|Scientific Name:||Chaenogaleus macrostoma|
|Species Authority:||(Bleeker, 1852)|
Hemigaleus macrostoma Bleeker, 1852
Hemigaleus balfouri Day, 1878
Negogaleus macrostoma (Bleeker, 1852)
Negogaleus balfouri (Day, 1878)
|Taxonomic Source(s):||Weigmann, S. 2016. Annotated checklist of the living sharks, batoids and chimaeras (Chondrichthyes) of the world, with a focus on biogeographical diversity. Journal of Fish Biology 88(3): 837-1037.|
|Taxonomic Notes:||“Hemigaleus balfouri is apparently a synonym of this species, judging from its original description (Day 1878); unfortunately its holotype is lost. Apparently this name has been used indiscriminately for the three species of hemigaleids in Indo-Pakistani waters other than Hemipristis elongatus.” (Compagno in prep.). Probably misidentified with Hemipristis elongata throughout its range.|
|Red List Category & Criteria:||Vulnerable A2bd+3bd ver 3.1|
|Reviewer(s):||Stevens, J.D., Valenti, S.V. & Fowler, S.L. (Shark Red List Authority)|
The Hooktooth Shark (Chaenogaleus macrostoma) is commonly landed in coastal fisheries throughout its shallow (<60 m) tropical Indo-West Pacific range. The flesh and fins are utilized throughout its range. The intensive and largely unmanaged net and trawl fisheries that occur throughout the Hooktooth Shark's range fish heavily in its known habitat and are likely to catch this species if present. Many shark fisheries and stocks in the region are known to be overexploited, with catches declining. Market surveys indicate that this species has declined in areas where it was once considered common. The low catch of this species in Indonesia is likely to be due to heavy exploitation in the past (especially in the Java Sea region) and thus populations of this species have likely declined significantly. This trend is likely to continue in future in the absence of management and because of continued and probably increasing fishing effort. This species is assessed as Vulnerable on the basis of inferred and suspected continuing population declines >30% in three generations.
|Range Description:||Indian Ocean and northwest and western central Pacific Ocean: the Gulf, Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka, Singapore, Thailand, Viet Nam, China, Taiwan, Province of China, Indonesia (Java, Sulawesi) (Compagno in prep).|
FAO fisheries area: 51, 57, 71.
Native:China; India (Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Kerala, Orissa); Indonesia (Jawa, Sulawesi); Iran, Islamic Republic of; Kuwait; Pakistan; Qatar; Saudi Arabia; Singapore; Sri Lanka; Taiwan, Province of China; Thailand; United Arab Emirates; Viet Nam
|FAO Marine Fishing Areas:|
Indian Ocean – western; Indian Ocean – eastern; Pacific – western central
|Range Map:||Click here to open the map viewer and explore range.|
|Population:||Apparently common in some parts of its range (Compagno in prep). Now rare off Indonesia (White et al. 2006).|
|Current Population Trend:||Unknown|
|Habitat and Ecology:||Found inshore on continental and insular shelves to depths of at least 59 m. Thought to be a viviparous species giving birth to four young per litter. Pups are born at ~20 cm total length (TL) and grow to a maximum total length of around 125 cm TL with males maturing between 83 and 97 cm TL (Compagno in prep., White 2007).|
Inshore fishing pressure is intense throughout much of this species’ range. Commonly caught in inshore and offshore artisanal fisheries off Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka, and probably elsewhere in its range. Caught irregularly by fishers off Indonesia. Caught in drifting and bottom gillnets and on longlines. Meat is utilized for human consumption and offal is processed into fishmeal (Compagno in prep). Fins are utilized but of lower value due to their small size (White et al. 2006).
Gill net and trawl fisheries in Indonesia (especially the Java Sea) are very extensive and many shark species are highly exploited as result. Catches of sharks in south-east Asia are very high but are declining and fishers have to travel much further from the ports in order to sustain and increase catches (Chen 1996). Trawl and gill net fisheries are also moving further afield, e.g., in Jakarta the gill net fishery at Muara Baru travels to waters around Kalimantan due to the decline in local shark populations (W. White unpubl. data).
Flewwelling and Hosch (2006) report that generally coastal fisheries in the Eastern Indian Ocean are all overfished and have been under considerable fishing pressures from uncontrolled, open access fisheries management schemes for several years in all countries in the region.
|Conservation Actions:||None in place.|
Compagno, L.J.V. 2001. Sharks of the World. An annotated and illustrated catalogue of the shark species known to date. Volume 3. Carcharhiniformes. FAO, Rome.
Flewwelling, P. and Hosch, G. 2006. Subregional review: Eastern Indian Ocean. In: Young, C.D. (ed.) (ed.), In: Review of the state of world marine capture fisheries management: Indian Ocean, pp. 27-50. FAO, Rome.
IUCN. 2009. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (ver. 2009.2). Available at: www.iucnredlist.org. (Accessed: 3 November 2009).
White, W.T. 2007. Aspects of the biology of carcharhiniform sharks in Indonesian waters. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 87: 1269-1276.
White, W.T., Last, P.R., Stevens, J.D., Yearsley, G.K., Fahmi and Dharmadi. 2006. Economically Important Sharks and Rays of Indonesia. Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research, Canberra, Australia.
|Citation:||White, W.T. 2009. Chaenogaleus macrostoma. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2009: e.T161695A5482202.Downloaded on 16 August 2017.|
|Feedback:||If you see any errors or have any questions or suggestions on what is shown on this page, please provide us with feedback so that we can correct or extend the information provided|