Talk:Apex predator/Archive 1

Added effective killers for their size

Rather than allowing this discussion to be one of 'what is the most formidable predator?' I have chosen to include all of the animals that are particularly efficient or effective killers for their size that are not easy prey for creatures of like size within their ecological niche. Size alone must not be a criterion. Any animal, however formidable in its own ecological niche, can fall prey to some other when vulnerable or to a much-larger predator. That a small dog can make quick work of a preying mantis much smaller than itself hardly makes the mantis any less remarkable as a killer; if the tables were turned and the mantis were larger, then the mantis would make short work of a dog.

Danger is not enough to classify a creature as a super-predator. Elephants may be the most dangerous land animals that Man can face, but elephants are not predators, so they (and rhinoceroses and hippopotamuses) do not qualify as superpredators.

The number of creatures included as superpredators merited (before my additions) some expansion to demonstrate the diversity of formidable predators, whatever their techniques. It may be argued that no creature can survive an attack by a killer whale except a much larger whale, and then even they cannot survive a concerted attack of orcas. That said, some animals (the big cats) are unlikely to ever encounter them. All potential man-eaters (big cats, hyenas, large canids, crocodilians, bears, sharks, great snakes, orcas, leopard seals) deserve recognition on their own grouds. The sperm whale is highly predatory and could devour a human without knowing that it did so... I have added it.

To begin, this list which included the usual suspects (characteristically there were only vertebrates): sharks, crocodilians, some snakes, raptor birds, carnivores, and orcas. Man certainly belongs on this list: slightly more carnivorous than grizzly bears and slightly less carnivorous than dogs, and extremely efficient (even without tools, Man is about on par with dogs, dangerous predators in their own right). The chimpanzee and the baboon aren't particularly carnivorous, but they are very efficient in their attacks on such prey as monkeys or deer -- and they aren't easy prey for the big cats. Chimps are known to use blades of grass as tools for securing ants and termites as food, and that itself is remarkable.

Killers of unusual efficiency deserve mention: all dolphins, and not only the orca. Even if dolphins aren't as dangerous to humans as the sharks, they are as deadly to their prey, and they face few natural predators. It's a judgment call on my part that I excluded all pinnipeds other than the leopard seal and walrus -- but (1) the leopard seal eats very large prey (penguins; other seals), and (2) the creature is unusually dangerous to humans; the walrus preys on seals and, despite its clumsy image, poses a danger to humans because of its size and predatory nature.

I chose to add the snapping turtle because it too is an efficient predator due to its bad bite, because it takes on prey relatively large in comparison to itself, and has few obvious enemies. Because the cobras scare off almost any other predator, including even Man and tigers, and king snakes eat even venomous snakes, I chose to add them to the list. Monitor lizards are adept killers, and the Komodo dragon has few peers (the tiger may be all that keeps it from expanding its territory farther west into Indonesia, and by many accounts it is even deadlier than the tiger to Man) I have added the skunk because it is a predator with few successful enemies (dogs, among the most fearsome and effective predators, occasionally learn the hard way that skunks are not suitable prey) and such creatures as badgers, wolverines, and ferrets. Otters might occasionally fall victim to crocodilians, big cats, sharks, birds of prey, or killer whales -- but they aren't easy prey but are themselves efficient killers. The piranha, if predatory, is the most infamous bony fish.

Finally, I noticed a paucity of non-vertebrates -- indeed, none. Some accounts of predation by squid and octopus suggest that they are about as efficient as cats. Their intelligence makes them noteworthy. The world of arthropods includes spiders and scorpions -- all strictly predatory. Ants deserve recognition for their efficeincy as hunters. Then there's the fiendish praying mantis, a creature that one can be glad gets no bigger than it does.

If one wishes to add extinct creatures, then Tyrannosaurus Rex, Allosaurus, and Megalodon would seem to qualify as might the recently-extinct sabertooth cats and Tasmanian tiger.

--66.231.38.101 16:11, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Further comment after the addition of bacteria and carnivorous plants: carnivorous plants appear among monocots and dicots, one of the most significant divisions of plants. The monocot/dicot division should be made.

I would not think of pathogenic bacteria as predators; strictly speaking, no mat of bacteria ever catches or ensnares prey. Above all, bacteria and viruses, even if one treats them as 'predators', clearly belong in different kingdoms. --66.231.41.57 19:22, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

This is all very well, but the term has a very clear definition and many of these additions clearly do not fit it. Simply put, an apex predator is not itself preyed upon by any other species in the normal course of events; being efficient, deadly, intelligent, or whatever is not by itself sufficient. Even the inclusion of humans is arguable; our intelligence unbalances things a bit, but in the wild, without weapons, we'd be nothing but tiger (lion, leopard, cougar, alligator, wolf, hyena. . .) food. I have removed a number that are obviously not top predators; reasons are noted in italics.

• • Phylum Mollusca
    • Class Cephalopoda
      • Order Octopoda: Octopuses Octopuses have several defense mechanisms specifically to prevent themselves from becoming meals; hence, they are not apex predators.
      • Order Teuthida: Squids and Cuttlefish Even giant and colossal squid are prey for sperm whales and sleeper sharks. Like octopuses, they have defense mechanisms against predators, which means that they are regularly prey.
  • Phylum Arthropoda
    • Class Arachnida
      • Order Aranae: Spiders My girlfriend's cat eats the middle and leaves the legs in neat little heaps. It is not alone in finding them tasty.
      • Order Scorpiones: Scorpions Birds, snakes, lizards, even shrews prey on these.
    • Class Insectae: Insects
      • Order Hymenoptera: Bees, Wasps, Sawflies, and Ants
        • Family Formicidae: Ants Anteaters are far from the only species that eats ants; I for one find they taste rather like lemon.
      • Order Mantodea: Praying Mantises Birds, cats, bats—if it were larger it would indeed be their predator rather than their prey. . .but it's not. The oxygen-rich atmosphere of the Carboniferous is long-gone, and giant insects went with it.
      • Order Primata: Lemurs, Monkeys, Apes and Humans
        • Family Cercopithecidae: Baboons Dangerous they might be, but they run from leopards and lions just like everyone else.

I am not sure about the snakes; most large and/or poisonous species are generally not prey, but the mongoose and secretary bird are noted for regularly eating snakes. Likewise the jellyfish; I know some types are a favorite food of sea turtles. —Charles P. (Mirv) 17:06, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

The giant octopus is in its own right a formidable predator, and it can certainly eat large prey for its size, including sharks. It's probably no match for the sperm whale or the orca in the open ocean, but it has its techniques for avoiding them. Even if it is no danger to Man, it has its remarkable talents for retreat and camouflage that make it difficult prey. The smaller ones are some of the most remarkable predators ever known, capable of forcing themselves into shapes that deceive prey that would otherwise flee, or using chromophores to dazzle prey to its doom. For the same general reason that I placed the skunk on the list of superpredators (a predator that is not easy prey due to a special defense) I added the giant octopus.

All predators face some dangers, and most have some defense. The same teeth and/or claws that make a cat, canid, bear, or hyena a killer also make it a formidable defender of itself or its young. Whether the defense is a vile spray that drives off an attacker (skunk), an ink that blinds a would-be devourer (octopus), or a battering-ram strike (dolphin) that allows it to deal with an animal that might consider it prey, such a defense is more impressive than flight that characterizes such a non-predator as a gazelle or horse.

The giant squid has a bad reputation, although small ones are easy prey to sharks, fish, cetaceans, cnidarians, and seals.

As for ants, I'm speaking of the army ants that can lay waste to the small living things not swift enough to get out of the way. Those are the 'hunting dogs' of the insect world, and they have killed humans (infants and inebriates). One army ant is as vulnerable as any other creature of like size. I have personal cause to recognize the fire ants as a menace, having learned about them while living in Texas. They are quite deadly predators to any small creatures in their terrain.

Spiders? Some have their vulnerabilities, but a tarantula can take on some formidable predators. I once saw footage of a tarantula winning an encounter with a fer-de-lance (spider ate, snake eaten) and have seen spiders catch and eat bats, lizards, frogs, and birds larger than themselves that alit on their webs, at least on wildlife documentaries.

It was my desire to add some invertebrates to the mix of superpredators. I have chosen to ignore venom as a weapon except for the cnidarians that qualify for catching and eating prey even larger than themselves.

I rejected the rattlesnake because it is prey for king snakes, raptor birds, and pigs, in case anyone wondered about it. Man takes a huge toll of rattlesnakes.

