Talk:Great white shark

The great white shark is an apex predator of the seas and has no natural predators other than the Orca.[10]

While this sentence is quoting a book, the author clearly does not have an understanding of what the words "APEX PREDATOR" means as the author has contradicted the term "APEX PREDATOR" in the very sentence that he used the term.

Apex Predator = A predator with no natural predators.

The same sentence indicates that the Orca is in fact a natural predator of the Great White, thus excluding the Great White from the classification of "Apex Predator"

I suggest that the sentence be read worded to not copy the book author and instead say something like. "The great white shark is a top predator of the oceans who's only natural predator is the Orca." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tws101 (talk • contribs) 02:21, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Good point, correction made. JoelWhy?(talk) 14:23, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

The shark that was killed by orca in Farallon Islands in 1997 was an subadult only 10~13 feet long(^[1]). It should be noted that fish are animals that grow throughout their lifetime,and even between the adult great white sharks,the size differences can be astronomical. The average great white shark is around 15 feet long,which is far larger than the 10-foot shark eaten by killer whale. Some large free-swimming great white sharks are around 500~580cm(16.5~19 feet)(^[2]), and they are not uncommon.

The type of orca that eats sharks,on the other hand,is offshore killer whale,which are smaller than other killer whales in size,with less sexual dimorphism (^[3]). The group of orcas that ate the white shark in 1997 weren't offshore killer whale,but they,too,were very small in size compared to other types of killer whales. (The female that attacked the shark in 1997 was 4.7~5.2m in length) (^[4]

There are no records of great white sharks larger than its average size eaten by killer whales,and since large great whites attain sizes close to killer whales that eats sharks,the attacks are very unlikely. Also,as mentioned before,the shark that was killed by killer whale is one of the smallest adults,way behind the average size. My point is that great white sharks should not be excluded from the classification "apex predator,"and the sentence "The great white shark has no natural predators other than the orca." should be changed to,"Great white sharks have no natural predators,though small adults can fall prey to killer whales." It should be more specific. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Csw0219 (talk • contribs) 00:52, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The Great White Shark has long been fully protected in South African waters, and the fishing ban is generally obeyed.CRJ Taylor (talk) 10:49, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

The introduction contains conflicting information on age of sexual maturity that should be resolved one way or the other. Looking at the source referenced for each fact, numbers 64 and 9, it seems to me that number 9 is superior though I would reference the source material for the article rather than the article itself. Here are the edits I propose, I would make it myself but cannot due to my unconfirmed status:

Introduction

"This shark reaches its maturity around 15 years of age and was previously believed to have a life span of over 30 years. The true lifespan of great white sharks is far longer; now estimated to be as long as 70 years or more, making it one of the longest lived cartilaginous fish currently known."

becomes

"This shark was previously believed to have a life span of approximately 30 years, but its true lifespan is now thought to be far longer at 70 years or more, which would make it one of the longest lived cartilaginous fish currently known."

I would remove references 8 and 9 from the introduction in accordance with the wishes of a previous editor since these references appear later in the article.

Ecology and behavior: Reproduction

"Great white sharks also reach sexual maturity at around 15 years of age."

becomes

"Great white sharks are currently believed to reach sexual maturity at ages 26 and 33 years for male and female sharks respectively." Reference here: http://www.publish.csiro.au/view/journals/dsp_journal_fulltext.cfm?nid=126&f=MF14127

I do not understand why the subject of lifespan is included under reproduction, but I will leave that to a more experienced editor to decide. I would make this minor edit regardless of where it should be:

"the true lifespan of the great white shark was revealed to be up to 70 years or more,"

becomes

"the true lifespan of the great white shark was revealed to be 70 years or more,"

Bemis Ampleforth (talk) 13:57, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

204.47.172.84 (talk)Ubiquitousnewt204.47.172.84 (talk) 17:00, 19 May 2015 (UTC) "33 years"? Nonsense. No way do these things reach sexual reproduction as late as this article claims. The citations provided are bad; 2 are "science-o-tainment" sites, and the last isn't relevant and doesn't support the text.

https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=80729&inline=1 "Individuals of this species mature late (females 14-16 years; males 9-10 years), and have few offspring (Cailliet et al. 1985; Francis 1996). Females breed every two to three years (Francis 1996; Compagno et al. 1997; Domeier 2012a). Although parturition (live birth) has never been observed, it is believed to occur in or near the warm waters of the SCB and northern Mexico in the late spring and summer."

Somebody fix it

THere is a section on Australia that says the sharks are protected. AND a bt earlier saying in Western Australia they are caught and killed as a matter of policy. THESE 2 bits are not clear together, expecilly to know if the latest polica in West Aust has changed the national / federal policy or if the sate is in breach of it somehow. Can someone that knows the situation beter makes these 2 bits clear?

National Geographic disagrees with this unture statement. The bullshark is number one. Please fix this false information. HeliosGnosis (talk) 12:37, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

The map in this article needs an update. Great white sharks do not frequent tropical waters, however this map shows a homogenous distribution throughout the tropical, subtropical and temperate seas. Berkserker (talk) 10:32, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

There is a debate between editors regarding the biggest great white shark ever measured. This article has been marked as a good article, and all of us have the responsibility to keep it that way. Therefore only publish confirmed and up to date information, while citing your findings. The two largest verified specimens that are currently accepted by official sources are the following.

- A 19.7 (or 19.8) footer caught off Western Australia , in 1984, and is accepted by shark expert J. E. Randall and later by José Castro from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association in the US

According to shark expert J. E. Randall, the largest white shark reliably measured was 6.0 m (19.7 ft), found near Ledge Point, Western Australia in 1987 (the shark was actually caught in 1984, but tooth measured and findings published by Randall in 1987). [hubpages.com/education/The--Biggest-Great-White-Shark-Ever-Found#] (hub pages is in general blocked so I couldn't provide the link, you need to copy and paste) “The largest white shark believed to have been measured reliably is a six-metre [19ft 8in] specimen from Ledge Point, Western Australia, caught on March 22 1984.”

