Talk:Cookiecutter shark

message: There's several places in this article that refers to the shark's feeding habits as parasitic....I dont think that it really qualifies as "parasitism", as the word is typically used.  The shark doesnt interact with its prey for longer than it takes to bite out a chunk of meat, whereas parasites usually embed themselves on or within the host and feed for extended periods.  This shark's modus seems more like regular predation, albeit usually nonlethal to the victim.
Parasites also typically cannot survive and/or reproduce (or at least not as successfully) without a suitable host for which they are adapted; these sharks aren't adapted to any one type of host/prey, and aside from sustenance, don't require any other animals for survival and reproduction.  Again, in that case it seems more like any other obligate carnivore, than a facultative ectoparasite.
I'll be conservative and not edit the page myself, but suggest that if others agree, it should be revised.
:"Non-lethal predation" is parasitism. The vampire bat, for example, is another ectoparasite that feeds from a host and then leaves. -- Yzx (talk) 00:03, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: From http://www.elasmo-research.org/education/ecology/deepsea-cookiecutter.htm "A parasite may be defined as a predator that eats its prey in units of less than one." douts (talk) 17:55, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parasitism? 

message: From this article here:
http://globalnews.ca/news/2854705/new-whale-species-confirmed-in-pacific-ocean/
The article talks specifically about a beaked whale found beached with many scars from cookiecutter shark bites, and that DNA testing confirms it was not a beaked whale but a new species.
I can't find where the image was taken, but if it was taken on St George's island then I'd be confident enough to relabel the image as one of the new species.
Beaked whales are already kind of rare, so it seems like a reasonable possibility this was an image of the one discussed in the above articles.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:281:8100:5980:CF9:B4BC:4525:ADDF (talk) 19:48, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whale image may not be a beaked whale but new species 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:51, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: From fishbase:
Etymology: Isistius: Etymology not explained, probably iso-, from isos (Gr.), equal; istius, from histion (Gr.), sail (i.e., dorsal fin), referring to its two similarly shaped and sized (and posterior) dorsal fins, a character Gill used to diagnose genus. José I. Castro, The Sharks of North America (Oxford University Press, 2011), suggests name may allude to the Egyptian goddess Isis, represented in statuary with her head veiled, or to the dark collar encircling throat of I. brasiliensis, “which could also suggest a veil over the head” (p. 145). This interpretation is rejected by the fact that Gill often used “istius” in the names of several genera distinguished (at least in part) by their dorsal fins (Acanthistius, Brachyistius, Caristius, Dichistius, Goniistius, Iniistius, Micromesistius, Nematistius). 2804:56C:D614:F800:B945:E41F:343A:99DC (talk) 22:31, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  The name "Isistius" is apparently not after the goddess Isis