Baboons? They are not easy prey for the big cats. A pack of baboons can hold its own against any predator other than the crocodile, and although they are not particularly carnivorous, they take small antelope. They aren't called 'dog-apes' for nothing. A leopard might dispatch a baboon that gets lost from the herd. But maybe you are right about them: the hunting of live prey is not a major, or even necessary, part of their lives. You left the chimpanzee, which suggests a fine line between two creatures whose habits are not primarily predatory. If I had had to choose between the chimpanzee and the baboon, then I would have taken the chimpanzee as a superpredator for its use of tools (a blade of grass for drawing ants or termites to their doom) and because chimpanzees have a highly-organized technique for hunting and catching colubus monkeys in the trees where the monkeys are usually safe from, for example, the big cats. I don't know of chimpanzees catching antelope as might baboons, but I wouldn't rule it out.

Baboons are no more predatory than pigs, which I did not put on the list, and not only because man harvests pigs for meat. --66.231.41.57 19:11, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I suppose this depends on how strictly one defines the term "apex predator". If it is defined as a species that is never prey for another, then examples would be few and far between. Unarmed humans, as I mentioned, are vulnerable to numerous large carnivores, birds of prey build inaccessible aeries mainly to protect their nestlings from martens and raccoons, and even lions have to drink carefully when a hungry Nile Crocodile is around. Perhaps a strict definition is not workable.

On the other hand, too loose a definition could produce ridiculous results. If one defines an apex predator as a species that is sometimes prey, but has formidable defenses, then why not the hippopotamus or the Cape Buffalo? Adults of these species have only armed human beings (and in the case of the buffalo, perhaps large crocodiles) to fear. Adult moose can (and do) maim or kill attacking wolves; only grizzly bears are capable of overpowering them without significant risk. (Yes, it is arguable whether herbivores count as predators, but it's not unknown to count them as such.)

Either way, I think the added specificity helps; obviously there are going to be classes (or families, or possibly even genera) which have members that are apex predators and members that are not, and specifying which is which does clear up most doubts and questions. —Charles P. (Mirv) 21:26, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

The article is, of course, "apex predator", and not "top of the food chain". Obviously a giant redwood faces no predators (unless one wishes to add the non-living entity "fire" to the list), but it is definitely no predator. One can assume that an elephant is the absolute top of a very short food chain, as no creature except an armed human could ever challenge an adult elephant (well, if elephants wandered into an orca-filled sea, they would be eaten) and survive. But neither giant redwoods nor elephants, let alone cape buffalo (lion food, if with difficulty), are predators, so they are disqualified, irrespective of defenses. I also disqualify the giant panda, which is classified among the carnivores and has carnivore-like defenses, but is clearly a vegetarian. Were it at all a predator it would be on my list of superpredators.

The young of almost any species are vulnerable to the attack of a rival predator, and we are generally talking about adult predators. That an eagle might take a bear cub, a python might devour a tiger cub, or that an egret might pick off a baby crocodile doesn't change the reputation of adult bears, tigers, or crocodiles. Likewise, interspecies rivalries between competing predators (lions versus hyenas) often result in the death of young. And, of course, there is cannibalism among almost all predators. Nature is literally a dog-eat-dog world; it's also a world in which Man and Dog are potential prey for each other even if they find each other useful.

It's not easy being a superpredator. Starvation is a threat to any predator who loses its abilities, and if it does something stupid (as in a dog swimming in alligator-infested waters) it can be killed. Some intended prey has lethal defenses (as in the kick of a zebra that can break the jaws of a lion or crocodile, or the bad bite of a pig). Even Man is in mortal danger, at times (crime and war) from other humans. On the greatest scale of all -- time -- natural history is in part a heritage of one superpredator out-competing another and driving the other into extinction. --66.231.41.57 19:37, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I have chosen to remove one animal from the super-predator list: the fox, an animal that some creatures (dogs) are bred and trained to hunt and kill.

"Complete"

I have removed the word "complete" from "list of apex predators". Though I don't know what in particular would need to be added to it, I'm sure the list is very far from being complete: there is one apex predator per ecological chain, and there must be a lot more chains than those. I suspect that any such list that was complete would be too long for this page. --Saforrest 23:01, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

--- Although I am not in any way an expert on what classifies as an apex predator, I do know that tarantulas are preyed upon, and that both the domestic cat and some small dogs are known to be hunted by coyotes. --Kjiersz

Of recent deletions:

1. Any documented (lion), presumed (Komodo dragon), or potential (wolf) man-eater belongs on the list of superpredators. All that keeps dogs from being man-eaters is either small size, fear, or affection. Dogs, especially in packs, are killers of rather large prey (sheep, goats, and even cattle) should they get the inclination and opportunity. It is best, of course, that people not give any dog the opportunity to attack livestock. Where the bears, big cats, and wolves have been exterminated, feral dogs are obvious dangers to livestock.

Dogs are often used as adjuncts to human hunting. Perhaps such a 'non-predatory' breed as a retriever or pointer may not kill or eat the creature that its human companion kills -- but it is part of the hunt, and may qualify as a predator for such behavior.

Feral dogs, especially in packs, are quite dangerous to Man. Dogs are unfussy eaters, and in their desperation almost any creature of similar size is potential prey. Unlike household pets, such dogs have no affection for humans. But even the household pooch is a powerful deterrent to burglary, and some dogs are (unlawfully in many jurisdictions, and always irresponsibly) bred and trained for the perverse spectacle of dog-fighting, and such dogs pose extreme danger to humans. The dog qualifies as a potential maneater if large enough for its abilities and its huge appetite, and in many places where crocodilians, giant snakes, hyenas, big cats, wolves, and bears have been exterminated or never existed, medium-to-large dogs are subordinate only to Man as the apex predator. Many such places exist: most of the United States, Europe, Japan, New Zealand, north Africa, southwest Asia. If animals such as snow leopards and Komodo dragons which dominate small niches qualify as superpredators, then why not dogs? One can make a qualification for size, ruling out smaller breeds that could be prey for raptor birds.

2. The leopard seal would be food or a polar bear if their ranges overlapped. But those ranges don't overlap, and the leopard seal has the ecological role of the polar bear where the leopard seal lives. It kills penguins (rather large prey) and smaller seals as prey. Although it might be prey for orcas and sharks, so might be the polar bear. I can understand the removal of the walrus, which seems to live upon immobile shellfish, from the list. The leopard seal goes after prey far more active than that of walruses, which I had included for near-invulnerability. But nobody has included starfish which prey largely upon sessile creatures.

Besides, the leopard seal fits into the category of "documented, presumed, or potential man-eaters"--66.231.41.57 16:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

All...

...cats are Apex predators? I think not. We have a definition "not preyed upon in the wild" and then we have a wide open list that violates it. Lions prey upon cheetahs; wolves prey upon dogs. So how are dogs and cheetahs apex predators? I think the list should be drastically reduced to keep it in line with the definition we provide. Marskell 10:39, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Dogs and dingos are wolves. Small memebers of the subspecies Canis lupus familiaris could be prey for big cats and raptor birds. Large members of the species are not easy prey. Dogs are pack predators (they are still wolves), and a pack of dogs is as effective a gang of predators as any but lions and hyenas. If someone wants to treat dogs as wolves, then such is acceptable. Dogs indeed became (for a while) the "tigers of Antarctica": sled dogs left behind thrived by killing and eating penguins -- large prey themselves predators. Dogs are no longer allowed in Antarctica for that reason. But even at that -- large dogs singly and medium-sized dogs in a group are among the most fearsome predators, and Man is potentially on their menu; dogs are infamously unfussy eaters. All that keeps Man from being dog food is that we are generally better food sources alive than dead. Feral dogs are about as dangerous to Man as the Big Cats; burglars have good cause to avoid any residence in which any dog, irespective of size, lurks.

Dholes and Cape Hunting Dogs (not true dogs) challenge even the Big Cats in their midst. Even tigers flee a pack of hunting dogs. They should definitely be added.

Domestic cats are certainly apex predators so long as they remain within a human environment, and wherever they are introduced they pose an extreme menace to all small creatures. Even rattlesnakes have good cause to fear cats; whoever gets the first bite wins, even if the cat's bite is non-venomous. The domestic cat also has an extreme range; in some places it has no competition as a predator, and in some places it might not be the top predator.

Because the cheetah is easily killed it often loses its prey to other creatures.

