Sharks of Onslow County
There are stretches of shoreline in Onslow County where the water looks simple.
A low wind flattens the surface just beyond the breakers. The sand underfoot is firm, packed by a falling tide. Small schools of baitfish turn in unison at the edge of visibility, their bodies catching light and then disappearing again as if nothing had moved at all.
From here, fish seem predictable. They swim. They are streamlined. They slip through water in ways that feel consistent, almost mechanical.
But that impression doesn’t hold for long.
A few steps into the surf, something crunches beneath your heel—a shell, or what remains of one.. Offshore, a shape drifts that doesn’t seem built for movement at all. In the shallows, something settles to the bottom and then, impossibly, walks.
The closer you look, the more the pattern breaks apart. Along this stretch of coast—from the swash zone to the deeper water of Onslow Bay—some fish are not built like fish are “supposed” to be.
And once you notice them, the rules start to feel less like rules at all.
The rule broken: fish are supposed to have simple teeth
On calm mornings near New River Inlet, when the tide is just beginning to push in, the water around pilings and rock edges clears enough to see movement below the surface. Dark vertical bands appear and disappear as fish turn sideways to feed, their bodies angled tightly against pilings and rock.
If you get a close look—often only when one is caught—you notice the teeth.
Flat. Squared. Set in rows that look more like something borrowed from a mammal than a fish.
The sheepshead (Archosargus probatocephalus) feeds primarily on hard-shelled organisms—barnacles, oysters, mussels, and crabs attached to pilings, jetties, and natural hardbottom (Sedberry, 1987). These prey items are abundant in estuarine and nearshore environments where salinity fluctuates and structure concentrates life.
Instead of pointed, uniform teeth, sheepshead possess incisiform front teeth for scraping and strong molariform teeth set further back for crushing (Deang et al., 2018; Hernandez & Motta, 1997). Bite force measurements and stomach content analyses show they are capable of breaking calcareous shells that would resist most coastal fishes (Hernandez & Motta, 1997).
They are most active in waters typically ranging from 60–80°F (15–27°C), often within just a few feet of structure in depths from less than a meter to roughly 10 meters (Sedberry, 1987).
Fish are often imagined as generalized swimmers feeding on soft prey. But along the Onslow coast, hard surfaces—oyster beds, submerged debris, pilings—create entire microhabitats built on calcium carbonate (Grabowski & Peterson, 2007).
Sheepshead are not exceptions to the system; they are shaped by it. Their teeth are a direct response to a landscape where food remains locked inside a shell.
Most fish don’t have teeth like this because most environments don’t require it. Here, where geology and biology meet in layers of shell and structure, the rule changes.
The rule broken: fish move by swimming
On a falling tide along the edges of Topsail Island, the water pulls thin over the sand flats. What remains is a shifting surface—ripples, shadows, and the occasional sudden burst of motion.
Then something moves without swimming.
It doesn’t dart or glide. It advances in short, deliberate steps, stopping and starting again, as if testing the ground before each movement.
For a moment, it looks wrong—like something moving through air instead of water.
The bluespotted searobin (Prionotus roseus) and the Northern searobin (Prionotus carolinus) do not rely on their fins for propulsion in the way most fish do. Instead, three detached rays from each pectoral fin extend downward, contacting the bottom and supporting the body as it moves. These rays function both as supports and as sensory structures, probing the sediment and detecting chemical cues—effectively allowing the fish to “taste” the seafloor as it moves (Bardach & Case, 1965).
Across these shallow flats, often just inches to a few feet deep, the water warms into the upper 60s and 70s as the tide recedes. Prey is rarely exposed. Worms, small crustaceans, and buried mollusks remain hidden beneath the surface. Vision alone is not enough here. The searobin moves slowly, stepping and pausing, tracing the bottom until something beneath the sand gives itself away.
Movement in water is usually about efficiency—minimizing drag, maximizing speed.
But the seafloor is a different environment entirely.
Here, visibility narrows, prey disappears beneath the surface, and swimming can carry you past what you’re trying to find. Walking—slow, deliberate, sensory-driven—becomes the better strategy.
Most fish don’t have “legs” because most fish don’t live where walking is more useful than swimming. Along the shallow bottoms of Onslow waters, this rule no longer applies.
The rule broken: fish don’t change shape
In late summer, when the water just beyond the breakers settles into the upper 70s, small shapes begin to move just offshore—slow, almost indifferent to the motion around them.
One drifts closer than expected, rounded in a way that doesn’t quite match the others. It hovers, turning slightly, its movement controlled but unhurried.
Then, without warning, the body changes.
It expands outward, the outline swelling until the fish no longer resembles something built to move through water at all.