- A 20 footer caught off Canada's Prince Edward Island, in 1988, and is accepted by the Canadian Shark Research Center

According to the Canadian Shark Research Center, the world's largest accurately measured great white was 20 feet in length. This was a female caught in 1988 at Canada's Prince Edward Island. Local fisherman David McKendrick landed the toothy catch. Experts mainly agree that 20 feet is the more common maximum size for a great white, with these larger individuals weighing around 4,200 pounds. Females tend to be larger than males, so they can fall into the 20-footer group. The majority of great whites, however, measure between 13 and 16 feet with an average weight of 1,500 to 2,450 pounds.

@WelcometoJurassicPark: As for the second 1945 Cuba specimen, you need to present your sources, otherwise there is only one specimen that is being discussed by officials and it has recently been proven to be much smaller. So I will be publishing these verified figures, if you have new and reliable sources please discuss. Berkserker (talk) 03:31, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

You can read in the soureces that there are two specimens. This one says 7000 lb (3175 kg): Echenique, E. J. "A Shark to Remember: The Story of a Great White Caught in 1945". while these says 3324 kg (7328 lb): https://ia800704.us.archive.org/21/items/cbarchive_109514_predatorybehaviourofthewhitesh1982/predatorybehaviourofthewhitesh1982.pdf http://www.bio-nica.info/biblioteca/Wroe2008GreatWhiteSharkBiteForce.pdf Two different figures, two different specimens. User:WelcometoJurassicPark (talk) 10:55, 03 June 2016 (UTC)

The Cojimar specimen has never been weighed, therefore the weight figure is just an estimate. No source I have read cites two separate specimens. These are basically different estimations of weight for the same specimen, that has been downsized in recent studies. I have cited two of the latest accepted max figures by 3 separate organisations. Did you know that even 11 meter specimens were accepted as legitimate and published as a maximum size for the white shark for decades? Scientific literature corrects its mistakes over time, therefore if there is a more recent study, proving the older one inaccurate, it is taken as principle. Therefore until the new analysis was present, all authors cited the Cojimar specimen. The sources you cited are written in the 80s, and a lot has changed since then. Plus you can see from the regression analysis on that article that it is an outlier. The cluster of max size is limited to 5.5-6 meters, and after a huge gap you see the Cojimar specimen. However authors at the time didn't question the data since it was accepted as legitimate at the time. You can see the same author mentioning the larger specimens once being accepted as legitimate, the exact thing has happened once again in the last couple of decades and the accepted size has changed once again. So the Cojimar specimen can only be mentioned on "Relationship with Humans" as a big fish tale. Berkserker (talk) 17:13, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Note to all editors. I have taken out the unverified reports and organised them under a separate title. These could actually be completely removed in the long run, however for now placed them in a cultural context under relationship with humans. Berkserker (talk) 03:36, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

great white ansh! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.107.193.213 (talk) 23:28, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

There have been allegations of giant white or whitish sharks,^[1][2] as mentioned in this link in "See also". Leo1pard (talk) 16:02, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

I feel the claim that it evolved around 16 mya is inaccurate considering the common ancestor with mako sharks lived 6 to 8 mya according to this   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 

But seriously, I think this is a complete lie. I can’t find anybody that’s not citing Wikipedia who says that the shark evolved 16 mya   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:55, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

In June 2018 the New Zealand Department of Conservation classified the great white shark under the New Zealand Threat Classification System as "Nationally Endangered". The species meets the criteria for this classification as there exists a moderate, stable population with a population of between 1000 to 5000 mature individuals. This classification has the qualifiers "Data Poor" and "Threatened Overseas".^[1]Ambrosia10 (talk) 16:50, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Seems good, go ahead and add it to the In New Zealand section   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:18, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

it says in this article Great White Shark populations have been going down since the 1970s but it looks like they've been going down as early as the 1960s https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-018-0233-1 I suggest a update to the information in the article to include this information — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C64:607F:FFC9:C467:714C:301:5A1C (talk) 19:14, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

The two attacks sound very similar. Both involed live, engtangled humpbacks off South Africa, one off Port Elizabeth and another just off Mossel Bay. One whale was 23 ft (7 m) while the other was 33 ft (10 m). One involved two sharks the other one, but both involved sharks of 13 ft (4 m). They also both occurred at the same time of year but allegedly in different years, February 2017 vs February 2020. They also both involed attacks to the tail first and then to the head. Is this just a coincidence or do this involve the same attack? BulbousCow (talk) 04:52, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I was watching PBS Nature show, I think it was this one, Sharks of Hawaii:

https://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/about-sharks-hawaii/24807/

..and in the show I recall learning these things:

1. Sharks have sensors to detect magnetic fields 2. Ocean floors have many magnetic poles 3. Sharks have, in them, the map of these semi-permanent magnetic poles 4. Sharks can use the magnetic detector and the map to navigate the ocean

One piece of evidence, cited in the movie, is that sharks swim in near perfect straight lines to their destination, and; they do so at great depths so that the sun and stars are not of use for navigation, and; they stay straight even though there are dramatic currents that we expect would sweep them off course.

I am not an expert but I came here to learn more about this idea that the sharks have the compass and the map inside them and use it to swim straight for hundreds of miles of ocean.

The show Sharks of Hawaii is great. One shortcoming, in my opinion, but also lacking on this page, is the idea of putting trackers onto sharks. It seems to me that putting public tracking systems onto shark fins is going to reveal information to bad fishermen about where sharks cluster and where to find specific sharks. Maybe its okay but it struck me as extremely foolish and not good for the protection of great white sharks.