Almost any animal that leaves its niche is potential prey for something. No land creature -- not even the disqualified elephant -- could ever stand a chance against an orca. Large predators with some overlap of range -- let us say, wolves/dogs and sundry big cats or crocodilians -- are safe from each other where the other does not exist. It's safely said that in much of its range (western Europe and much of North America), the domestic dog is the closest thing to an apex predator as one can find. Even where there are such creatures as bears (grizzly and polar bears excepted) or cougars, a pack of dogs is generally enough to keep the individualistic competitor off balance. In Australia, where there are no large cats, the domestic dog and dingo are safe so long as they avoid the water where there might be sharks or crocs. Dogs and dingos assume the roles characteristic of the big cats in Australia; they assume it quite well. That's not to say that big cats would fare badly in Australia; they just never got there.

Chimpanzees were deleted; is this a question of whether they are predators or whether they are vulnerable to a big cat should they do something stupid? They can go up trees, and they can go into branches onto which their few potential predators (lions, leopards, hyenas, giant snakes, crocodiles) could never go. Adult chimps are certainly too large to be prey for raptor birds. But they are known to hunt monkeys as prey, and they are among few creatures (Man included) to use tools for getting prey. They feast on ants and termites by inserting a blade of grass into an insect hole and then removing the insect-laden blade of grass to their mouths. Chimps may be predominantly vegetarian, but so are grizzly bears, and grizzlies have not been disqualified.

All in all, a ranking might be in order. My seat-of-the-pants assessment is:

"Armed human" is certainly at the top, followed by the orca, the sperm whale, elephants (disqualified -- non-predators), the most dangerous sharks (great white, hammerhead, etc.), grizzly bear, polar bear, hippopotamus and rhinoceros (disqualified: non-predators), walrus, leopard seal, dolphins, tie between the saltwater and Nile crocodiles, dholes and hunting dogs, lions, tigers, elephant seal (disqualified; major prey item for sharks and orcas), Komodo dragon, black bear, Cape buffalo (disqualified: non-predator), horses and zebras (disqualified as non-predators), giant snakes, giant panda and gorilla (disqualified: non-predators), American alligator, hyenas, leopards and jaguars (probable tie), cassowary (only bird dangerous to Man, but not a predator), cougar, wolves and feral dogs, unarmed human, birds of prey, chimpanzee, baboon (marginal as a predator), pig and warthog (disqualified: marginal predator; Man harvests them as food), wolverine, badger, otter, piranha, bobcat or lynx, raccoon (marginally predatory), domestic cat, fox, marten, meerkat, weasel, king snake, bullfrog (marginal), rattlesnake (disqualified: too many creatures prey upon it), tarantula, fire ants and army ants (individually helpless, but in a group...), centipede. All of the predators have their niches -- for now. Any predator that loses its niche will go quickly to extinction if it can't make the transition (as has the giant panda) to a non-predatory life. Reliable ratings would require some animal combats that violate most sensibilities and legal statutes, and considerable cost.

That leaves no obvious place for some of the sea creatures and especially the predatory birds that live in another dimension. Where does the eagle fit in? If it is not large enough to take the prey, then the creature is safe from it. A Yorkshire terrier might be hawk food, but a Saint Bernard certainly isn't. --66.231.41.57 16:30, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

First keep in mind the definition not preyed upon in the wild.

• Wolves can and do prey upon dogs, and your backyard becomes the wild when a wolf shows up--the blanket "they are wolves" is senseless. The wolf/dog speciation is complete enough that a wolf will sit down and have a dog for dinner having killed it (I don't believe they cannibilize normally...) The domestic dog is the closest thing to an apex predator as one can find. LOL.
• The domestic cat business is ridiculous. I lived with cats long enough rurally, and lost enough of them, to know that apex predator is a far from accurate label. Wolves, coyotes and fox will snatch a cat in a second. Perhaps it's the apex predator in a given living room but that isn't the criteria here.
• Your list is interesting but, really, apples and oranges. Of course an orca could kill a lion thrown in a pool and of course any land predator would happily chomp on a beached whale. The only truly apex predator on land (humans excluded) is the adult polar bear. Marskell 22:37, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

(mild profanity sanitized)--66.231.41.57 17:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

To emphasize an important point: I'm not concerned about whether it is a successful predator (ie., all well and good your cat can kill rattlers) I'm concerned about whether it is an apex predator (ie., it is not preyed upon).

Size is a definite advantage. Small dogs are on par with domestic cats, and I would not treat the small breeds of dogs as superpredators. But big dogs definitely are superpredators. A very large dog singly or a group of medium-sized dogs can kill a man. That might be rare behavior by dogs, but it happens on occasion. The infamous pit bull terrier, although not a large dog, seems to be the most dangerous of dogs to humans.

Accepting that house cats, leopards, and tigers have obvious similarities of behavior and build but great disparities of size, it is obvious which one has an advantage over the others. But that said, the domestic cat has gone to ecological niches in which larger predators are not introduced. The cat does very well in such places -- to the detriment of native wildlife. The cat's role as a destroyer of wildlife in Australia and on numerous islands is well documented -- reflecting in part the unfamiliarity of Australian wildlife to cats of any kind. Under such circumstances, the feral cat fits the definition of apex predator.

The dogs that lived well in Antarctica (feral sled dogs) were of course large domestic dogs. Under such circumstances they were just as much superpredators as tigers.

The Indian dhole and African wild dogs are not to be confused with the domestic dog, or with wolves. Both are in different genera, and they can challenge the primacy of any other large predators -- including hyenas and the big cats. They should be added back even if one rejects the domestic cat and dog. But even with the dog a qualification remains: a Great Dane is a superpredator and a cocker spaniel isn't, and I'm not sure whether one could include a dog with no predatory tendencies (i.e., a retriever) as a superpredator. Depending on where one draws the line between "large predatory dogs" and the others, any complete rejection of the domestic dog throws out the second-largest group of candidates as superpredator among the mammals. In any event, the participation of dogs in human hunts could qualify it as a superpredator.

In the presence of bears, big cats, crocdilians, giant snakes, and hyenas the domestic dog is not an apex predator. There are many places where dogs face no such challenges. There are fewer places where cats face no such challenges (add coyotes and raptor birds) to the list of dangers. But such places exist, and in such places the domestic dog or cat is the tiger of its realm.

I have restored the dholes and African Hunting dogs (they are not feral dogs) and qualified the domestic dog for size. I have also added the snow leopard back (very limited ecological niche, and it is not a true leopard) and the leopard. But even the leopard has a qualification: its behavior in tiger or lion country is very different from its behavior where neither exists.--66.231.41.57 01:25, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, I can largely live with the additions. But I think you are treating domestic dogs in terms of theory rather than common practice. In what ecological niche is the Great Dane a super-predator? Excepting the rather idosyncratic example of antarctica that you bring up, domestic dogs simply do not practice predation regularly. And even suppose they did, as you say "in the presence of bears, big cats, crocdilians, giant snakes, and hyenas the domestic dog is not an apex predator" and, I would add, in the presence of wolves. This is important: where an animal cannot match up "in kind" you should not call it apex (one reason I hesitate over the leopard which assuming healthy ranges overlaps both with lion and tiger). Where wolves are absent other canines such as coyotes and, at least in theory, domestic dogs might fill their niche; but where wolves appear they re-assert themselves. Wolves killed 13 coyotes in the first winter after their re-introduction to yellowstone--undoubtedly they would behave the same in some hypothetical face-off with dogs, be it with the Great Dane or any other familiaris. Really, I don't think domestic dogs belong but I will leave it for now. Marskell 09:26, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

---

Are there any invertebrates that are apex predators?- 12.210.89.166

In the right niche, almost any predator can be the superpredator. Sea anemones don't seem very impressive until one considers that practically nothing eats them, and that some sea anemones eat almost anything of its size or smaller that stumbles, wanders, or blunders into their tentacles. In a surge channel, a carpet of sea anemones is a death trap for about every species of small marine life that can be grabbed (turtles, birds, and otters probably excepted). Box jellies, true jellyfish, and Portuguese Man-o-wars might have predators among the marine turtles, but that's about it -- where the turtles aren't, the jellies can prey with impunity.

Ants seem too small to be have a chance, and such is so for most of them. Army ants and fire ants, however, are the ultimate gang predators, many of which (lions, dogs, wolves, dolphins, orcas, piranhas, dholes, Man, and I'm tempted to add chimpanzees) figure higher on this list than otherwise. A single ant of any kind is helpless -- but a swarm of predatory ants (fire ants and army ants) can sweep a path of anything edible.

As sea creatures, octopuses are soft, vulnerable, and tasty. Small octopuses are remarkable predators, but they are prey. Big ones are tough to catch, and so long as they stay away from the open ocean where the orcas and big sharks lurk, they can outsmart any predators except seals and dolphins, which generally don't eat animals on a human scale.

Should I mention the venomous cone shells?