The Northern puffer (Sphoeroides maculatus) does this by rapidly drawing water into a highly elastic stomach, a process that allows the body to expand far beyond its resting shape (Brainerd, 1994). Without rigid skeletal constraints like ribs or pelvic bones, that expansion can happen quickly, transforming the fish into something difficult for a predator to grasp or swallow.
In these nearshore waters—where predators move quickly and encounters happen at close range—there is little time to outrun what’s coming. Most fish rely on speed to escape. This one changes shape instead.
Speed isn’t part of the solution here.
The rule broken: fish don’t anchor themselves
Farther offshore, where the bottom begins to break into scattered hardbottom and reef patches, movement slows in a different way.
Shapes hold just above the structure, adjusting position in small increments, never straying far from the surface below them.
When disturbed, they don’t flee into open water.
They turn downward.
The gray triggerfish (Balistes capriscus) moves into crevices and tight spaces within the structure, where a set of dorsal spines can be raised and locked into place. The first spine lifts, and a smaller second spine holds it there—an arrangement that gives the fish its name and allows it to anchor itself firmly in place (Tyler, 1980; Lobel, 1980).
Its body is built for this kind of movement: deep and laterally compressed, with tough, abrasive skin and strong incisor-like teeth capable of breaking into hard-shelled prey (Tyler, 1980; Lobel, 1980). These are not features meant for speed. They are features meant for contact—pressing into structure, resisting removal, holding position when movement would fail.
In waters often 50–120 feet deep off Onslow County, where reefs and wrecks break the seafloor into pockets and edges, escape doesn’t always mean distance (Bellwood et al., 2004).
Sometimes it means holding ground.
Most fish survive by staying in motion.
This one survives by becoming fixed in place, turning the structure around it into part of its defense.
The rule broken: fish don’t carry light in their skin
On warm summer nights near quiet stretches of marsh and inlet edges, the water sometimes carries sound before anything else. A low, continuous hum. It’s easy to miss unless you stop moving.
The Atlantic midshipman (Porichthys plectrodon) produces that sound through specialized sonic muscles vibrating against the swim bladder, creating a sustained hum that can carry through shallow coastal water (Sisneros, 2009; Bass & McKibben, 2003).
Along the sides of the body and across the head are rows of small organs—photophores—set into the skin, giving the fish its name and marking it as something unusual among coastal species found in these waters (Schwartz, 2013). When seen out of the water, those rows catch the light in a very particular way—small, round points that flash gold in direct sunlight, spaced with a regularity that makes them look almost set into the surface, like buttons fixed into the skin.
Midshipman inhabit shallow coastal environments, often in burrows or beneath structure along muddy or sandy bottoms, typically in depths less than 20 meters.
Light in fish is often associated with deeper water, where darkness is constant and illumination becomes necessary (Haddock et al., 2010). But along the Onslow coast, those conditions can exist in smaller, shifting pockets. Light narrows quickly with depth, suspended sediment moves with the tide, and visibility can collapse even in water shallow enough to stand in.
Not all fish in these waters experience the bottom the same way. A flounder rests exposed on the sand, relying on camouflage and stillness. The midshipman, by contrast, spends much of its time within burrows, beneath structure, or pressed close to the substrate, where light is already limited and often disappears entirely.
In those spaces, the rules of visibility begin to resemble something closer to deeper water, even though the surface is only a few feet above.
The presence of photophores here does not follow the pattern most people expect.
Not all light comes from above.
The rule broken: fish are dense, muscular swimmers
From the beach, the horizon feels like a boundary—beyond the sandbars, beyond the nearshore currents—about two miles out, where the surface lifts just enough to hide what comes after. But beyond that line, the water doesn’t simply continue. It changes.
Depth increases quickly. Layers begin to form. Light fades long before the bottom is reached.
And in those deeper waters off Onslow Bay, some fish are not built to chase anything at all.
The long-snouted lancetfish (Alepisaurus ferox) lives in the midwater column, often hundreds of meters below the surface. Its body is long and thin, almost blade-like, with muscle reduced and tissue that is less dense than most active predators, appearing almost soft in the water (Drazen & Seibel, 2007).
It does not move with the steady, powered swimming most fish rely on. Instead, it drifts, adjusting position and taking prey as it comes within reach. Stomach analyses show a wide range of prey—fish, squid, and even other lancetfish—suggesting opportunism rather than pursuit (Kubota & Uyeno, 1970).
In these deeper layers, energy becomes harder to acquire and more costly to use.
Building and maintaining dense muscle comes at a cost. Chasing prey demands more of it (Sutton, 2013).
Here, that balance shifts.
The lancetfish represents a different solution—one that reduces the cost of movement and relies instead on encounter.
