Bob wrote:

> >Without wishing to add fuel to the flames, I should add that spinners are
> >present in the Indo-Pacific as well. I have seen one underwater
>
> I would consider it "rare", given your exposure to scuba.  But at
> least you KNOW the name and how to recognize one.

I can assure you that it caused a lot of debate on the boat :-) Several
books were consulted, but it was not until the picture (regrettably not
mine!) was developed and compared with several sources, that we actually
identified it! I thought it was a peculiarly colored mako myself.
Interesting, BTW, that both the Italians and the Spanish refer to it as the
"black-fin shark", according to Fergusson, and I remember from the research
we did on the boat and on land that the Germans call it something similar.

In fact, though I've logged a couple of thousand dives, few of them have
been in areas where sharks are regularly sighted (not that they aren't
there, but the visibility plays a part). Thailand probably accounts for over
two thirds of those dives, the majority in the Gulf, not famous for viz
above 15 meters. Ian Fergusson, a noted ichtyologist, suggests that they are
generally found in clear water (see
http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/sharktrust/spinner.shtml), which, incidentally,
is a characteristic of Bohol.

> Take this hypothetical example (which may be close to the skinner shark
> example):
>
> Suppose 99 out of 100 divers never HEARD of a skinner shark

I certainly haven't. Spinner sharks, on the other hand...;-))

> You and Strike have seen one, each.  Crusty and I have seen none.
> That's good enough for me to say they are rare.

Since we have all dived waters where they are known to exist, I would agree.
I suppose that select group has, what, 20,000 dives between them ? :-)

> The entire argumentative thread over this trivial point is silly
> at best;  vitrolic at worse.

Amen!

Bjorn