Additions and removals

I am going to add the dingo, the de facto tiger of Australia (so long as it avoids the water), in the absence of big cats as competitors. The bobcat and the lynx, both too large as adults to be prey for raptor birds, can be added. After some reflection, I recognize the elephant seals, as adults, nearly invulnerable due to their size; orcas may patrol beaches full of elephant seals -- but for the pups, leaving the adults alone. The only animals on land that could imaginably prey upon adult elephant seals are grizzly bears and lions.

I have dropped all the seals. Our own pages on the topic clearly reference P. Bears, orcas and great whites as predators. Lemurs can be killed by raptors and the addition of monkeys is just silly. We should also probably tighten up bear and just list the three big ones--smaller bears are killed by tigers where they overlap in Asia. Tigers cannot kill adult male grizzlies but that's about it. Marskell 09:42, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I am restoring the skunk, a creature which has one of the most effective defenses against predators. One experience with a skunk is likely enough to show an animal which might consider it easy prey that it is to be avoided. Badgers and wolverines seem nearly indestructible due to their ferocity; they should not be deleted.

Felis cattus, again

The domestic cat can be a superpredator under some circumstances. The house cat is potential prey only to larger predators, but in many environments, such as small islands where larger predators are not to be found, they are as deadly in their niches as tigers in the Sundarbans. In a house or a barn or its immediate surroundings, the cat is as formidable a killer as any other predator in the wild. In some environments -- Australia is a prime example -- introduced cats have proved extremely destructive of wildlife ill-prepared for them. The species that in historical times have done the greatest damage to terrestrial ecosystems are without question Homo sapiens, Canis lupus familiaris, and Felis cattus, and that alone seems an obvious cause for inclusion.

More qualifications may exist for the domestic cat than for the domestic dog -- but there are places in which the domestic cat is the superpredator. Food for raptor birds, large canids, bigger cats, crocodilians, and large snakes? Maybe -- but environments where such creatures don't exist are to be found, the domestic cat (especially if feral) is the worst nightmare that most small creatures can meet. --66.231.41.57 02:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Sperm Whales apex?

I think I read somewhere that Orcas sometimes feed upon sperm whales too. Anyone know more about it?

They do. In groups, they'll just rip-off pieces of meat until they bleed the sperm whale to death. BabyNuke 17:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

But that would be on infant or juvenile sperm whales. Adults would likely kill a single orca. As a rule we are talking about animals in adulthood not being usual prey of other creatures in their ecosystems. --Paul from Michigan 23:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

What the hell are we doing?

ANTS? Birds, lizards, frogs, other insects, snakes, bears and goddamn anteaters eat ants. This page is becoming ridiculous. I removed seals again per above. Spiders will eats wasps. Marskell 16:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

It's referring to army and driver ants and the like. RentACop 20:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Leopard Seal, one last time

Any documented maneater (tiger), presumed maneater (reticulated python) or potential maneater (wolf/dog) should go to the head of the pack. A recent fatal attack upon a marine biologist suggests that predation may have been a factor -- even if the leopard seal might have confused the woman with a seal or a penguin. Although leopard seals are potential prey for killer whales, what isn't should it go into the ocean?

This creature has much the same niche in the Antarctic as the Polar Bear has in the Arctic. It kills larger prey than does any of the other seals (penguins; other seals), and has documented ability to kill humans. Most seals and sea lions fall short of the superpredator category because some predators (orcas, sharks, polar bears, and in some shorelines lions and formerly grizzly bears) seem to hunt them specifically.

The leopard seal is an extreme predator unlike any other species of seal or sea lion. Seals and sea lions should be excluded from the list of superpredators except for this extreme predator.--66.231.41.57 04:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I am adding the Baikal seal, the only freshwater seal, in view of the absence of any significant predator other than Man. The Siberian tiger, the only imaginable predator that could have made prey of it, seems not to share its range, at least now, and the Asiatic black bear seems too small to overpower this seal. Lake Baikal, the world's largest freshwater lake has no orcas or sharks.--66.231.41.57 17:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Chimpanzees, again

They are formidable predators, even if predation is not their primary means of feeding, and they would deserve attention as one of three creatures (Man and otters are the other two) to use tools in predation. Chimps are known to use grass to capture ants and termites as prey. They can gang up on monkeys and prey upon them.

But chimps are prey for big cats? Hardly. They are difficult prey. Their color vision (a trait that makes Man difficult prey) makes them difficult to catch by surprise; they can see the Big Cat that is well camouflaged for deer-like prey that lack color vision. They can go up trees onto branches that even leopards would avoid.

Most significantly, they are also too large to be prey for raptor birds that take the smaller monkeys. They are vulnerable to crocodiles, to be sure, but so is any creature smaller than an adult hippopotamus that gets into the water even to drink (including Man and lions). --66.231.41.57 12:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Dinosaurs

Shouldn't we include some Dinosaurs too? Tyranosaurus Rex would be an apex predator.

...If we are to add dinosaurs like T. Rex, we would have to include many other extinct superpredators -- sabertooth cats, thylacines, phorusrhacoids and Neanderthal Man all known to have been among the nastiest predators of their time. The problem with T. Rex include that (1) some controversy remains over whether it was a predator or a scavenger (partially rendered irrelevant by the inclusion of vultures), and (2) that dinosaur-era ecology is poorly known, and (3) with our unfamiliarity of other extinct environments, it would be difficult to avoid controversies involving other dinosaurs throughout the Jurassic, Triassic, and Cretacious eras. T. Rex seems like one of the nastiest creatures that could ever enter a human nightmare, but much of the nightmare is itself a result of the human imagination. The image of T. Rex in Walt Disney's animated Fantasia seems well-attested. A good look at a fossilized skeleton of that creature in the Field Museum of Natural History leaves little doubt that no living land creature of our time, including an elephant or a salt-water crocodile, could survive contact with an animal with such obvious build. Man would have to be well armed (as with a rocket launcher) to deal with it.

A paragraph including extinct superpredators has existed at times, only to be deleted regularly. That segment is rightly kept short because of our limited knowledge of extinct ecosystems, and it is rightly limited to those creatures (ammonoids, Allosaurus, T. Rex, Megalodon, sabertooth cats, phorusrhacoid birds, Neanderthal Man, and the thylacine -- the latter extinct only in 1936). These creatures are at least different enough from other superpredators that they would not be confused with another already on the list, and most of them are part of mass culture. As such they are worthy of discussion largely as links.

We have a long list of existing superpredators, and it would get unwieldy if we were to include predecessors of extant superpredators. So long as there have been cat-like, bear-like, wolf-like, and whale-like creatures, one or the other of them has qualified as a superpredator since such creatures came into existence and inclusion of such creatures would make a mess of this article. It's enough to distinguish the various species of living cats even if they are all very similar in shape, behavior, and ecological roles. Surely some superpredators existed in every era back to at least the creatures of the Burgess shale, but we know little enough about fossil ecosystems to determine even what was predator and what was prey in most such ecosystems. Attempts to include more than a handful of extinct superpredators would make this article unwieldy and controversial in the extreme.--66.231.41.57 14:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Sharks

If qualifications exist among some groups of predators more similar to each other than dissimilar (example: the cats, as homogeneous a group of predators as may have ever existed in build and behavior), then shouldn't 'sharks' be so qualified? Great white, tiger, bull, mako, Greenland, and hammerhead sharks well fit the image of the relentless man-eater. (Even the docile whale shark -- a plankton eater -- qualifies as a predator, if no menace to Man because it has almost no natural enemies. Filter feeders seem to violate the criteria that most of us have for superpredators, so whale sharks might be dropped from the list or recognized as exceptions).

Humans and orcas are the foremost predators, are the only imaginable predators upon the largest sharks.