Botanyhelp (talk) 18:59, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

If you have any sources to back this up, then feel free to add it. Ddum5347 (talk) 18:59, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Here are some links I see today, 20210506:

https://www.wired.com/story/sharks-use-the-earths-magnetic-field-like-a-compass/

https://www.businessinsider.com/sharks-animals-use-earth-magnetic-field-navigate-2021-5 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Botanyhelp (talk • contribs) 18:23, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Fascinating. Maybe you could add these into the main page Shark? Ddum5347 (talk) 20:11, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

It has been stated in the article that Leucism is extremely rare in the species, quoting the beached baby in Australia. There are however two other records of different aberrant colouration in the literature for the Great white shark.

1. Albinism. A baby was caught on rod and reel in 1996 in South Africa, decribed as being white with red eyes. The specimen is in the possession of the South African Institute for Aquatic Biodiversity (SAIAB). Pictures of it can be found here: https://www.saiab.ac.za/saiabnews/iconic-specimen:-a-fish-of-a-life-time.htm. Source: Smale, M. J. and Heemstra, P. C. 1997. First record of albinism in the Great White Shark, Carcharodon carcharias (Linneaus, 1758). South African Journal of Science 93:243–245.

2. Leucism/Piebald. A juvenile was filmed alive in the Aegean Sea in 2020 near Turkey. The white colouration extended in a broad area from the undersite up the flanks to just below the first dorsal fin, which also showed a broad white posterior margin. The rest of the body was coloured normaly. The authors linked the colouration to either environmental stress or possible inbreeding effects of the isolated population in the Mediterranean Sea. The complete article with pictures can be found here: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/347561389_A_LEUCISTIC_WHITE_SHARK_CARCHARODON_CARCHARIAS_LAMNIFORMES_LAMNIDAE_FROM_THE_NORTHERN_AEGEAN_SEA_TURKEY. Source: Kabasakal, H. 2020. A LEUCISTIC WHITE SHARK, CARCHARODON CARCHARIAS (LAMNIFORMES: LAMNIDAE), FROM THE NORTHERN AEGEAN SEA, TURKEY. Annales: Series Historia Naturalis 30(2): 187-190.

Could the article please be updated and the references and links be inserted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.16.68.4 (talk) 23:52, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

In the lead, it said "can swim at speeds of 25 km/hr (16 mph)" but in the body of the article it said "40 km/h (25 mph)" 2 times. I'm confused which one is correct or if I've mistaken something. OnlyFixingProse (talk) 04:47, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

the name great white shark is out dated and through campaigns to protect them the name has bean changed to white shark, as well as attempting to combat discrimination (its a breach of the anti discrimination act). Also "greater" and "lesser" animals (ie greater and lesser adjutant stork) are commonly used to differentiate between two similar species, the white shark is the last extant species in its genus (none named lesser white shark) also great white could be confused with lesser white sharks (an other name for white tip sharks) Realfakebezalbob (talk) 14:52, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

You will have to demonstrate a solid shift in name use in reliable sources for this to be an option, and that is clearly not happening. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:20, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

In the scientific literature there seems to be a preference for 'white shark' over 'great white shark'. This is based on pubmed search results, compare:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=%22great+white+shark%22 (38 results, 13 in the last 5 years)

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=%22white+shark%22++NOT+great (83 results, 46 in the last 5 years)

So I think there is some evidence for the preference for 'white shark' over 'great white shark'. I do not know any convenient ways of comparing more "popular" literature. Carcharias taurus (talk) 09:01, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

http://www.elasmo-research.org/education/white_shark/ws_or_gws.htm

also many ichthyologists and other scientist are beginning to use the name signaling a shift in naming (example http://elasmollet.org/PublicationsOthers/Francis%20white%20shark%20reproduction.pdf with no mention of "great white shark" rather "white shark") Realfakebezalbob (talk) 16:31, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

You have a good point about the general scientific trend of preferring "white shark" over "great white shark," but it's not clear whether this shift is prominent enough vernacularly (see Etymology and Naming History in Taxonomy). There's a reason why it took so long for Killer whale to be moved to the more appropriate name Orca despite the latter's prominent usage for decades. I recommend making a move proposal and laying out your arguments, with focus on evidence of a trend in greater vernacular usage for "white shark." Macrophyseter | talk 18:58, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Well if there's a shark called the lesser white shark as you've said with Triaenodon, then it makes sense we should specify great white Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 20:02, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

The oceanic whitetip shark. But that's also an obscure historical name that you would only find in very old books.Macrophyseter | talk 22:21, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

yay but greater/ lesser is used to distinguish between similarly related things (greater/less stork) Realfakebezalbob (talk) 20:33, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

in fairly certain greater/ lesser is used for close relatives, under the same genus Realfakebezalbob (talk) 20:58, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

I didnt know you could do that! (otherwise I would have) how would one do such a thing? Realfakebezalbob (talk) 20:59, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Strongly opposed to this change. It doesn't matter what scientists prefer, because neither "great white shark" nor "white shark" are scientific names, they're common names. Scientific sources are an authority on what the taxonomy of the species is, but not on what the common name is. Just like our own article Common name says: "a common name of a taxon or organism (also known as a vernacular name, English name, colloquial name, country name, popular name, or farmer's name) is a name that is based on the normal language of everyday life". No non-scientific sources are using the name "white shark" because almost no one outside scientific circles would know what that refers to, whereas the name "great white shark" is probably one of the most well-known shark names in the English-speaking world. Steven Walling • talk 03:14, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

"But before we go any further, some technical clarification is needed.  Most shark scientists refer to Carcharodon carcharias by its official common name, “White Shark.”  I think calling them “Great Whites” was something that stuck in the public’s mind when that’s how fictional marine biologist Matt Hooper referred to the shark in JAWS" there is great effect on pop culture on science and vise versa. In addition it is an understatement that nonscientific sources dont use the term "white shark." Also I find it very hard to believe someone would be so, brain dead (for lack of better words) to think what they know to be a 'great white' referred to as a 'white' and not connect the dots; then again there are those types of people out there!

