\u3ci\u3ePhocoena sinus\u3c/i\u3e

Order Cetacea, Suborder Odontoceti, Superfamily Delphinoidea, Family Phocoenidae. Four species are included in the genus. No subspecies are recognized in P. sinus

The Vaquita: Can It Survive?

The vaquita (Spanish for little cow ), or Gulf of California harbor porpoise (Phocoena sinus), has the most limited range of any marine cetacean and is probably the rarest. It has been caught incidentally in gill nets set commercially for totoaba (Totoaba macdonaldi), large fish that were over-exploited in the upper Gulf of California until they, too, were endangered. In 1975. the Mexican Government announced a total indefinite closure on fishing for totoaba, Between the time this porpoise was described as new to science (1958) and its listing by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as Endangered (early 1985), the vaquita was known from only 26 confirmed records (partial remains found on beaches) and a few sightings of live animals. (Note: the vernacular name cochito was cited when this animal was listed, but biologists have since learned that vaquita is the term used by most local fishermen.) The Endangered Species Technical Bulletin story about its listing (see BULLETIN Vol. X No. 2) said the species was on the brink of extinction if it still exists

Soviet Illegal Whaling: The Devil and the Details

In 1948, the U.S.S.R. began a global campaign of illegal whaling that lasted for three decades and, together with the poorly managed “legal” whaling of other nations, seriously depleted whale populations. Although the general story of this whaling has been told and the catch record largely corrected for the Southern Hemisphere, major gaps remain in the North Pacific. Furthermore, little attention has been paid to the details of this system or its economic context. Using interviews with former Soviet whalers and biologists as well as previously unavailable reports and other material in Russian, our objective is to describe how the Soviet whaling industry was structured and how it worked, from the largest scale of state industrial planning down to the daily details of the ways in which whales were caught and processed, and how data sent to the Bureau of International Whaling Statistics were falsified. Soviet whaling began with the factory ship Aleut in 1933, but by 1963 the industry had a truly global reach, with seven factory fleets (some very large). Catches were driven by a state planning system that set annual production targets. The system gave bonuses and honors only when these were met or exceeded, and it frequently increased the following year’s targets to match the previous year’s production; scientific estimates of the sustainability of the resource were largely ignored. Inevitably, this system led to whale populations being rapidly reduced. Furthermore, productivity was measured in gross output (weights of whales caught), regardless of whether carcasses were sound or rotten, or whether much of the animal was unutilized. Whaling fleets employed numerous people, including women (in one case as the captain of a catcher boat). Because of relatively high salaries and the potential for bonuses, positions in the whaling industry were much sought-after. Catching and processing of whales was highly mechanized and became increasingly efficient as the industry gained more experience. In a single day, the largest factory ships could process up to 200 small sperm whales, Physeter macrocephalus; 100 humpback whales, Megaptera novaeangliae; or 30–35 pygmy blue whales, Balaenoptera musculus brevicauda. However, processing of many animals involved nothing more than stripping the carcass of blubber and then discarding the rest. Until 1952, the main product was whale oil; only later was baleen whale meat regularly utilized. Falsified data on catches were routinely submitted to the Bureau of International Whaling Statistics, but the true catch and biological data were preserved for research and administrative purposes. National inspectors were present at most times, but, with occasional exceptions, they worked primarily to assist fulfillment of plan targets and routinely ignored the illegal nature of many catches. In all, during 40 years of whaling in the Antarctic, the U.S.S.R. reported 185,778 whales taken but at least 338,336 were actually killed. Data for the North Pacific are currently incomplete, but from provisional data we estimate that at least 30,000 whales were killed illegally in this ocean. Overall, we judge that, worldwide, the U.S.S.R. killed approximately 180,000 whales illegally and caused a number of population crashes. Finally, we note that Soviet illegal catches continued after 1972 despite the presence of international observers on factory fleets

Biological Background on Bottlenose Dolphins (\u3ci\u3eTursiops\u3c/i\u3e spp.) in the \u27Live-Capture\u27 Trade and Specifically on the Indo-Pacific Bottlenose Dolphin, \u3ci\u3eT. Aduncus\u3c/i\u3e

