Strange Fish Caught Off The Coast Of Nova Scotia

reply to post by Phage
It is impossible to estimate the size of the fish in that picture, it has no point of reference. Also you are incorrect saying they have no dorsal fin. The first dorsal fin of the female is modified to act as a lure to attract prey. while the male has a regular dorsal fin. Im pretty sure the picture in the op is likely a male Longhead Dreamer.

The Longhead Dreamer has a rounded body with a distinct illicium projecting from the snout. It is classified in the family Oneirodidae and can be distinguished from other anglerfish families by a combination of characters that include the placement of the illicium, the smooth snout and chin that lacks a barbel and the dorsal and anal fins with 4 to 8 rays.

Longhead Dreamer .The jawline of this fish is identical to the op picture.

" target='_blank' class='tabOff'/>
Black swallower in action.

[img]

[/ img]

Originally posted by trika3000

Originally posted by Phage
Ah yes. The chiasmodon niger. Also known as...black swallower.
Pleasant fellow.
en.wikipedia.org...

Duh - Warning do NOT google image search, "black swallower" with safe search off

OH MY GOD!!! I was trying to finish reading the replies, after the first reply of "burn it with fire!"

I have been laughing ever since...

Now I am laughing so much my stomach hurts!

OMG!

It looks like it's been deflated.

It wouldn't surprise me if there was a caption that read.....

"Muffy, shown above, suffered from 3rd degree radiation burns. After owner places meteorite in doghouse. Muffy is a great dane. "

reply to post by Phage


compare the teeth and jaw of the twoo specimen. looks very little alike if at all

reply to post by Atzil321

I pointed out that the male Chaenophryne longiceps has a dorsal fin. I also pointed out that they are very small fish. Even with no point of reference I'm pretty sure the the fish in the OP is larger than 0.71 inches.

Males (1.8 cm) attach themselves to the females (28 cm) through specialised tooth-bearing denticles but are not parasitic.

australianmuseum.net.au...

In addition:

Males with 17-22 upper and 23-27 lower denticles

species-identification.org...
What are denticles?

Small teeth-like structures, like denticle scales.

species-identification.org...
While the size is open to some interpretation, it is easy to see that the fish in the OP has teeth, not denticals. It also has more teeth on the bottom jaw than on the top. It cannot be a male Chaenophryne longiceps. If it were a female it would have an illicium. It doesn't look like a female.


I also said that I think this image has been misidentified. I don't think it's Chaenophryne longiceps for the same reasons stated above. If it were female and had an illicium one would think it would be displayed for the photograph. It's dentition shows that it is not a male.

I know a little about fish. I do eat them and I have seen a goldfish once.

Anyway. Someone mentioned a Longhead Dreamer.

This person is correct. The fish in the picture is no doubt one of those.

I have seen about three in various pictures over the years and its similar in most aspects. The one in the pic is dead and we don't know for how long. It could of been a few days so the body composition would of been changed as it spent time in differing temps of water due to resurfacing at a slower rate than if it could swim up.

Otherwise know as Chaenophryne longiceps - the fish I will link you guys too is almost the same and the long thing sticking out of its head is present in the OPs pic but just flat and pushed in or disfigured.

Here is the link of the fish






No thanks guys - Its hard being right!

I still think it's a longhead dreamer, but I think its lure was somehow damaged, lost or removed, possibly in the process of it being caught/hauled up.

reply to post by Phage

I also said that I think this image has been misidentified. I don't think it's Chaenophryne longiceps for the same reasons stated above.

The specimen in the picture was 1 of 38 fish species found in the waters around greenland in a study led by biologist Peter Møller of the Natural History Museum of Denmark in Copenhagen. What evidence do have that the picture is not a longhead dreamer? 'apart from your poor understanding of what denticles are' and your inability to imagine a delicate appendage may be torn off by a fishing net.

news.nationalgeographic.com...

That is one creepy looking fish. would hate for that thing to sink its teeth into me that has to be one of the ugliest creatures I have ever seen.

Originally posted by Atzil321
This ‘Longhead dreamer’ angler fish looks very similar also, if you imagine it led on its side on the deck of a boat. www.thedailystar.net...These types of angler fish are also found in waters off nova scotia, whereas Black swallowers are found in tropical waters.

edit on 21-9-2011 by Atzil321 because: (no reason given)

Ding, ding. I think we have a winner. I agree with you Atzil, it is the closest resembling fish to the picture the OP posted.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by PeterGriffin

 

Well the specimen in the picture is not laid out all nice and neat like the one in the drawing but yes I did compare them. I also compared it to this drawing:

And this image


It's a black swallower.

edit on 9/21/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Wiki clearly states the black swallower has a longer lower jaw than upper. Your images are of swallowers the OP is widely different.

Ah yes...

Originally posted by Tybrus
I know absolutely nothing about this photo other than where is was apparently taken. This is by far one of the strangest fish Ive ever seen. Way more creepy than that Russian Alien Fish.

It looks like a critter there finally herewww.youtube.com... er

Originally posted by Phage
Ah yes. The chiasmodon niger. Also known as...black swallower.
Pleasant fellow.
en.wikipedia.org...

Isnt this the black swallower, 3.bp.blogspot.com...
The fish in the OP is missing the light on its head.

reply to post by Phage


The only question I have is these fish are from tropical/sub-tropical waters. Supposedly it was caught off Nova Scotia.

I agree it is a good match for for the link but... so many times you find an animal close but not dead-on what the book says. Sure there are variations, variants within a species, etc but at what point do we declare this may be a different species?

Originally posted by Mimir
Why would you get afraid of this one?....

If this is a hatchling maybe it's mother is pretty mean....

That's why. lol

reply to post by Phage


Not a black swallower.
It's too big. Looks more like an angler of some sort..

Originally posted by Frank Dinkle
hmm im thinking Cyclopterus lumpus or lumpfish.

They are found in the cold waters of the Arctic, North Atlantic, and North Pacific oceans. The greatest number of species are found in the North Pacific.

lump fish

I would like to have this guy in my aquarium.
Maybe we could drink a beer or two together and discuss some chicks stuff...

reply to post by Phage


This post really makes you think about Phage's reputation as debunker king of ATS. He is clearly wrong about the identification of the fish, but states it with such confidence, that those who don't want to do any research assume he's right. Additionally, once it became apparent he was wrong, he still can't let go of his initial identification, and even more, he claims the guy from the Natural History of Denmark misidentified the species.

C'mon Phage, you can admit you're wrong or at least admit you're not sure once in a while.

Kill it with fire...... Then eat it....

Killing anything with fire is extremely cruel and should never be implemented unless it is a direct danger to your safety and there is no other way to stop it