https://www.montereybayaquarium.org/animals/animals-a-to-z/white-shark

https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2022-11-07/california-swimmer-describes-seeing-shark-attack-her

https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2022-11-13-shark-spotters-safety-outfit-comes-to-plettenberg-bay-giving-conservation-a-vital-boost/

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/nov/14/glassy-fangs-and-glowing-fins-amazing-deep-sea-animals-found-near-cocos-islands

these use both white and great white

https://wror.com/2022/11/14/shark-found-in-massachusetts-lagoon/

https://www.newsweek.com/great-white-sharks-mysteriously-washing-ashore-north-america-1755165

https://www.newsweek.com/great-white-sharks-mysteriously-washing-ashore-north-america-1755165 Realfakebezalbob (talk) 20:51, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

There's an even simpler example that proves my point. Even if you search for "white shark" specifically in quotes, nearly 100% of the news stories have titles and article content that say "great white shark". The same is true in Google Books search. Steven Walling • talk 23:32, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

only the last three have great mentioned in them Realfakebezalbob (talk) 23:52, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

no one is doubting it is still used Realfakebezalbob (talk) 23:52, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

in addition the majority of government sources prefer white over great white Realfakebezalbob (talk) 00:08, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

You just cherrypicked a tiny number of source examples when there are thousands of results that favor "great white shark" as the common name. Not very convincing. Steven Walling • talk 01:42, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Based on the Romanization of the Greek and meaning prescribed to it, I believe this section is incorrect: [It is a portmanteau of two Ancient Greek words: the prefix carchar- is derived from καρχαρίας (kárkharos), which means "jagged" or "sharp".] Rather than καρχαρίας (karkharías), I believe they meant to use κάρχαρος (kárkharos), which means "jagged" or "saw-like". 141.239.93.31 (talk) 07:52, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I found the article slightly inconsistent with the maximal size of this species. The lead threw a data of 5.8m while the section mentioned 6.1m (verified length) with this source. Do we have to make it 5.8 to 6.1m in the lead?

Besides, other articles, including Saltwater Crocodile & Black Caiman, adopt data of maximum sizes from those "unconfirmed reports" as well. Do we have to at least mention some of those largest estimations in the size section? For instance, the salt croc page has its lead throwing a maximal length of 6 meters & a mass of 1300 kilograms while claiming the largest estimated statistics of such as 7 meters & a jaw-dropping 2000 kilograms (crazy for a land reptile). RoyalRover (talk) 17:54, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Looking to obtain a consensus regarding the sentence in the intro paragraph, "The great white shark is an apex predator, as it has no known natural predators other than, on very rare occasions, the orca." An apex predator, by definition, is "a predator at the top of a food chain, without natural predators of its own." Would it be fair to say that the great white shark cannot be an apex predator as it does have a documented natural predator, the orca. The word "rare"? I'd argue that is up for debate; it seems to be more common or at least documented more often now (reference is from 2005), particularly in South Africa and sometimes California. I believe this sentence needs to be amended. I propose - "The great white shark has only one documented natural predator, the orca". Thoughts? Bloodyboppa (talk) 22:00, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

I think the sentence should be eliminated entirely. It might be true that for adult great white sharks, their only non-human predator is the orca, but newborn great white sharks are only about 4–5 feet long, and great white sharks grow very slowly. Scientists believe that most great white sharks never make it to sexual maturity because of predation from various species of sharks, including larger great white sharks. Why should predation not count if it's only the juveniles being killed? Muéro^(talk/c) 18:09, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm a wiki edit noob, if anyone would like to help it would be appreciated; both corrections are under Shark Bite Incidents:

Currently: "Of all shark species, the great white shark is responsible for by far the largest number of recorded shark bite incidents on humans, with 272 documented unprovoked bite incidents on humans as of 2012." First, it's now 10+ years since 2012 so the stats should be updated but next, for context, it should be noted that the Oceanic White Tip has probably killed more which is noted in the "Shark Attack" wiki. It states: "The oceanic whitetip has probably killed many more castaways, but these are not recorded in the statistics." and here is the source they use yet there are multiple sources: http://animals.howstuffworks.com/fish/most-dangerous-shark2.htm

-Currently: "Contrary to popular belief, great white sharks do not mistake humans for seals." its source is from a 19 year old apparently outdated Nat Geo article. There was a more recent 2021 well-fund study that says the exact opposite and even Nat Geo cites this in various articles. Perhaps something like the following could be added: "A study provides the first evidence in agreement with the ‘mistaken identity theory’, in which white sharks bite humans because of their visual similarity to their natural pinniped prey. " https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsif.2021.0533

NotBond007 (talk) 01:57, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/mexico-bans-great-white-shark-related-tourism-on-guadalupe-island-180981616/ NotBond007 (talk) 18:30, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/cage-diving-great-white-sharks-nova-scotia-1.6803592 NotBond007 (talk) 18:32, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Many assume a GWS's liver is tiny and wonder why Orcas kill them for their "tiny" liver...First they have two sides or lobes of their liverhttps://dlnr.hawaii.gov/sharks/anatomy/the-shark-inside/#:~:text=Shark%20livers%20are%20huge%2C%20consisting,lobes%20surrounding%20the%20digestive%20tract.

Second... "Great white shark livers are huge, weighing in at hundreds of kilograms. And they're packed with calories, obtained from the fat of the seals they eat. According to a 2013 paper, a 456-kilogram (1,000 lbs) great white shark liver contains around 400 litres of oil - delicious, calorie rich oil. This helps to keep the sharks buoyant and supplied with nutrients as they migrate.