The most significant cetacean trade items until commercial whaling all but ceased in the 1990s (aside from scientific exchanges of tissues etc.) were meat and blubber from baleen whales for human consumption. Since then, live dolphins and \u27small\u27 whales for display (and to some extent for research, military use, and \u27therapy\u27) have become the most significant cetacean \u27products\u27 in international trade. Trade in live cetaceans is presently dominated by bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops spp.), beluga whales (Debhinapterns leucas) and to a lesser extent killer whales (Orcinus orca) (Fisher and Reeves 2005). In the past, most of the dolphins in trade were common bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) originating in the United States, Mexico and the Black Sea, but since the 1980s the United States has essentially stopped its capture-for-export activities and in 2001Mexico implemented a moratorium on live-captures. The source countries for dolphins in trade are now geographically diverse, but Cuba and Japan are currently major source nations for common bottlenose dolphins. Russia is the only current source for belugas. Russia and Japan have become the main potential sources for killer whales since Iceland ceased exporting them in the 1980s or early 1990s

Getting to know you: Identification of pygmy killer whales (Feresa attenuata) and melon-headed whales (Peponocephala electra) under challenging conditions

Melon-headed whale (Peponocephala electra) and Pygmy killer whale (Feresa attenuata) are very poorly known species and are often confused with each other. We examined in detail Figure 3 in MARIGO and GIFFONI (2010) who reported that two melon-headed whales were taken in a surface driftnet about 90 nm off Santos, Brazil. We concluded they were in fact pygmy killer whales and explain our reasoning. To aid in future identifications, we illustrate and describe some of the main differences between these two species of small cetaceans. The incident reported by MARIGO and GIFFONI (2010) might represent the 'tip of the iceberg' regarding the incidental catches of cetaceans by pelagic drift nets off Brazil. Offshore driftnetting operating along the south-southeastern coast of Brazil may threaten pygmy killer whales.A orca-pigmeia (Feresa attenuata) era conhecida por poucos registros há não mais que 60 anos atrás, mas, apesar do número de registros ter crescido recentemente em todos os oceanos tropicais, F. attenuata é ainda considerada uma espécie pouco estudada. No Brasil, mesmo em base a um pequeno número de registros, presume-se sua distribuição como pelágica. Neste trabalho discutimos o registro de captura acidental de duas 'blackfish' (F. attenuata e Peponocephala electra) na costa norte de São Paulo, publicado na Figura 3 em MARIGO and GIFFONI (2010) e propomos a correção da identificação desses espécimes. A correta identificação dos três exemplares como orca-pigmeia coloca uma intrigante questão sobre a conservação dessa espécie no Atlântico Sul tropical. As operações de pesca com redes de deriva ao longo da costa sul-sudeste do Brasil podem ameaçar F. attenuata, espécie naturalmente rara. É recomendado o efetivo monitoramento da frota pesqueira, tendo em vista a necessidade de se avaliar a magnitude dessas capturas

Diets of Baird’s Beaked Whales, \u3ci\u3eBerardius bairdii\u3c/i\u3e, in the Southern Sea Of Okhotsk and Off the Pacific Coast Of Honshu, Japan

Stomach contents were analyzed from 127 Baird’s beaked whales, Berardizls bairdii, taken in coastal waters of Japan. During late July-August of 1985- 1987, 1989, and 1991, 107 samples were collected from off the Pacific coast of Honshu. An additional 20 samples were collected from whales taken in the southern Sea of Okhotsk during late August-September of 1988 and 1989. Prey identification using fish otoliths and cephalopod beaks revealed the whales fed primarily on deep-water gadiform fishes and cephalopods in both regions. Prey species diversity and the percentage of cephalopods and fish differed between the two regions. Off the Pacific coast of Honshu the whales fed primarily on benthopelagic fishes (81.8%) and only 18.0% on cephalopods. Eight species of fish representing two families, the codlings (Moridae) and the grenadiers (Macrouridde), collectively made up 81.3% of the total. Thirty species of cephalopods representing 14 families made up 12.7%. In the southern Sea of Okhotsk, cephalopods accounted for 87.1% of stomach contents. The families Gonatidae and Cranchiidae were the predominant cephalopod prey, accounting for 86.7% of the diet. Gadiform fish accounted for only 12.9% of the diet. Longfin codling, Laernonma longipes, was the dominant fish prey in both regions. Depth distribution of the two commonly consumed fish off the Pacific coast of Honshu indicate the whales in this region fed primarily at depths ranging from 800 to 1,200 m

\u3ci\u3eLissodelphis peroni\u3c/i\u3e

Order Cetacea, Suborder Odontoceti, Family Delphinidae. The subfamily Lissodelphinae has been proposed for this genus (Fraser and Purves, 1960), but it has not been universally accepted (Kasuya, 1973). There are two species in the genus: Lissodelphis peronii (southern right whale dolphin) and L. borealis (northern right whale dolphin). Lissodelphis peronii currently contains no subspecies

