
5Record of pregnant females of Pseudobatos horkelii.   
length, total weight, liver weight, digestive tract weight, 
diameter of pre-ovulatory follicles and ovarian weight 
(Table 1).  Females were identified as  specimens #1 
and #2. The total weight of female #1 was 5.63 kg and 
female  #2  weighed  4.78  kg.  Female  #1  had  three 
preovulatory vitellogenic follicles with a diameter of 3.5 
cm, in each ovary. The combined weight of the ovaries 
was 110.3 g. The individual weight of the ovaries was 
not available as the follicles dissolved during extraction 
and manipulation; however, the contents were included 
in the use of petri dish. In individual, the left ovary was 
17.9 g (one vitellogenic follicle 3.5 cm in diameter and 
seven smaller 1.0 cm each). The right ovary weighed 
60.4 g (three large follicles 3.5 cm in diameter each and 
six smaller ones). One embryo was in individual #2, 
 (Fig. 3, F).
The  results  found  show  that  the  specimens 
sampled are adult individuals (Lessa et al., 1986). The 
species comes close to the coast with the objective of 
reproduction, since the young are born in this region 
(Vooren and Klippel, 2005). Thus, exorbitant catches 
like this one, demonstrate that P. horkelii, a Critically 
Endangered species, continues to be over captured, 
even during the reproductive period, in the southern 
coast of Brazil, were females migrate in warmer month 
for parturition.
seudobatos
but 
it was already in a state of decomposition
P  horkelii is a viviparous species, and in 
comparison  to  oviparous  species,  the  viviparous 
reproduction of those species depending solely on a 
yolk  sac,  and  tends  to  be  associated  with  a  more 
moderate  reproductive  rate  (Wourms,  1988).  The 
specificity of the lower reproductive rate of this species 
coupled  with  its  dependence  on  coastal  areas  for 
reproductive  purposes,  continuously  increases  the 
vulnerability  of  the  local  population  (Vooren  and 
Klippel, 2005). In addition, although actual legislation 
avoids the capture and landing of this species, illegal 
catches are still a fact, as is the case in the present 
report. 
The guitarfishes have been steadily declining over 
time. In 2014, the group was identified as one of the 
most susceptible  elasmobranch families to fisheries, 
along with sawfishes (Dulvy et al., 2014). It is evident 
that  these  fishes  are  highly  vulnerable  in  shallow 
coastal ecosystems, as they are easily accessible to 
intensive fishing practices. This could be the primary 
reason  why  the  vast  majority  of  guitarfishes 
populations  are  facing  severe  threats  all  over  their 
distribution areas (Moore, 2017).
Once  fish  populations  collapse,  potential  stock 
recovery is a time-consuming process, even if fishing 
pressure is reduced (Hutching and Reynolds, 2004). 
Furthermore, at a global level, substantial declines in 
guitarfishes  populations  have  already  been 
documented, along with  the disappearance of some 
species  elsewhere  (Carlisle  et  al.,  2007;  Diop  and 
Dossa, 2011). The partnership between scientists and 
conservation-focused  organizations  represents  a 
valuable synergy that combines scientific knowledge, 
practical  resources,  and  field  efforts  to  effectively 
safeguard  critically  threatened  species  as  the 
guitarfishes.
REFERENCES
Alvarenga, M., Solé-Cava, A.M., y Henning, F. (2021). 
What's in a name? Phylogenetic studies species 
identification  reveals  extensive  trade  of 
endangered guitarfishes and sharks, Biological 
Conservation, 257.
Carlisle, A., King, A.,  Cailliet,  G.M.,  y  Brennan,  J.S. 
(2007). Longterm trends in captch composition 
from elasmobranch derbies in Elkhorn Slough, 
California. Marine Fisheries Review, 69, 25–45.
Compagno,  L.J.V.  (1999).  Checklist  of  living 
elasmobranchs.  En:  Hamlett,  W.C  (Eds.) 
Sharks,  Skates,  and  Rays:  The  Biology  of 
Elasmobranch Fishes. John Hopkins University 
Press, Maryland.
De  Franco,  B.A.,  Mendonça,  F.F.,  Oliveira,  C.,  y 
Foresti, F. (2012). Ilegal trade of the guitarfish 
Rhinobatos horkelii on the coasts of central and 
Southern  Brazil:  genetic  identification  to  aid 
conservation.  Aquatic  Conservation:  Marine 
and Freshwater Ecosystems, 22(2), 272–276.
Diop, M., y Dossa, J. (2011). 30 years of Shark fishing in 
West  Africa:  Development  of  fisheries,  catch 
trends  and  their  conservation  status  in  Sub-
regional  Fishing  Commission  member 
countries. FIBA.
Dulvy,  N.K.,  Davidson,  L.N.,  Kyne,  P.M., 
Simpfendorfer,  C.A.,  Harrison,  L.R.,  Carlson, 
J.K.,  y  Fordham,  S.  V.  (2016).  Ghosts  of  the 
coast: global extinction risk and conservation of 
sawfishes.  Aquatic  Conservation:  Marine  and 
Freshwater Ecosystems, 26(1), 134–153.
Hutchings, J.A., y Reynolds, J.D. (2004). Marine fish 
population  colapses:  Consequences  for 
recovery and extinction risk. BioScience, 54(4), 
297–309
Instituto Brasileiro de meio ambiente e dos recursos 
naturais  renováveis.  (2004).  Instrução 
Normativa do Ministério do Meio Ambiente n 5, 
de  21  de  maio  de  2004.  Recuperado  de 
https://www.ibama.gov.br/sophia/cnia/legislaca
o/MMA/IN0005-210504.PDF
Lessa,  R.P.,  Vooren  C.M.,  y  Lahaye  J.  (1986). 
Desenvolvimento  e  ciclo  sexual  das  fêmeas, 
migrações e fecundidade da viola, Rhinobatos 
horkelii (Muller & Henle, 1841) do Sul do Brasil. 
Atlântica, 8, 5–34.
Menni, R.C., y Stehmann, M.F. W. (2000). Distribution, 
environment  and  biology  of  batoid  fishes  off 
Argentina,  Uruguay  and  Brazil,  a  review. 
Revista  del  museo  Argentino  de  ciencias 
naturales, 2(1), 69–109
Bol. Soc. Zool. Uruguay (2ª época). 2022.   ISSN 2393-6940Vol. 32 (1): e32.1.4