It's also a really tasty treat for orcas: like eating a fatty doughnut, or bacon fried in butter - not just a delicacy, but a deeply sustaining meal in the often harsh conditions of the oceans." https://www.sciencealert.com/watch-orcas-surround-and-scare-off-the-ocean-s-most-terrifying-predator NotBond007 (talk) 18:38, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Argument in Description that attacks occur fewer than 10 times per year is wrong. As stated in the source nr 18, "deadly attacks" (!) are mostly fewer than 10 times per year. In the same article 2020 is called a low year for attacks with 57 reported attacks. 2A00:6020:5023:F700:3908:89D5:642B:25B0 (talk) 21:50, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In Anatomy and Description, under size, there seems to be an error: "In great white sharks, sexual dimorphism is present, and females are generally larger than males. Male great whites on average measure 3.4 to 4.0 m (11 to 13 ft) in length, while females measure 4.6 to 4.9 m (15 to 16 ft)." Trnsfrcashcorson (talk) 18:35, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Not done – please clarify I'm... not sure what the error is? Nothing about that quote is self-contradictory, and it's directly supported by the reference at the end. Could you clarify what you want changed and why?

Kodiak Blackjack (talk) • (contribs) 04:28, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The proper name should be "White Shark." "Great white shark" is the improper common name. The name of the article and all subsequent references should be changed to "White Shark." The opening sentence should read as "The white shark (Carcharodon carcharias), also known as the great white shark..." 134.186.51.126 (talk) 04:31, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Can you provide some reliable sources that state that the proper/more common common name is "white shark" and not "great white shark"? Mr Fink (talk) 05:35, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done Consensus for over two decades has been that the WP:COMMONNAME here is "great white shark," not "white shark." You're welcome to open a move request if you disagree with it, but keep in mind that it would have a snowball's chance in hell at going through. — Kodiak Blackjack (talk) • (contribs) 15:33, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Under "interspecific competition and predation by orcas", the 14-foot (3.5-meter) female with sustained wounds after an encounter with orcas near Seal Island off False bay, South Africa, in 2017, should be made referenced to. As it possibly suggests white sharks can survive killer whale attacks; that a predation attempt by orcas is not certain death. Furthermore, possibly reasons as to why the shark survived should be noted, such as the idea that sharks may be diving into deeper waters upon sensing orcas near their location, or that white sharks are 'fighting back', leading to the orcas backing off, or, lastly, the possibly that the orcas are only toying with the shark. Linguru93 (talk) 12:09, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Charliehdb (talk) 12:45, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Archived some old (pre-2024) concluded discussions and automated messages from this talk page and moved them to Talk:Great white shark/Archive 2. I will be porting other discussions as they are answered/officially concluded; please don't archive them until they are. Thanks. — Kodiak Blackjack (talk) • (contribs) 16:58, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

From the article:

According to a 2014 study, the lifespan of great white sharks is estimated to be as long as 70 years or more, well above previous estimates,^[1]

But following the link I got:

Lifespan/Longevity

The age of great white sharks can be determined by counting the rings that form on the vertebra. It is believed that great white sharks breed between the ages of 9 and 23 years old and that their lifespan is approximately 30 years (Levine, 1998). Various research indicates that great white sharks live somewhere between 30 and 40 years (Shark Information, 2009). (Levine, 1998; "Shark Information", 2009)

Googling around, I found this study: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0084006 It looks like it's saying females live to 40 and males to 70. Should we update the article? — DanielLC 19:25, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

I’m in favor of changing the source because the study itself wasn’t cited in the link provided. But I do think we should keep the wording the same ExplorerKing (talk) 16:13, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Citation 59 (in the anatomy section) claims a leucistic adult was found in Indonesia, however the cited paper makes no mention of leucism. The photos in the paper also clearly show a normally-pigmented shark. Can an established editor please fix this? 2405:6E00:2803:27AA:8D0E:B178:6E50:9DA8 (talk) 13:00, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Done, I apologise this took so long to address. Sacristy (talk) 04:50, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The page about great white sharks has referenced a study called Sociable Killers (ref 111) which compares shark behaviors to the debunked wolf pack alpha theory ”is probably most aptly compared to that of a wolf pack, in that each member has a clearly established rank and each clan has an alpha leader. When members of different clans meet, they establish social rank nonviolently through any of a variety of interactions.” but the wolf pack hierarchy has been debunked by the original author of the said wolf pack alpha theory here: https://wolf.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/267alphastatus_english.pdf

Tldr outdated source with accurate info stating there to be similarities to outdated information 2001:14BA:9CB6:1500:6C3E:6D04:425F:A600 (talk) 13:22, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. meamemg (talk) 14:41, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add this source to the lead section concerning predation of great white sharks by orcas. The source includes a video of a pod of orcas killing a great white shark, ripping it open, and eating its liver then discarding the dead carcass of the great white shark and letting it sink into the depths.

^[1]

71.238.117.231 (talk) 06:30, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Not done for now: Why exactly should this be in the lead section? WP:Wikipedia is not censored but that does not mean we should put graphic things into the top of an article because we feel like it. The lede, per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE and WP:LEAD should be a summary of the body of the article. I am open to your request, but I do not see why it is necessary. You can ping me if you want or message me at my talk page. Happy editing, Slomo666 (talk) 01:56, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

As the article itself makes clear, orcas feed on white sharks, making the sharks non apex predators. The sources that call them "apex predators" are dated. So, change "apex predators" to just "predators" in the "Diet and Feeding" section. 128.177.104.230 (talk) 04:48, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. There have been a couple of discussions about this over the years above, with no clear consensus established. - Umby 🌕🐶 (talk) 04:57, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

The white shark is no longer considered an apex predator as the orca has been established to prey on it. The article itself says so multiple times and links to many references. So, we should replace "apex predator" with just predator. An apex predator is defined to be one at the very top, not one near it. ~2025-31339-17 (talk) 00:15, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

The literature still considers the white shark to be an apex predator. So it will be called that in this article. LittleJerry (talk) 21:26, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Regardless of this, it is also conceptually still correct: an apex predator can only be predated by other apex predators. They compete where their diets overlap, which would not be the case if only one was an apex predator (But they often don’t cohabitate!) Slomo666 (talk) 23:43, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

According to the YouTube video IvCh4gWkHhM at timestamp 2:37 this article is wrong.