Paedomorphic Ossification in Porpoises with an Emphasis on the Vaquita (\u3ci\u3ePhocoena sinus\u3c/i\u3e)

Heterochrony, the change in timing of developmental processes, is thought to be a key process shaping the numerous limb morphologies of tetrapods. Through a delayed offset in digit development, all cetaceans (i.e., whales, dolphins, and porpoises) have evolved supernumary phalanges (hyperphalangy). Moreover, some toothed cetaceans further alter digital morphologies by delayed endochondral and perichondral ossification of individual elements. In the harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena), these paedomorphic patterns have created poorly ossified phalangeal elements. However, no studies have addressed this morphology in other porpoise taxa. This study documents the timing of carpal and digital epiphyseal ossification in the poorly studied vaquita (Phocoena sinus) based on radiographs (n = 18) of known-age specimens. Patterns of vaquita manus ossification were compared between other porpoise and delphinid taxa. Adult vaquitas are paedomorphic in carpal, metacarpal, and digital development as they maintain a juvenile ossification pattern relative to that of other porpoise species of equivalent ages. Vaquitas also ossify fewer carpal elements as compared to other porpoise and some delphinid cetaceans, and ossification arrests relative to that of the harbor porpoise. Vaquitas also display sexual dimorphism as females reach a greater body size and display more ossified elements in the manus relative to their paedomorphic male cohorts

Cetacean sightings around the Republic of the Maldives, April 1998

In April 1998, as part of a project to collect biopsy samples of putative pygmy blue whales (Balaenoptera musculus brevicauda) in the waters around the Republic of the Maldives, Indian Ocean, incidental sightings of cetaceans encountered were recorded. Using modified line-transect methods and handheld binoculars, a total of 267 sightings of 16 species of whales and dolphins were recorded during 20 at-sea days in the northeastern part of the atoll. Significant results include the following: (1) cetaceans were abundant and species diversity was high, including nearly every pantropical species of pelagic cetacean; (2) the spinner dolphin (Stenella longirostris) was by far the most common species encountered (56 sightings) and also had the largest mean school size ( = 50.3 individuals); (3) blue whales were rare; only four individuals were sighted; (4) a large concentration of Bryde’s whales (28 sightings in two days) was apparently feeding in nearshore waters; (5) this paper reports the first records for the Maldives of Cuvier’s beaked whale (Ziphius cavirostris), Blainville’s beaked whale (Mesoplodon densirostris) and the dwarf sperm whale (Kogia sima): the latter was particularly common (17 sightings); (6) the spotted dolphin (Stenella attenuata) was rare and almost always associated with yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares), spinner dolphin, or seabirds, as has been reported in the eastern Pacific and western Indian oceans

U.S. Pacific Marine Mammal Stock Assessments

Under the 1994 amendments to the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) were required to produce stock assessment reports for all marine mammal stocks in waters within the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone. This document contains the stock assessment reports for the U.S. Pacific marine mammal stocks under NMFS jurisdiction. Marine mammal species which are under the management jurisdiction of the USFWS are not included in this report. A separate report containing background, guidelines for preparation, and .a summary of all stock assessment reports is available from the NMFS Office of Protected Resources. This report was prepared by staff of the Southwest Fisheries Science Center, NMFS and the Alaska Fisheries Science Center, NMFS. The information presented here was compiled primarily from published sources, but additional unpublished information was included where it contributed to the assessments. The authors wish to thanks the members of the Pacific Scientific Review Group for their valuable contributions and constructive criticism: Hannah Bernard, Robin Brown, Mark Fraker, Doyle Hanan, John Heyning, Steve Jeffries, Katherine Ralls, Michael Scott, and Terry Wright. Their comments greatly improved the quality of these reports, We also thanks the Marine Mammal Commission, The Humane Society of the United States, The Marine Mammal Center, The Center for Marine Conservation, and Friends of the Sea Otter for their careful reviews and thoughtful comments. Special thanks to Paul Wade of the Office of Protected Resources for his exhaustive review and comments, which greatly enhanced the consistency and technical quality of the reports. Any ommissions or errors are the sole responsibility of the authors. This is a working document and individual stock assessment reports will be updated as new information becomes available and as changes to marine mammal stocks and fisheries occur; therefore, each stock assessment report is intended to be a stand alone document. The authors solicit any new information or comments which would improve future stock assessment reports. This is Southwest Fisheries Science Center Technical Memorandum NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC- 219, July 1995. 11