionally, the page on the Australian Blacktip Shark (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carcharhinus_tilstoni) should also make reference, on its top, in italics, to "not to be confused with the Common Blacktip Shark".
This is my opinion
Thank you.
PS: Interestingly, now these two species are crossing and generating hybrids. Perhaps one day we'll all agree they're all the same species after all? Charcharinus Limbatilstoni?;)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.1.127 (talk) 15:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)