It says White sharks typically swim at around 3.25 km/h (2.02 mph) but can sprint up to 50 km/h (31 mph).

The source used is a journalist/science writer, not a biologist. Polygnotus (talk) 06:21, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

https://www.int-res.com/abstracts/meps/v621/meps12981 says Video showed one shark attacking a seal, during which an intensive swimming event (lateral acceleration: 3.7 × g, tailbeat frequency: 3.3 Hz, estimated swim speed: 6.7 m s-1) was recorded. 6.7m/s is 24.12 km/h, not 50. Polygnotus (talk) 06:24, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

@LittleJerry: See above. Thanks, Polygnotus (talk) 06:48, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Nothing says they can't reach that speed. You also removed the cruising speed which was unhelpful. LittleJerry (talk) 18:45, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

@LittleJerry You are now editwarring to reintroduce disputed content, with an unreliable source. The burden of proof is on those who (re)introduce content. So provide a reliable source for that top speed, stop editwarring, or get blocked. Which path do you choose? Polygnotus (talk) 18:52, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

You started it! Were in the paper does it say that 24.12 km/h is top speed? LittleJerry (talk) 18:54, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

@LittleJerry What do you mean when you say You started it?? By any logical definition it started when you added misinformation to the article, based on a source that says they are oviparous instead of viviparous.

The text you repeatedly added to the article says their top speed is 50 km/h. You have to provide a reliable source for that claim. But I very much doubt that you can because that claim doesn't appear to be accurate.

So please stop reverting, try to find a reliable source, discover you are unable to and revert yourself. And in the future please be more careful. Thanks, Polygnotus (talk) 19:00, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Polygnotus, you should probably check the source you cite. It says "the top speed of white sharks may be even faster than 6.7 m s−1. Our conservative estimate for the white shark top speed (6.7 m s−1) is higher than those of most other fishes." LittleJerry (talk) 19:13, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

@LittleJerry Do you or do you not have a reliable source? Not some back-of-the-envelope type thing but a scientific study which actually measured them. Polygnotus (talk) 19:15, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Address my statement. The only reason you think the current speed is unreliable is because of this paper! LittleJerry (talk) 19:17, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Pinging Macrophyseter LittleJerry (talk) 19:19, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Your statement is irrelevant. You refuse to provide a reliable source for a claim you have editwarred into the artice. And stop using straw man arguments. You have been blocked for editwarring three times already, I would expect you to know how this works by now. Polygnotus (talk) 19:19, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Get a consensus, or a request for comment. And don't be a creep and look deep into my history. I haven't been blocked for a long time. LittleJerry (talk) 19:25, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

@LittleJerry I don't have to get a consensus to remove the misinformation you added. And that is not what RfCs are for. WP:V is policy, and it clearly states The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material. That is you. You need to provide a reliable source for any claims you add to Wikipedia articles, and you have repeatedly not done that when requested.

Like I explained, the source you used is far from reliable because it contains very basic mistakes and was written by someone with no relevant expertise.

And sure, your blocks for editwarring were a while back, but you are currently behaving in the exact same way that got you blocked three times already. So why do you do it again? Polygnotus (talk) 19:31, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Sorry. I already have a source I'm not taking your word that its "unreliable" and will wait for other opinions. LittleJerry (talk) 19:37, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

@LittleJerry regardless of whether you have "a source", you are not entitled to edit war, which you have been doing. As such, you have lost access to edit this article indefinitely. I am disheartened that someone with your editorial experience needs this pointed out to them. While you are welcome to edit every other page of this encyclopedia, I'm cautioning you that a repeat of this behavior elsewhere will lead to a broader block. Star Mississippi 19:41, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi: Sorry, you were the most recently active admin. Can you explain 3RR to LittleJerry please or should I go to a noticeboard? It seems like we got some WP:OWN problems. Thanks and sorry for bothering you, Polygnotus (talk) 19:36, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

I understand it. Stop being rude and bulling your way to get what you want. LittleJerry (talk) 19:38, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Marine predator–prey contests: Ambush and speed versus vigilance and agility The maximum burst speed of white sharks at Seal Island is not known. From 1997 to 2010, we video-recorded white sharks in pursuit of seals from which shark speed during predation events could be estimated. We were able to repeatedly calculate in-water burst speeds around 11 m/s. For example, on 25 August 2000, a 3.4-m white shark swimming at 0.5 m/s fled a larger conspecific, moving across the length of our 8-m observation vessel in 90.8 s. This corresponds to a burst speed of 11.9 m/s. This value is comparable with reported burst speeds of 6 m/s and 7 m/s for white sharks hunting pinnipeds at other sites (Johnson et al. 2009). During initial strike on a Cape fur seal, white sharks breach the waters’ surface (Martin et al. 2005). The surface breaking velocity (Vo) of a breaching white shark can provide an estimate of this species’ maximum swimming speed. To record physical attributes of white shark breaches (i.e. height, angle and trajectory), we experimentally elicited 121 strikes by sharks on towed seal-shaped decoys (Martin et al. 2005). For example, on 18 June 2002, broadside to our observation vessel, a 3.5-m white shark performed a breach with a height of ]2.4 m, a water-escape trajectory of 9458, and duration of 91.2 s. Following Brunnschweiler (2005), Vo was calculated as follows, Vo �â(2gh/1 � cos 2a), where g � acceleration due to gravity (9.81 m/s 2 ); h �height of breach above surface (m); a �angle between water escape vector and horizon. This produces a Vo estimate of 9.70 m/s, corresponding to a burst speed at the moment of reaching the surface of 35 km/h. Polygnotus (talk) 19:40, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Some unreliable sources claim 56km/h but it seems like the scientific consensus is that the speeds are far lower. The maximum speed was measured to be 6.7 m s−1 during breaching The highest speed I can find a reliable source for is 11.9 m/s (so 42.84 kilometers per hour) in Marine predator–prey contests: Ambush and speed versus vigilance and agility. But annoyingly that sentence seems to contain a mistake, because 90.8s is way too long. For example, on 25 August 2000, a 3.4-m white shark swimming at 0.5 m/s fled a larger conspecific, moving across the length of our 8-m observation vessel in 90.8 s. This corresponds to a burst speed of 11.9 m/s. Polygnotus (talk) 20:26, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