Small sharks are prey for larger predators, as is shown in a film clip of a giant octopus catching, overpowering, and killing a shark smaller than itself. Small sharks exist, and they seem to be in less-than-apex position s in the food chain. --66.231.41.57 18:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

POV list removed from article

• Kingdom Animalia: Animals
  • Phylum Cnidaria: Jellyfish, corals, sea anemones and hydras
    • Class Anthozoa: Sea anemones
    • Class Cubozoa: Box jellyfish, sea wasp
    • Class Scyphozoa: True jellyfish
    • Class Hydrozoa: Portuguese Man O' War
  • Phylum Mollusca: Clams, oysters, mussels, snalis, slugs, octopuses, squids, etc.
    • Class Cephalopoda: Octopuses, cuttlefish, squid and nautilises
      • Order Octopoda: Giant octopus
    • Class Gastropoda: Slugs, snails and other "stomach-foot" creatures
      • Family Conidae: Cone shells
  • Phylum Arthropoda: Insects, arachnids, crustaceans, centipedes, millipedes and other "joint-legged animals"
    • Class Arachnida: Spiders, scorpions, ticks, mites, etc.
      • Order Araneae: Spiders
        • Family Theraphosidae: Tarantulas and bird-eating spiders
      • Class Chilopoda: Centipedes
    • Class Insecta: Insects
      • Order Hymenoptera: Bees, wasps, sawflies, and ants
        • Family Formicidae: Ants (army ants and fire ants)
  • Phylum Echinodermata: "Spiny-skinned" creatures
    • Class Asteroidea: Starfish
  • Phylum Chordata: Animals with backbones
    • Class Chondrichthyes: Cartilaginous fishes
      • Order Lamniformes: Sharks
    • Class Osteichthyes: Bony fishes
      • Order Actinopterygii: Ray-finned fishes
        • Family Acipenseriformes: Sturgeons
        • Family Anguilliformes: Moray eels
        • Family Characiformes: Piranhas
        • Family Gymnotiformes: Electric eels
        • Family Esociformes: Pikes
        • Family Myctophiformes: Anglerfish
        • Family Perciformes: Groupers, jewfish, barracudas, swordfish and marlins
    • Class Reptilia: Reptiles
      • Order Squamata: Lizards and snakes
        • Family Boidae: Pythons, boas, and anacondas
        • Family Colubridae: Cobras and king snakes
        • Family Varanidae: Monitor lizards and the Komodo Dragon
      • Order Testudines: Turtles and tortoises
        • Family Chelydridae: Snapping turtles
      • Order Crocodilia: Crocodiles and alligators
      • Order Theropods: Bipedal Dinosaurs
        • Family Tyrannosauridae: Tyrannosaurus Rex (extinct)
    • Class Aves: Birds
      • Order Procellariiformes: Seagulls, gannets, albatrosses and petrels
      • Order Ciconiiformes: Herons
      • Order Pelecaniformes: Pelicans and cormorants
      • Order Falconiformes: Birds of prey - eagles, hawks, falcons, ospreys, condors and secretary birds
      • Order Strigiformes: Owls
      • Order Gruiformes: Crane-like birds
        • Family Phorusrhacidae: terror birds (extinct)
    • Class Mammalia: Mammals
      • Subclass Marsupiala: Pouched mammals
        • Order Dasyuromorphia: Thylacines (extinct since 1936), Tasmanian Devil
      • Subclass Placentalia: Placental mammals
      • Order Carnivora: Carnivores
        • Family Felidae: Lions, pumas, tigers, leopards, jaguars, snow leopards, cats*
        • Family Canidae: Wolves, dogs*, dholes, African hunting dogs and dingos
        • Family Mustelidae: Skunks, wolverines, otters, and badgers
        • Family Hyaenidae: Hyenas
        • Family Ursidae": Bears and Giant Pandas
        • Family Phocidae: Earless seals: Leopard Seal, Baikal Seal
      • Order Cetacea: Whales
        • Family Physeteridae: Sperm whales
        • Family Delphinidae: Dolphins and orcas
      • Order Primata: Primates
        • Family Hominidae: Humans and chimpanzees

Note: dogs qualify if large or in packs, when hunting with humans, or if trained for attack or fighting, but not otherwise. Cats (Felis cattus, including the domestic cat) qualify if in colonies, within human environments, and in some insular areas (including Australia) where they can do great damage to native wildlife. WAS 4.250 17:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Deletd paragraph

"However, in any careful analysis, it can be shown that all species are involved in a food web and are part of an interdependent ecosystem. The most apex predator, man, is himself prey to other humans; when poorly armed and alone to bears, large cats and other beasts; and to parasites of all kinds. Bacteria prey on man as much as man preys on bacteria. What is and is not an apex predator is defined more by human culture than scientific analysis." (I wrote this paragraph. It was deleted by another. So long as the prior insanity listing snails and other ridiculous other species doesn't continue, it doesn't need to be in the article.) WAS 4.250 20:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

do not merge with predation

strongly oppose merger with predation. different topics...each deserves considerable spaceAnlace 22:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I have restored the examples of humans and dogs, the two most common and best-known animals that can be considered superpredators, especially in collaboration. Unless one wish to exclude non-wild animals, humans and dogs must remain. Small dogs are of course vulnerable to all sorts of predators, including raptor birds and big cats, and in some places are harvested by humansas food. Large dogs and medium-sized dogs in groups, or dogs in co-operation with humans in a hunt, rival any other large land predators. The largest dogs are too dangerous for humans to harvest as food, although they are safe for most other purposes customary in the Man-dog relationship that is one of the most remarkable in the animal world.

Is the question of humans as superpredators that some humans are vegetarians or that some dogs (probably under human influence) are forced to live as vegetarians? Are we denying the animal nature of humans? Some humans (traditional Inuit hunters) are as predatory and carnivorous as any other creatures, and with firearms or even spears rival even polar bears at the top of the food chain. A sled dog with the protection of weapons-wielding humans is of course off limits even to polar bears. --Paul from Michigan 23:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Giant Panda as superpredator

The qualification that giant pandas, as herbivores, are non-predators and thus not superpredators needs little refutation to place them among the superpredators. Predation is not the cornerstone of their life, but they are predatory enough, and about every other aspect of their lives is characteristic of a superpredator. They are not easy prey for any other animal, and their defenses are typical for bears.

They seem to represent one course of development of a superpredator into a non-predator, but that evolutionary path is not yet complete.

Although giant pandas are predominantly vegetarian, they occasionally make kills of small creatures:

Pandas are also known to eat eggs, the occasional fish, and some insects along with their bamboo diet. These are necessary sources of protein. --Paul from Michigan 04:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Reversion:

Thegoodson removed all of the pictures that I introduced as examples of superpredators. If someone wished to delete some (but not all) as controversial or to modify some of the text of captions, then I would find that excusable and acceptable. But the deletion is complete.

Without any qualification, the king cobra and the two crocodiles are at the tops of their food chains, and if someone accepts the polar bear as a superpredator, then so is the leopard seal. Dogs, dolphins, and owls are not ordinarily dangerous to people, and even if one qualifies the dog one must recognize that in a human-dog collaborative hunt, it is as much a killer as is the human because it makes the killing possible. But wolves aren't ordinarily dangerous to people, either.

If someone wants to drop the dog because it is too much like a wolf -- fine. Indeed I would prefer an image of a human and a dog in a hunting situation to either one exclusively. Technically, an orca is a dolphin... but a dolphin's echolocation makes it as deadly to small fish as any shark.

I might be tempted to replace some of the pictures that I introduced; for example, I would prefer an image of a human and a dog in a hunting collaboration. I will likely replace the attempt at a saltwater crocodile with some other crocodilian so that I get a better image.

First let's start with the "King" cobra. This snake is REGULARILY killed and preyed upon by mongoose. Species of pythons have been recorded predating on them aswell, so have tigers. How do they qualify as "superpredators"? Do you just happen to have an infatuation with them an just suppose that they are "apex predators"? You are mistaken. They are dangerous and predatory, but not apex. Of all venomous snakes, black mambas, taipans and eastern browns would be more qualified for that status than the king cobra.

Secondly, crocodiles are preyed upon by large pythons and anacondas. They are also preyed upon by tigers, lions and even leopards. So how are they "superpredators"? Third, owls? Raptors are already mentioned...owls are raptors. What is the need for another picture of a raptor? Fourth, dolphins? They are preyed upon by sharks and killer whales, how are they "apex predators"? Please explain? And fire ants? They are eaten by all kinds of lizards, frogs and all sorts of other animals. Please explain how they are at the top of the food chain in their habitat? The leopard seal may qualify.

Until you give explanations, they are all going, simply because none are "apex predators". TheGoodSon 02:49, 03 August 2006 (UTC)

TO "PAUL FROM MICHIGAN"

Do you understand the concept of an "apex predator"? It is a predator that is not preyed upon. It is a predator at the top of the food chain wherever it may habitated. King cobras are preyed upon by mongoose and are killed by tigers and stepped upon by elephants. How does that qualify them as "apex"? Hyenas are second fiddle to lions, thus they are not at the food chain and are not apex predators. Crocodiles are killed by tigers and lions, and even large constrictors - so they are not "apex". Solitary cats are not apex predators. Leopards are under lions in Africa and under Tigers in Asia, Jaguars are under the Anaconada in South America. You don't seem to understand the concept of apex predators and you just want to assume that all predators that have "strong jaws", "lived among dinosaurs", and the such as apex. They are predators, but not "APEX". Understand the concept of a superpredator first, than try to edit. TheGoodSon 15:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC) Let me try a definition: a superpredator is either a creature capable of preying upon humans or a carnivorous or omnivorous animal not ordinarily preyed upon in its usual environment as a healthy adult. Some creatures may be superpredators in some environments but not others (extreme example: feral cats in some insular environments where the usual predators upon cats do not exist). That rules out the freakish situation of a non-native python eating an alligator in Florida or a loose tiger or lion where such creatures are not native -- or released sled dogs feasting upon penguins in Antarctica. --Paul from Michigan 07:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

(Tigers are solitary cats. They are just the biggest of them, and they exploit their size to great advantage. As for king cobras being 'squished' by elephants -- the snake is more likely to force the elephant to change its course by making its presence known).

