How many teeth does the goblin shark have?
467271
goblin sharks are very very rare and little is know about them.The Goblin shark is a bottom-dweller found in depths of about 3,940 feet (1,200 m) in the western Pacific, the western Indian Ocean and the western and eastern Atlantic. Not easy to find even at 14ft long.\nIt has 2 rows of teeth so you cant really count one by one. as soon as it loses one tooth another one is on the way.
880931
Probably a komodo dragon or crocodile. Most people don't know what a komodo dragon is so I have included a link with some pictures.
58391
A fully grown great white shark of 18 feet or more in length weighing a ton or even two ton has nothing to fear from anything in the ocean. However, a subadult great white of only ten feet or less and less than 800 pounds is food for giant squid and killer whales. The giant squid would have to be fully grown to do this. It is believed by scientist to reach 60 feet in length and weigh one ton.
139264
Sharks don't have skeletons made of bones, they have cartilage instead.
878356
He's got goofy teeth!
850298
Nope, haven't found a diagram but did find out:\n\n Ring-tailed lemurs share unique dental characteristics with other members of the Superfamily Lemuroidea; they have specialized teeth in their lower jaw that form a dental comb. These long, narrow teeth project nearly straight forward from the jaw and this specialized dentition is thought to aid in grooming (Swindler 2002).\n\nThough this may help - see also the links at the side of the page:\nhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16962643\n\nMaybe you could contact the author of this article & see if he would provide you with more detailed information from the study that he made?  Contact info is on the web page.\nhttp://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/77004265/ABSTRACT
366689
My friend Shane loves to tell tales of his shark attack. It was off the coast of New Zealand and this massive shark came up and after a wild struggle it bit off a huge chunk from his body....that's his tale. The truth is a small shark bit off the end of his pinky finger. He really doesn't have the end of his finger anymore. But he has suddenly developed at fingernail on the new tip. Weird.
16277
Here you go:\n\nhttp://www.bsd.sk.ca/~mkozlow/ocean/OctopusandSquid.html#anchor3361022\n\nActually they both have eight ARMS but squids also have 2 tentacles.
169134
carchardontosaurus, it was about twice the size of the average t-rex.  You can stand up inside its mouth.  you cant do that in a t-rex.
45114
It all depends on the species. Most dolphins have between 100 and 160 teeth, although they can have as many as 250 or as few as 14!
647260
The three species of Lagidium (Lagidium peruanum, L. viscacia, and L. wolffsohni) share a number of cranial features which classify the Family Chinchillidae:  They are hystricognathous (the angular process where the masseter arises is lateral to the plane of the rest of the jaw), and strongly hystricomorphous (in which the infraorbital foramen is enlarged for attachment of the medial masseter muscle).  The mandibles have no masseteric crest, the lacrimals are large and the lacrimal canal opens on the side of the rostrum.  The auditory bullae are enlarged.  The teeth have a pattern of 1/1, 0/0, 1/1, 3/3 = 20) and are hypodont and rootless.  Their molars have two or three closely packed lamellar plates.\n\nSome workers have suggested that the large genetic distances (between 5.9% and 8.9%) between the described species may mean that there are more than the three species of Lagidium that are currently recognized.  Other authors include L. peruanum within L. viscacia, meaning only two species in the Genus.\n\nIf you are looking for the specific characters used to distinguish the different species, I would recommend checking out the following references:\n\nWoods, C. 1993.  Suborder Hystricognathi. Pp. 771-806 in Mammal species of the world: a taxonomic and geographic reference (D.E. Wilson and D.M. Reeder, eds.). Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.\n\nAnderson, S. 1997.  Mammals of Bolivia, taxonomy and distribution.  Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 231:1-652.
1042893
The ones that actually adhere to the sharks are remoras. They're fishes belonging to order Perciformes, family Echeneidae, and they have a dorsal sucking disk with which they attach to sharks , but also to other bony fishes, turtles or marine mammals. These fish clean their "host" and feed on their leftovers.\nThis is what a remora looks like:\nhttp://www.amonline.net.au/fishes/fishfacts/images/enaucsh2.jpg\n\nThe other, more typical-looking fish with dark and light vertical stripes, are pilotfish. These also belong to order Perciformes, but to a different family, the Carangidae. Their scientific name is Naucrates ductor. They were called "pilotfish" because of the belief that they "guided" sharks. Actually, they're semi-obligate commensals of sharks, rays, other bony fishes and turtles, which means that they depend very much on them to feed on their leftovers.\nThis is what a pilotfish looks like:\nhttp://www.horta.uac.pt/imagdop/Servicos/Naucrates_ductor/035_s410_31.jpg
389447
There are indeed flatfish and shrimp in the deepest part of the ocean.  What kind of flatfish is, to my knowledge, unknown.\n\nThe Goblin shark reaches the bottom of the abysal planes, at about 1200 meters.  I don't know if any sharks have been found in the deep trenches, but it wouldn't surprise me.
520975
That's an interesting question!\nThe short answer would be "Different evolutionary paths", which is true. But those paths imply adaptive and functional differences. \nThe teeth of sharks are not too different from those of other tetrapods. Aside from birds, most tetrapods have many generations of teeth (this is called polyphyodonty), and those teeth are usually not strongly attached to the jaws. They`re more or less easily lost and replaced during normal activities. So, why don't we mammals have such a useful feature? \nThe loss of all those teeth replacements was a tradeoff for our acquisition of better tooth occlusion. Occlusion is the way the surfaces of the upper and lower teeth contact each other, and in mammals, our chewing teeth (molars and premolars) have complex occlusal surfaces, which allow for slicing food (shearing like scissors), crushing food (cusps and basins that act like a mortar and pestle), and other ways of basically, disintegrating food items. \nThe thing is, the precise interlocking of cusps and vales is not easy to achieve (as anybody with occlusion problems has probably heard from the dentist). So the hypothesis is that the evolutionary path of mammals "focused" on one generation of perfectly occluding teeth. Thus, molars erupt late in life, grow slowly, and are not replaced. And the other teeth (incisors, canines and premolars) have a first, "milk" teeth generation that allows the young mammal to feed while its skull is expanding. Then, by the time its growth has slowed down, the definitive teeth erupt and take their places (they would not fit in the small jaws).\nThe teeth of man, as those of all primates, are brachydont. This means that they don't keep growing once they've erupted completely. However, the enamel that forms the outer cover of the teeth is the hardest substance in our bodies, and is able to endure the wear from our food. However, many other mammals that eat more abrasive foods (plants, and especially grasses) have permanently growing teeth (hypsodonty). This is, in a way, the equivalent of having multiple generations of teeth; their teeth keep growing throughout part of their lives (as in the case of horses) or all of their lives (like many rodents and ruminants). But we cannot "recover" the capacity for multiple teeth generations that we "gave up" evolutionarily when we became mammals.
631008
Sharks are boneless fish, so very primitive evolutionarily-they harken back a few hundred million years, without very much change- I seriously doubt, both because they are so primitive and havent changed in so long, that they have any remaining vestigial structures.  Generally vestigial structures come from an animal that has evolved from a quite different precursor-sharks are very close to the very first fish that evolved, thus they probably havent had to shed any organs or bones that arent useful.\nRibs? How is that vestigial?  They use their ribs for structural support, just like all fish...
181468
They could *be* shark teeth. There are plenty of places where you can pick them up right off the sand if you know where and how to look for them.
671537
i have 2 legs\n\nand octopus have 8 Tentacles\n\n\nlogically it has 6 legs......2 points for each vowel