Most fish are built to swim.
This one is built to wait.
The rule broken: fish are supposed to have scales
In cooler months, when water temperatures drop into the 50s and 60s, large shapes move along the bottom of estuaries and nearshore waters.
They do not flash or turn sharply. They move steadily, close to the sediment.
At times, that movement reaches the surface. A back breaks through, arcing briefly before slipping under again, the shape unfamiliar enough that it doesn’t immediately read as a fish.
The Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus) retains an older form—rows of bony scutes instead of the flexible scales seen in most fishes (Bemis et al., 1997). Along the underside, a protrusible mouth extends downward, drawing in prey from the bottom through suction rather than pursuit (ASSRT, 2007; Bemis et al., 1997).
An anadromous fish, they move between river systems and coastal waters, passing through estuaries and along the nearshore edge, often in depths ranging from shallow channels to over 100 feet offshore (Dunton et al., 2015; ASSRT, 2007).
This design is not new. It has persisted for tens of millions of years, carried forward through changing coastlines, shifting sea levels, and the rise of entirely different groups of fishes (Bemis et al., 1997).
It works because the conditions it responds to have never fully disappeared.
Along the bottom, prey remains buried. Sediment still shifts with current and tide. Feeding still depends on contact more than speed. Armor still protects a body that cannot easily maneuver out of danger.
For a long time, these fish seemed to fade from local waters. In Onslow County, encounters became rare enough to feel like absence. But populations have persisted elsewhere, and in nearby systems like the Cape Fear River, they are being observed again with increasing frequency—moving through channels, returning to spawning grounds, reappearing in places where they had not been seen in years (Dunton et al., 2015; ASSRT, 2007).
Their range has shifted before. It may be shifting again.
What remains constant is the need for connection—between river and ocean, between spawning grounds and feeding habitat.
This fish does not depend on a single place. It depends on the continuity between them.
Not all designs are meant to change. Some persist because the system they belong to still exists.
The rule broken: fish are supposed to be shaped for swimming
Occasionally, especially in warmer months when currents shift, something appears offshore that barely seems to move at all.
A large, flattened body. A fin breaking the surface. Then another, held there longer than expected.
It drifts more than it swims.
At times, it lingers there, tilted at the surface, absorbing the sun before slipping back beneath the water.
The ocean sunfish (Mola mola) is one of the heaviest bony fish, reaching weights over 1,000 kg. Its body is truncated, lacking a true caudal fin, and propulsion is achieved through synchronized movements of dorsal and anal fins (Pope et al., 2010; Watanabe et al., 2009).
After diving into colder, deeper water, sunfish often return to the surface, where this slow, drifting posture allows their body temperature to rise again (Watanabe et al., 2009). Prolonged time at the surface can leave the skin visibly altered—shifting from darker grey to lighter tones, sometimes appearing pale or pinkened under sustained exposure.
Sunfish often inhabit offshore waters but can approach nearshore areas following currents and prey, particularly gelatinous organisms like jellyfish (Cartamil & Lowe, 2004).
By most expectations, this body plan shouldn’t work.
But it does—because efficiency, here, takes a different form. It is about buoyancy, drift, and feeding on abundant, slow-moving prey.
In a system where jellyfish blooms are seasonal and sometimes dense, a fish shaped like this becomes not an anomaly, but a specialist.
From the shoreline, the water still looks simple.
Small waves rise and fall. Baitfish turn and vanish. The surface holds its shape.
But beneath that surface, the rules have already begun to shift.
Fish move through these waters in ways that don’t match what we expect—crushing shell, stepping across the bottom, changing shape, holding themselves in place, carrying structures that catch light, drifting where others would swim, or moving through forms shaped long before this coastline took its present shape.
What appears, from the beach, to be a single environment is something else entirely. It is layered—sand, structure, depth, temperature, light—each one asking something different of the animals that live within it.
And the fish that seem unusual are not exceptions.
They are answers.