1. As a rule I am talking about adult predators and ignoring cannibalism within a species. Such a creature as an infant alligator or an infant crocodile might be food for all sorts of predators -- but as an adult it can have none in its niche. The crocodiles and the American alligator should go back. Excluding the Nile and saltwater crocodiles requires that one reject as 'superpredators' what may be the two most dangerous man-eaters on Earth. If you have ever seen an anaconda kill a 'crocodile', then the 'crocodile' is a caiman, which I would not use as an illustration.

2. One defense against other predators is deterrence. Humans are a prime example: any creature that attacks us is likely to be hunted down and killed. No other creature is known to do that. That explains why most animals that get the opportunity to kill and eat a human -- big cats, wolves, large dogs, giant snakes, alligators, and bears -- rarely do so. Humans would qualify on that regard to the extent that they are flesh-eaters -- which means that humans would have to be included as superpredators unless vegetarians. A second predator needs be mentioned: the dolphin. It is no less predatory than great white sharks -- and it has a nasty charge that can kill great white or other sharks. Sharks seem to keep their distance. Do you reject the dolphin because it preys upon creatures much smaller than itself? Tough. It is a voracious killer as deadly to its prey as practically anything else. Because the killer whale can kill and eat it? About every other creature in the sea, including the great white shark, would have to be removed. Echo-location, agility, pack hunting, and dolphin-like intelligence make the dolphin the worst thing that a small fish could face.

3. Owls are not raptors. They are predators in a different family (Strigiformes) from that of eagles, hawks, falcons, vultures, and kestrels. You would have a case under your criteria if you removed a hawk or a falcon. Owls are as different from eagles as they are from cormorants (another near-apex predator). I sought to put the owl on the list as a superpredator even though it poses no danger to humans.

4. Superpredator is not a vertebrate-only category. The ant demonstrates that size isn't everything. Fire ants have no natural enemies in the United States. Army ants might be better candidates; take your pick. The usual killers of ants avoid them, including frogs, spiders, and lizards.

5. If you think that venom is a dirty trick -- so do I. Infant and juvenile king cobras might be vulnerable to other predators, but the full-grown ones would seem beyond assault. There might be more dangerous snakes, but this one is invulnerable. It is definitely a predator, a killer of other snakes, some of them likely venomous themselves. If a mongoose has developed immunity to the cobra's venom, then other predators haven't. As for the Portuguese man-of-war, I'd rather have an image of a box jellyfish even more dangerous to humans -- but the man-of-war will have to do. That one group of predators -- sea turtles -- eats it reflects the adaptation of the sea turtles in question. So some creature developed a countermeasure against a venom which can imperil a human.

6. Would you reject all dogs and dingos because they are too 'wolf-like'? Technically they are all of the species Canis lupus, but the dog could be added whenever it participates with humans in a hunt, making humans even deadlier predators. The usual criteria for determining who is culpable in a killing establish that the dog that flushes birds to be shot is as much a killer as is the human who shoots the birds and the retriever that finds them and returns them is an 'accomplice after the fact'. The dog makes those killings possible. In the absence of bears, big cats, hyenas, and giant snakes, the dingo takes the role of the 'big cat' of Australia. I included the dingo so that I could include Australia as a place with a wild mammalian hunter of extreme effectiveness. Maybe the Tasmanian devil would be a better fit.

7. Leopard seals should not have been removed. Other seals are of course prey for sharks and killer whales, and they should not be included. Leopard seals kill large prey (other seals, penguins) which makes them stronger candidates than dolphins. Leopard seal or dolphin? I'd choose the leopard seal on the grounds that it is a potential man-eater, unlike any other seal. Besides, the killer whale is really a dolphin, and not a whale.

8. The Komodo dragon kills animals as large as a water buffalo with a bacteria-laden bite that causes a slow death for which the Dragon awaits. It's hard to imagine any predator that would take it on in its environment (its range does not overlap with tigers). Sure, it has a limited range and is rare. The hunting style is remarkable -- if disgusting.

9. The electric eel kills with a gimmick -- but what a gimmick! 600 volts isn't enough to kill a man, but it is unpleasant to any interloper of like size. An animal trying to make a meal out of it would find out the hard way that such is a great mistake. To a smaller creature it is death.

10. I used fire ants as an example of ants. Driver ants are even more dangerous; I just can't find a good picture in the public domain of them. Driver ants kill animals as large as rats.

11. The two most common large superpredators are humans and dogs. To be sure, small dogs probably fall short of superpredator status, and most dogs have their predatory behavior bred out of them. The dog-human tandem is surely one of the most feared in nature. I'd like to put a picture of a human and a dog in a hunting context on this page, even if neither qualifies singly.

In general the creatures that I suggest have different techniques of hunting (a house cat is too similar to a leopard or tiger in behavior to merit an inclusion in this gallery) and killing. I seek as broad a range of predators as possible -- the army ant and a Portuguese Man-of-War add at least two invertebrate predators to the gallery; I also seek to ensure that some of the most dangerous creatures are shown if they aren't unduly similar to others but also some that pose no hazard to humans. I have added a cnidarian, an arthropod, and a bony fish. I also seek to add regions of the world not represented in the gallery -- namely Antarctica and Australia -- with the leopard seal and the dingo (if not the Tasmanian Devil). Even with the dingo I see two faults: first, that it is almost genetically equal to dogs and wolves, and second, that its predatory techniques are cat-like. --Paul from Michigan 21:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I added a wolverine. No allusion to Michigan is intended; the creature is not native to Michigan. It is not a wolf; it's more closely related to weasels and ferrets. --Paul from Michigan 07:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

To "Thegoodson": please read about the creatures whose pictures you seek to remove before you do so.

As a major in microbiology, I am quite sure that you are absolutely clueless as to what an apex predator is. You listed the wolverine, but can you explain why? If the wolverine is an "apex predator", than what does that make the bear or the cougar? Or wolves for that matter? An apex predator is a predator that is at the very top of the food chain wherever it may habitate. None of the animals you listed can be defined as apex predators. You are assuming that any "rough and tumble" (wolverine) and "dangerous" (king cobra) predators are apex, meanwhile they are not even near the top of the food pyramid. I will happily continue deleting any non-apex predators that you keep listing. TheGoodSon 17:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Because of the controversy involving the definition of creatures as 'superpredator' or 'not superpredator' it may be best to delete the images and rely upon our own ideas of what superpredators look like. A mirror is adequate for most of us.

An attempt was made to show the diversity of creatures that can be considered superpredators under some conditions. By the standards of Thegoodson (TGS), if a lion should try to swim with crocodiles then it will be eaten. Then why didn't you also remove the lion? Likewise, any eagle that gets caught ito the intake of a jet engine will be destroyed. Thus any eagle, or bird of any kind must be removed. A tiger, polar bear, or a dog that should slip into a tank full of orcas will likely be killed and eaten. Thus the tiger must be removed. Killer whales eat sharks of all kinds, so the Great White must be removed. It is imaginable that a sperm whale could kill a wayward orca and eat it. With weapons we humans can kill anything, but we are vulnerable to large dogs which (like wolves) have all the tools of man-eaters, let alone crocodilians, hyenas, bears, big cats, giant snakes, and sharks.

The criteria that TGS use, if taken to their logical extreme, the creatures shown are vulnerable to something under freakish circumstances. If such are to be his criteria, then no creature is a superpredator and the concept is meaningless.

The images have caused more arguments than clarification. Too bad. A diverse variety of creatures with different techniques of hunting and different niches would have its merits. I suggest that TGS justify the others.

We know what a tiger is; we know what an eagle is; we know what a wolf is; we know what a bear is. So do we need the images and captions?

