| Archive for SUSAC forum Stirling University Sub-Aqua Club |
| charlie |
Slates & Kenmore Point 10/11 NovWill write proper blog later but here's photographic evidence of our excellent weekend of diving!
|
||||||
| Scotty Boy |
glad to see you finally managed a full body shot of a tadpole fish!! | ||||||
| Shug |
And he learned what a feather star is!
By the way, the EU got in touch and said that it's actually against the law to have a 14+hour dive trip with only 12 dives completed. However, the top notch banter should continue. |
||||||
| charlie |
cheers Scotty. it's actually a cusk / tusk / torsk (Brosme brosme) |
||||||
| gus |
well apparently, i'm still totally unconvinced, looks like a tadpole fish to me. nice pics though, and shug that EU directive becomes complicated when the expected number of dives per person at the beginning of the trip is two, with the actual total dive number is significantly reduced. the total number of hours permissable for such a trip is an incredible 47.5 hours. fortunatly this was not exceeded. cheers |
||||||
| charlie |
Just goes to show how much Marine Biology graduates from Stirling know... eh? 
Seriously, though, you're quite right that it resembles a tadpole fish from the photo. In the flesh though, you wouldn't have mistaken it for one as the head & body were very different morphologically & the colour was paler than it looks on here. Not nearly as cute as a tadpole fish either. Behaviour was contrasting too. A different fish altogther. Gus just can't handle that an humble amateur can identify marine species! 
|
||||||
| gus |
tis very true, i can only attempt to identify from the photo while you were indeed there in the flesh.
picture still looks like one of a tadpole fish to me. the behaviour may be a clincher for me though, 'if its not in a hole then its not a tadpole fish' i've heard. any other photos of it? cheers |
||||||
| charlie |
Your wish is my command (even although you didn't say "please") 
|
||||||
| cuttlefish |
In Sweden, a person who solicit prostitutes is known as a "torsk", meaning cod in Swedish. |
||||||
| charlie |
"torsk" means "cod" in Norwegian too (it was in my learner software that I downloaded free)
|
||||||
| cuttlefish |
|
||||||
| joe |
Ah the rescue barge! | ||||||
| cuttlefish |
http://web.ukonline.co.uk/aquarium/pages/torsk.html | ||||||
| joe |
oh maxwell might have just cleaned it up with that! | ||||||
| charlie |
You would think so wouldn't you? But that is the same photo as in my marine ID book which didn't convince gus 
cheers cuttlefish for the link |
||||||
| Shug |
If only you had caught it and brought it home. By now it would either still be a "Torska" or it would be a frog fish. Aaaahahahahaha! 
|
||||||
| charlie |
It was Brosme brosme!
You like that!? That comment will make sure that I have the last word between gus & me! |
||||||
| Shug |
Fish geeks. | ||||||
| Sam |
Just how deep were you diving Dr M!?!?
'Habitat: Offshore, bottom dwelling fish, found in waters of between 150 to 450m, swimming in small shoals over broken ground.' 
|
||||||
| gus |
the link, and details do not convince me.
i'm not doubting that it is possible that the fish you saw was one of these cod like fish, but unfortunatly you didnt manage to get a picture of it. just pictures of a tadpole fish. i am happy to settle on it being an unidentifiable fish. if only you didnt have a camera then you could have told me you had seen anything and i would just have been sceptical, but unable to argue. i dont 'like that' and i dont believe it. cheers |
||||||
| cuttlefish |
i could cross the photo to my angling forum to see what they say!
they're pretty awesome at I.Din |
||||||
| gus |
that would be top cuttlefish, get some pro opinions, (as long as they give the corrct answer).
having another little look i think it could be a number of things. rocklings and forkbeards are all more likely than a torsk. the slight but present first dorsal finnage i seem to be able to see just forward of the elongated second dorsal fin indicates that it cannot be a torsk. chuck, its a competition now and i like winning. i recon its not a torsk, you recon it is. when you conceed you shall be bannished to Norway. cheers |
||||||
| cuttlefish |
no worries
thats in posted on the other forum! i'll keep you updated! |
||||||
| charlie |
I would agree if that was actually case. What you're actually looking at is the edge of the left pectoral fin. If you'd bothered to look at the 2nd photo you would have avoided such a school boy error
Unlucky... torsk it is. Will be interesting to hear what the anglers think but I know what I saw & it was a torsk. You weren't there, gus, & you may never get to see one of these glorious specimens. When I see lots more of them in Norway I will send you a indisputable photo of one & you will see that I was right about this one all along. You'll then feel very silly indeed.  
Nice thinking... unfortunately totally wrong. Just had a look at lots of rocklings & forkbeard images & none of them even vaguely resemble my fish. It had a very distinctive shape of head which was nothing like a tadpole fish & certainly not like the others. Funnily enough the shape of the head, the fin pattern, the body shape & the colour look exactly like a torsk in my ID book but not like any of your lacklustre suggestions. |
||||||
| Shug |
I can see this getting ugly.
I think it's a new species of coelacanth
|
||||||
| gus |
it will get ugly,
i'm stopping now, but i really do disagree. cheers |
||||||
| cuttlefish |
how deep is L.Leven???
surely not deep enough for a torsk? |
||||||
| charlie |
according to wikipedia "It is normally found in water deeper than sixty feet (20 m)" my book (which is at home... wish I was) said that they can be found in shallow waters although they are generally thought of as deeper fish. according to http://filaman.ifm-geomar.de they are found "between 18 and 550 m" FAO.org says"depths from 20 to 1 000 m" Ours was in 19.5m. This is all getting a tad boring IMHO, so let's just let it lie now... doesn't really matter anyway.
|
||||||