Atlantic Sturgeon Status Review Team. (1998). Status review of Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser Oxyrinchus Oxyrinchus). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. https://books.google.com/books?id=ee5MhnuurDMC&dq=+Status+review+of+Atlantic+sturgeon+(Acipenser+oxyrinchus+oxyrinchus)
Bardach, J. E., & Case, J. (1965). Sensory capabilities of the modified fins of squirrel hake (Urophycis chuss) and Searobins (Prionotus carolinus and P. evolans). Copeia, 1965(2), 194. https://doi.org/10.2307/1440724
Bellwood, D. R., Hughes, T. P., Folke, C., & Nyström, M. (2004). Confronting the coral reef crisis. Nature, 429(6994), 827-833. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature02691
Bemis, W. E., Findeis, E. K., & Grande, L. (1997). An overview of Acipenseriformes. Developments in Environmental Biology of Fishes, 48, 25-71. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-46854-9_4
Blake, R. W. (2004). Fish functional design and swimming performance. Journal of Fish Biology, 65(5), 1193-1222. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-1112.2004.00568.x
Brainerd, E. L. (1994). Pufferfish inflation: Functional morphology of postcranial structures in Diodon holocanthus (Tetraodontiformes). Journal of Morphology, 220(3), 243-261. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmor.1052200304
Cartamil, D., & Lowe, C. (2004). Diel movement patterns of ocean sunfish mola mola off Southern California. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 266, 245-253. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps266245
Deang, J., Persons, A., Oppedal, A., Rhee, H., Moser, R., & Horstemeyer, M. (2018). Structure, property, and function of sheepshead (Archosargus probatocephalus) teeth. Archives of Oral Biology, 89, 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.archoralbio.2018.01.013
Drazen, J. C., & Seibel, B. A. (2007). Depth‐related trends in metabolism of benthic and benthopelagic deep‐sea fishes. Limnology and Oceanography, 52(5), 2306-2316. https://doi.org/10.4319/lo.2007.52.5.2306
Dunton, K. J., Jordaan, A., Conover, D. O., McKown, K. A., Bonacci, L. A., & Frisk, M. G. (2015). Marine distribution and habitat use of Atlantic sturgeon in New York lead to fisheries interactions and Bycatch. Marine and Coastal Fisheries, 7(1), 18-32. https://doi.org/10.1080/19425120.2014.986348
Fernandez, L. P., & Motta, P. J. (1997). Trophic consequences of differential performance: Ontogeny of oral jaw‐crushing performance in the sheepshead, Archosargus probatocephalus (Teleostei, sparidae). Journal of Zoology, 243(4), 737-756. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7998.1997.tb01973.x
Grabowski, J. H., & Peterson, C. H. (2007). Restoring oyster reefs to recover ecosystem services. Theoretical Ecology Series, 4, 281-298. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1875-306x(07)80017-7
Haddock, S. H., Moline, M. A., & Case, J. F. (2010). Bioluminescence in the Sea. Annual Review of Marine Science, 2, 443-493. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-marine-120308-081028
McIver, E. L., Marchaterre, M. A., Rice, A. N., & Bass, A. H. (2014). Novel underwater soundscape: Acoustic repertoire of plainfin midshipman fish. Journal of Experimental Biology. https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.102772
Mensinger, A. F., & Case, J. F. (1990). Luminescent properties of deep sea fish. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 144(1), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-0981(90)90015-5
Petersen, J. C., & Ramsay, J. B. (2020). Walking on chains: The morphology and mechanics behind the fin ray derived limbs of sea-robins. Journal of Experimental Biology. https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.227140
Peterson, D. L., Bain, M. B., & Haley, N. (2000). Evidence of declining recruitment of Atlantic sturgeon in the Hudson River. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 20(1), 231-238. https://doi.org/10.1577/1548-8675(2000)020<0231:eodroa>2.0.co;2
Pope, E. C., Hays, G. C., Thys, T. M., Doyle, T. K., Sims, D. W., Queiroz, N., Hobson, V. J., Kubicek, L., & Houghton, J. D. (2010). The biology and ecology of the ocean sunfish mola mola: A review of current knowledge and future research perspectives. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries, 20(4), 471-487. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11160-009-9155-9
Schwartz, F. J. (2013). Atlantic midshipman, Porichthys plectrodon, in North Carolina. Journal of the North Carolina Academy of Science, 129(3), 111-114. https://doi.org/10.7572/2167-5880-129.3.111
Sedberry, G. R. (1987). Feeding habits of Sheepshead, Archosargus probatocephalus, in offshore reef habitats of the southeastern continental shelf. Northeast Gulf Science, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.18785/negs.0901.03
Sisneros, J. A. (2009). Adaptive hearing in the vocal plainfin midshipman fish: Getting in tune for the breeding season and implications for acoustic communication. Integrative Zoology, 4(1), 33-42. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-4877.2008.00133.x
Snelgrove, P. V. (1999). Getting to the bottom of marine biodiversity: Sedimentary habitats. BioScience, 49(2), 129. https://doi.org/10.2307/1313538
Sutton, T. T. (2013). Vertical ecology of the pelagic ocean: Classical patterns and new perspectives. Journal of Fish Biology, 83(6), 1508-1527. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfb.12263
Tyler, J. C. (1980). Osteology, phylogeny, and higher classification of the fishes of the order plectognathi (Tetraodontiformes) (434). U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service. https://10.5962/bhl.title.63022