Don't assume the reader knows any of those things. Besides that's not the point. The point is to illustrate the article with relevant pictures. Malamockq 14:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion

Let me try a definition: Wikipedia articles must cite their sources and should not contain original research. I suggest you two stop wasting words and find sources. "...it may be best to delete the images and rely upon our own ideas of what superpredators look like." Absolutely not. No one here should be in the business of listing things as a superpredator until we have refs saying so. Marskell 16:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

It's largely a question of definition. The eating habits of most animals are well known. Ambiguity over what is a predator and what isn't is on whether an animal is largely predatory or isn't. Humans are much more carnivorous than grizzly bears and much less carnivorous than dogs, let alone cats or dolphins. Do we count humans as non-predators because some persons are vegetarians? I don't. Because most of us never kill another creature for food? Another human does that for us, so we are predators by proxy when we eat a steak, trout, or poultry.

It's my taste, but I count only active hunters and scavengers. No filter feeders, so some sharks (the gigantic whale shark) and the baleen whales don't qualify. Meat-thieves qualify because most predators steal or scavenge meat, and if they scare off the killer through intimidation, especially with the usual tools of predation. Thus such creatures as badgers and wolverines would qualify if they aren't on the dining list of other predators. Maybe one would have to disqualify vultures because they aren't the killers, even if they aren't obvious prey for other creatures.

Almost as a rule we are discussing animals as adults. Infant alligators and crocodiles are formidable predators, but they fall in great numbers to creatures that would never take a knowing chance at facing an adult croc or gator. Chicks of raptor birds are dependent and vulnerable, as are infant cats and canids. Larval forms of octopuses or squid (if we are to count them as adults) are meat until they are fully grown. Likewise, we speak of healthy creatures under normal circumstances. A wolf with a broken leg and unable to keep up with a pack is likely food for a bear or a big cat if such creatures are in the terrain, but the same bear or big cat is likely to keep a safe distance from a wolf pack. We can ignore such circumstances as a non-native species entering an environment to which the likely prey is ill-prepared (pythons in Florida, any Panthera species in Europe, Australia, Japan, or the United States; penguins, seals, or dolphins in the Great Lakes) that result from an escape or a release, or some unlikely meeting in a zoo or circus.

We cannot disqualify a creature as a superpredator because it is cute, cuddly, or charming. "Flipper" is just as much a predator as is "Jaws", and if someone rejects bottle-nose dolphins because they are potential prey for orcas -- one must similarly reject the great white shark. Dolphins might be prey for sharks -- but sharks usually keep a safe distance from a pod of dolphins. Small domestic dogs can be disqualified because of wolves, coyotes, mid-sized cats, and raptor birds -- but large breeds of dogs are obviously not to be threatened. No matter what we think of ourselves, we humans are generally left alone because we are usually out of the question because of the consequences that we can inflict upon attackers. Man-eating is not a good survival strategy for even the most formidable predators (crocs, sharks, and giant snakes possibly excepted).

Creatures that can be considered superpredators fit into three, often overlapping, categories:

1. Man-eaters, whether documented (great white sharks), presumed (anacondas), or potential (wolves). Any creature that singly or in a group has the capacity to overpower a human and could eat an adult human almost must be considered a superpredator. Big cats, hyenas, bears, giant snakes, alligators and crocodiles, some sharks, large canids, the Komodo dragon, leopard seals, and killer whales should be obvious even if such creatures choose not to eat humans. A sperm whale could easily devour a human cadaver hardly knowing that it did so, but it is unlikely to be in a position in which to kill a human. The unlikely circumstance of being swallowed alive by a sperm whale is as certain a death as any, so the sperm whale must fit the 'man-eater' category. Piranhas? They can eat creatures (capybaras) similar in size to us, and there's no reason to believe that a person could better fed off a piranha attack than a capybara.

2. Keystone predators. They need not be dangerous to humans (sea stars, owls, otters, domestic cats, giant octopuses); they need only dictate what sorts of life can flourish and what can't. Dolphins can sweep a shoal of fish into oblivion, and driver ants can clear an area of any small animals that don't get out of the way fast enough. The definitive keystone predator is Homo sapiens, especially as a hunter, rancher, or herder.

3. Extreme predators, for lack of an alternative expression. These are animals with unusual and very effective means of capturing prey and reliably defending themselves, ordinarily the same means. Raptor birds are the most obvious. Why not the electric eel, a predator that shocks its prey to death and uses the same shock to demonstrate to a would-be predator -- even a caiman, a human, a jaguar, or a raptor bird -- that an approach is a mistake? Venom is not enough to make a predator 'extreme'; some creatures have developed immunity to it. But I'd make an exception for the king cobra, a snake-eater that scares off all potential troublemakers, including elephants, humans, tigers, leopards, wild dogs, and pythons. It's too big to be prey for a mongoose.

... The purpose of the images is to demonstrate the diversity of techniques of superpredators of killing and avoiding being killed. Fangs, claws, talons, beaks, power, speed, crushing power, teamwork, and cunning are obvious enough. Some creatures can develop immunity to some venom, but none can shield themselves from the shock of an electric eel or the echolocation of a dolphin.

Links may be more effective than images with captions. --Paul from Michigan 19:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

For jesus' sakes

PAUL FROM MICHIGAN:

Who told you that "solitary cats" are "apex predators"? Have you ever taken ecology? Are you even done with high school? Jesus Christ, I'm quite sorry, but if you want to immerse yourself in the excrement of your own idiocy, go right ahead, don't drag the article along with you. Tigers are THE only APEX predators of the solitary felines, leopards fall short because their numbers, population and survival depends upon lion in Africa and Tigers in Asia. Likewise, Cougars are under Jaguars and Anacondas in South America and black and brown bears and wolves. Jags contend with large anacondas and black caiman. They are predators, but not "apex predators". TheGoodSon 19:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Please cut the personal stuff. It suggests a juvenile mentality. I am fifty years old and I am a college graduate.

Do you dissent with the idea that any documented, presumed, or potential man-eater qualifies as a superpredator on that ground alone? Leopards, jaguars, and cougars are documented man-eaters.

The caption that I introduced suggested that any cat that is the biggest predator in any niche is the local superpredator. That includes the domestic cat should it have no competition from other catlike predators. The cat that I had was a charming companion inside the house, but once he got out of the house he made a jungle out of some shrubbery. To make a long story short, the typical material of wildlife documentaries featuring big cats as predators often appeared before my eyes as the cat exploited the blind to kill birds that got too close to his 'jungle'. Except as a companion for humans, the domestic cat is a near-perfect analogue of a leopard.

So let's start with the leopard. It is subordinate to lions and tigers where those bigger cats are -- but the leopard has a larger range than any cat other than the domestic cat, and its range (check the articles) includes areas where there are no tigers or lions. Leopards better exploit dense woods than do lions, often using perches in trees not so much to escape other predators as to strike prey from a tree, much as could a domestic cat. Lions and tigers are too large to jump from trees onto prey without getting hurt.

The 'snow leopard' is not a true leopard, but it fits an econlogical niche where no other cats live. It has no obvious peers where it lives.

Cheetahs do not qualify as superpredators; they lose their prey too easily to other predators. They may do more killing than lions or leopards, but they are tuned to catch prey more than to dominate territory against all other predators.

The Americas have three medium-sized to large cats: the bobcat, the cougar, and the jaguar. The jaguar and the cougar are similar in size and hunting habits, although the jaguar is more strictly tropical. It's hard to figure which of those cats is more masterful because the behavior of both cats is poorly known. But as for competition with other predators -- jaguars eat caimans, and they generally avoid open water where there might be anacondas. Cougars share terrain with bears and wolves, but in general, bears are unlikely to catch cougars; wolves have different ecological roles than cougars. Cougars avoid wolfpacks, although a lone wolf (or dog) is cougar food. Cougars must take care to avoid alligators where the ranges of those two killers overlap -- but the overlap isn far from complete. So cougars avoid subtropical waters in the Americas.

(Question: why did you insist on removing alligators and crocodiles from the superpredator gallery? Adult crocs and gators would seem the model illustrations of superpredators!)

Bobcats are significantly smaller than cougars and jaguars, but have more restricted ranges than cougars and almost no ecological overlap with jaguars. The European lynx, often confused with the bobcat, has much the same role as the North American bobcat in an environment in which it has wolves and bears to share its domain. Again, as solitary predators, bobcats and lynxes keep their distance from wolves and thrive on stealth tactics against solitary prey.

Now for the smaller cats. Nobody can doubt that the housecat is a formidable predator, and the only question of its primacy is whether it has a larger predator as an enemy. The domestic cat (including ferals) has the largest range of any cat species, and many places exist in which it is not the biggest cat. Small cats are prey for raptor birds, but more significantly dogs (whose predatory techniques are at times almost cat-like). But even with dogs, a confrontation between a cat and a dog of like size that goes violent is more likely to result in worse injuries to the dog.