I should mention that this estimate has been criticized, according to Semmens et al. (2019), as that study is based on a calculation with a high margin of error. Colossal Cheetah (talk) 17:02, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Hmm it seems like is correct: For example, on 25 August 2000, a 3.4-m white shark swimming at 0.5 m/s fled a larger conspecific, moving across the length of our 8-m observation vessel in ±0.8 s. This corresponds to a burst speed of 11.9 m/s.. Polygnotus (talk) 20:31, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Weird the PDF is correct but when I copy the ± symbol I get a 9 instead. Polygnotus (talk) 21:04, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

I think the best source for their modal swim speed is Swimming strategies and energetics of endothermic white sharks during foraging which states Modal swim speeds (0.80-1.35 m s-1) were slower than the estimated speeds that minimize cost of transport (1.3-1.9 m s-1), a pattern analogous to a 'sit-and-wait' strategy for a perpetually swimming species. That is 2.88 - 4.86 km/h. So they appear to have a pretty slow cruise speed. Polygnotus (talk) 22:25, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Randy Lauff, who has a B.Sc in zoology and a M.Sc. in biology reviewed the book. I read this book in one three-hour stint, making comments in my notebook regarding errors, misleading/difficult text, and contradictions. I filled more than two pages. ... It is the first section of the book which dominates my notebook entries; this is not surprising given that (a) there is no indication that the author has any background in anatomy and (b) the reviewer does. However, some responsibility must lie with the publisher who should have had the manuscript reviewed prior to publication. one ludicrous example should suffice. Polygnotus (talk) 23:03, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

I'll be willing to change it if I'm unblocked. LittleJerry (talk) 19:47, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

that's not how this works. You need to change the behavior regardless of whether you're unblocked. Star Mississippi 20:04, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Star Mississippi had they brought this up earlier instead of pinging you, I would have conceded, and the discussion would have been over. That's what I was demanding, a conversation and arguments. LittleJerry (talk) 22:22, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

@LittleJerry Note that this doesn't actually work. On Wikipedia, pinging only works if the edit adds a signature. See WP:PING and Help:Fixing failed pings.

But I don't actually recommend pinging 'em. Better to let someone else look at the unblock request. And I recommend improving it a bit: what the moderators want to see in an unblock request is that the person shows they understand why they were blocked and how they could've avoided being blocked. See WP:GAB.

I can't really spell it out for you, because then they would consider it inauthentic because it would be my words and not yours, but the magic formula is "I shouldnt do x because %negative effects%. In the future I will %something better%". Above are the cruise speed and the max speed, sourced to two reliable sources. I recommend getting rid of the unreliable source because FA reviewers can be pretty strict. I also recommend taking a look at Category:Harv and Sfn template errors, specifically the "Displaying error messages"-section. And please read WP:3RR, specifically any amount of edit warring may lead to sanctions ... Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit warring with or without 3RR being breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times. Hope that helps, Polygnotus (talk) 23:56, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

In this edit you add One study concluded that a white shark liver is more energy-rich than whale blubber.<ref name=Pethybridge>{{cite journal|last1=Pethybridge|first1=H. R.|last2=Parrish|first2=C. C.|last3=Bruce|first3=B. D.|last4=Young|first4=J. W.|last5=Nichols|first5=P. D.|year=2014|title=Lipid, fatty acid and energy density profiles of white sharks: insights into the feeding ecology and ecophysiology of a complex top predator|journal=PLoS ONE|volume=9|issue=5|page=e97877|doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0097877}}</ref>

But it looks like that source claims that the wet mass (wm) of the white shark liver is 27.3±2.8.

Whereas sharks store energy in their livers, mammals store energy in adipose tissue with whale blubber having an estimated energy density of 27.5 to 30.6 kJ g−1 [43].

[43] refers to The energy density of blubber increased from 27.5 kJ/g to 30.6 kJ/g (wet mass) during this period of 112 days.

So to me it looks like the whale blubber is actually more energy-rich, according to that source. Polygnotus (talk) 01:24, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

The paper states also that "We found that while the muscle is a site of structural energy, the liver has an even higher energy density than whale blubber and serves as a storage unit to fuel white shark migrations, growth and reproduction." LittleJerry (talk) 02:18, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Pretty weird, because their own data seems to contradict that. Decent chance they accidentally compared dry to wet mass. When comparing wet to wet, whales win. Polygnotus (talk) 02:20, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

@LittleJerry I made some minor tweaks, please take a look. Polygnotus (talk) 02:26, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

That fine. You can make the top speed change but please don't remove the cruising speed. LittleJerry (talk) 02:35, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Why do you prefer to keep the current cruising speed? tbh I was kinda planning leaving the cruising/top speed and energy density to you. If you follow my advice above then you should soon be able to edit the article again. I am easily bored. Polygnotus (talk) 02:41, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

I already requested an unblock on my talk page. LittleJerry (talk) 19:34, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

The bad source says 3.25 km/h which is 0.9m/s, and the good source for their modal swim speed says 0.80-1.35 m/s so I don't really see much of a difference, except that the source is far more reliable (they used actual logging equipment attached to the dorsal fin). Polygnotus (talk) 02:52, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

• Adding my comments on bust speed since I was pinged. I couldn't find a paper citing 50+ km/hr estimates, but most of the very fast calculations for sharks that I'm aware of come from fin shape/metabolism equations that anyone can plug-and-chug. For example, the supplements for this paper applied the equations from this paper to calculate up to 44 km/hr. I vaguely remember scaling up to larger body sizes to break above 50 km/hr using the same equations, but I don't remember for certain. However, the reliability of similar models have been questioned recently because they don't account for fluid physics (ex. cavitation), which creates a much lower speed ceiling. While it's maybe possible for the fish to swim as fast as estimated in an idealized environment, realistically it won't in the actual ocean. I agree that sticking to just actual recorded in the main text speeds might be better (although can certainly add a footnote for those faster estimates + their caveats); it's still pretty high though based on this paper that calculated a max bust speed at 35 km/hr. Macrophyseter | talk 18:32, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

  Assuming a spherical cow in a vacuum.... Polygnotus (talk) 00:45, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

  Done. LittleJerry (talk) 19:03, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

  @LittleJerry Thanks! Please check my recent edits.

  If we wanna be real nitpicky we can change this bit from 3 ridges to 3 to 5 ridges, per that: In contrast, some denticles of PD and PV skins were found to have four or five ridges instead of the three ridges (figure 5), while previous observations of PD skin showed only three ridges [14]. Polygnotus (talk) 20:56, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

  Macrophyseter do you have a better source for how far the white shark can smell? LittleJerry (talk) 18:32, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

  @LittleJerry Sharks can't "smell" a specific distance, and this claim it can detect potential prey from 110 m is again sourced to the unreliable source that should be removed.

  What happens is that sharks can detect some chemicals even in very low concentrations. This ability does not directly translate to being able to smell at x distance because ocean currents don't go in a straight line. Things like the current speed and direction, dilution rate, and what the specific chemical is all matter. And water temperature affects the distance a scent can travel.

  So the claim should be removed, and we should remove all claims based on that unreliable source and only put them back when and if a reliable source can be found. Polygnotus (talk) 18:40, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

  I removed the unreliable source. Note that I also removed It's lateral line can detect disruptions in the water from 2 km (1.2 mi) away. which was based on the same unreliable source and almost certainly false. They may be able to detect very loud sounds from kilometers away but the lateral line appears to be short-range. It is not about great white sharks but to get an idea of the distances you can look at Multisensory Integration and Behavioral Plasticity in Sharks from Different Ecological Niches which says The maximum range of detection of hydrodynamic images (the acoustic near-field detected by the lateral line and vestibular organs) is 0.4–2 predator body lengths from the source. Polygnotus (talk) 18:48, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Macrophyseter, what do you think is left? LittleJerry (talk) 19:21, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

• Source 1: Citation lacks metadata. Seems to be a conference abstract? If so, it should only be cited for non-controversial information, if at all; isn't there a better source?
• refs: 83, 91 are duplicates. Also 20, 190.
• missing wikilinks: serrated teeth, body language, sister species, fossil record, Pliocene
• "but gather in aggregations" – is a "may" missing here?
• "no aquarium currently houses" – this may change any time, so I think that "as of YEAR" instead of "currently" would be better.
• Females are generally larger than males; the former measure on average 4.5–5 m (15–16 ft) in length and weigh 1,000–1,900 kg (2,200–4,200 lb) while the latter average 3.5–4 m (11–13 ft) in length and weigh 680–1,000 kg (1,500–2,200 lb) – An "average" is a single number, not a range. Also, I cannot find the weight measurements in the cited source?
• The scientific generic name Carcharodon is a portmanteau of two Ancient Greek words, the prefix carchar- is derived from κάρχαρος (kárkharos), which means "sharp". – Suggest full stop after "words".
• The modern clade of the Lamnidae – What does this add? Why not simply "The Lamnidae"?
• Most phylogenetic analyses based on molecular data or anatomical features place the great white shark as the sister species to the mako shark clade with the Lamna clade as the most basal in the family. – "Basal" does not make sense when talking about modern clades. It would be clearer if you stick to "sister groups" (e.g., "with the Lamna clade as the sister to all other members of the family"). Alternatively, you could just remove the bit on the Lamna clade?
• an alternate placement of the great white shark as the most basal member – Again here, better "an alternative placement of the great white shark as the sister to all other members of the family".
• In the Phylogeny section, you give a lot of weight to the 1996 study while the newer ones are only briefly mentioned. Shouldn't be the most recent one the most prominent, if any?
• A 2025 clock using the whole mitogenome with this topology – you mean, with the great white being the most basal?
• Mya – should be mya (lower case)?
• "paleontologists have confidently traced" – Not sure if paleontologist have ever traced something "confidently". Do you have a strong secondary source to back-up this word?
• "Early Miocene" – I think "Early" should not be capitalised?
• "trophic position" – technical term, make more accessible?
• Serrations are more effective at cutting prey – I vaguely remember one dinosaur study concluding that serrations do not make the teeth any sharper (and therefore do not increase efficiency) but add to the stability of the tooth. Therefore, could you check if this is still up-to-date?
• It is likely the ancestral unserrated stock had already been regularly targeting marine mammals for millions of years, and therefore maintained an environment favoring rapid selection towards increasingly serrated teeth once a mutation for incipient serrations appeared. – This seems to imply some things that are not in the source (at least I cannot find "rapid selection" or "mutation").
• Colonization of the northwestern Atlantic appeared to have delayed – "been" missing? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:11, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Small grammar error under behavior/ecology section. "The pair killed the whale by strategic biting while in the other case, the shark drown its victim." Requesting that someone change "drown" to "drowned" to indicate past tense :) Eurydicefollows (talk) 13:05, 23 March 2026 (UTC)