Niches exist -- typically islands -- in which feral cats are the superpredators. On such islands, raptor birds, bigger cats, canids, and snakes do not exist. The cats are there capable of feasting upon birds, rodents, or hares, controlling their populations. Introduced and escaped cats can destroy native species. The role of the domestic cat in causing extinctions to numerous species is with only two parallels, and those to two bigger superpredators (dogs and humans). In its econological role, the domestic cat can default be the superpredator.

P.S. -- Alligators and crocodiles absolutely must go back to the gallery.

--Paul from Michigan 13:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate Picture

Given that it is supposed to be representing man as a superpredator, the vivitruan man seems inappropriate in this context; maybe something like http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/cf/M113.jpg but less over-the-top would be better?

I think we should have a picture of a caveman, to show man as an apex predator before he had superior technology to help him.

hii

Paradoxically, the Vitruvian Man (a drawing by Leonardo da Vinci which I introduced to preclude cultural bias) ahows tool use, language, and intelligence quite well. It is a stylized human, and one unlikely to have any cultural bias. I could argue that Inuit hunters are the most adept of all humans as hunters, but showing an Inuit hunter as a model of a super-predator would assert that those people are unusually nasty. They aren't; they are probably the most carnivorous of humans, and they do (or did until very recent times) as their environment dictates.

I would have preferred showing a human collaboration with a dog hunting together as an illustration of one of the deadliest combinations of predators to have ever existed, and one that may have made humans the ultimate superpredator.

Neanderthal Man would also qualify as a superpredator, but that is a different species from Homo sapiens. Do not use any image of Neanderthal Man as an image of a human, unless you are to show it as the extinct Neanderthal Man. Cro-Magnon Man, in contrast, is a modern human, and may be displayed as such.

But I would like a good picture, as I would for the electric eel and the cone shell. Change the species if you must...

--Paul from Michigan 05:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Animals as "national symbols"

The Eagle is not the symbol of Germany, the Phoenix is, and seeing as though this is a legendary animal I think its not worth mentioning.

 What a load of bullshit! The German coat of arms is quite clearly "Or an eagle sable, armed, beaked and langued gules", as even a cursory search would have shown.

Mythical creatures -- No!

Someone suggested that the "Chinese dragon" represents China. Mythical creatures should not fit in. Giant pandas are more closely linked in reality to China, and even if they are only slightly predatory (some fish and insects as supplements to a largely-bamboo diet), they (1) aren't prey as adults, and (2) look and act as if they used to be superpredators. Whether even slight predation is enough to make an animal at the top of the food chain a superpredator is a definitional quibble. --Paul from Michigan 05:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

This raises the question of: just who cares about superpredators? I understand that superpredators, especially ones large enough to pose a threat to humans who stray into their territory, have long fascinated people as deadly fighting machines and have an important role in folklore and popular culture. However, since their main defining characteristic is lacking natural enemies, I see no scientific reason why superpredators would be treated as a separate category from herbivores who are big and strong enough to have no natural predators. (Especially since the article explicitly states that not all apex predators are known to be keystone predators, where for the latter category it is obviously important that the species in question actually eats others.) Why does the trait of being at the "top of the food chain" depend on how long that food chain is? -- Milo

That's to keep such non-predators as elephants and giant redwood (trees) from being included.--Paul from Michigan 22:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Skunk

Yes, the skunk. It would be prey for numerous other predators except for a vile spray. Skunks have adequate senses for noticing a potential troublemaker (examples: humans, dogs, and cats) and creating an unpleasant experience for the troublemaker that prevents predation.

It is a predator, and as a creature not usually preyed upon, it qualifies as a superpredator. --Paul from Michigan 07:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

If the skunk is able to avoid predation 100% of the time as an adult, I'd be curious. It requires a source, anyhow as the your above comment is an OR deduction. Surely raptors can take a skunk. Marskell 10:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Great Horned Owls prey on skunks regularly—in some areas, skunk makes up the majority of their diet. It's not an apex predator. PenguinJockey 02:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Giant pandas can't avoid predation 100% as an adult either, even if they DO have few predators. Isn't that similar to skunks? And skunks are even MORE predatory. Wolverines have no predators either, but I don't see them mentioned. Sure, bears may occaisionally kill one, but not as PREY. Dora Nichov 10:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

HUMANS ARE NOT (BY NATURE) APEX PREDATORS!!!! back in the good old days we were eaten my tigers and the like on a fairly regular basis.... that's why my exwife's grandpa used to carry a spear around with him when he was a young man (southern thailand).

Humans are THE apex predator, period. Apex predator does not mean "never killed by another predatory species"; It means not a usual food source for other carnivores. We (humans) are actively hunted by NO animal, and we have/do actively hunt and kill EVERY other animal on the planet. Our intelligence IS natural, so our ability to make and use weapons and technology to hunt is, in fact, innate. Man's lethal prowess is his intelligence. You think a big cat has stealth and cunning? Not compared to a man with a rifle, able to kill his prey from distances so great the prey animal cannot even see or hear him! The old argument of taking away a Human's tools making him helpless is no more valid than if one were to remove another predators claws and teeth. And I tell you what......I guarantee that a fit human being can defeat another predator of equal size if that animal were to lack it's lethal tools!

Much love< Dr Mike thebrinydeep@gmail —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.24.169.74 (talk) 09:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Apex predator does not mean "never killed by another predatory species"; It means not a usual food source for other carnivores. -- Wrong. Apex predators are species that no other species preys on. We (humans) are actively hunted by NO animal -- false. -- 71.102.128.42 (talk) 23:03, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

The great carnivores generally fear retribution if they ever prey on humans -- with the possible exception of elephants (which have hunted down and killed poachers), Man is the only animal that hunts down its hunters. Man-eating is a fatal mistake even for a tiger. The one large land predator that has the obvious ability to kill and eat humans, the domestic dog, considers us better food sources alive than dead. Pbrower2a (talk) 23:53, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Anacondas And Cats Might Not Be An Apex Predator / References Cited

I was surprised to learn that giant otters can prey on anacondas.

http://www.tqnyc.org/NYC040957/04%20diet.htm

http://animal.discovery.com/fansites/jeffcorwin/carnival/waterbeast/giantotter.html

So I'm wondering if the large snakes should or should not be removed as an apex predator.

I added giant otter as an apex predator.

I cited a few references for the other apex predators. I provided references for lions, tigers, and jaguars as apex predators, to provide credibility for some of the big cats. I also provided a reference for Orcas, Wolves, and Eagles.

Edit: I have to discuss cats. I have 2 cats and like the idea of them being an apex predator, but the definition states "Apex predators (also alpha predators or superpredators) are predators that are not preyed upon in the wild." Just because they are kept in a human environment, with the environment made safe from predation from more powerful predators, doesn't mean that the animal is an apex predator.

By this logic, we could call any carnivorous pet an apex predator.

....

Large dogs are superpredators, as are dogs hunting with humans. Dogs of any size are not to be trusted with turtles, snakes, ferrets, or any birds. Cats? Dogs and cats usually figure each other out, and predators of similar abilities (note the dog-human relationship!) respect each other.

re: cats -- in some insular environments they have brought ruin to many ecosystems through predation upon animals unable to flee or to defend themselves. The cat is not a superpredator everywhere throughout its range (now almost anywhere that humans go), but it is the superpredator in some environments. Such places are common enough to give the cat niches as a superpredator. Where there are no large canids, raptor birds, giant snakes, crocodilians, bears, hyenas, or bigger cats, the domestic cat is a superpredator; many such places exist.

Feral cats form colonies for self-defense. It's hard to imagine any creature that would challenge a cat colony that has all those claws and teeth. --Paul from Michigan 17:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I have chosen to remove the picture of the cat on the grounds that the domestic cat is so similar to the big cats in build and behavior (and even deadliness to its prey), except for its companionship with humans. I have added it to the tiger caption. --Paul from Michigan 23:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

A rule

No further animals should be added here without a source saying "is an apex predator in X niche". Marskell 10:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

the Electric eel: 650 watt or 650 volt: Misprint?

This article mention that the electric eel generates 650 watt.

The article Electric eel states that "It is capable of generating powerful electric shocks of up to 650 volts".

Is this misprint of any of the two articles? Which one?

Or, may be, the authors mean that the electic eel produces the currenet of 1 ampere (which means that the electrical resistance of the surrounding water is 1.00 ohm)?

Well, what quantity should be used to characterize the electric shock?

I would characterize it with electric voltage as a function of time, or with electric current as a function of time. How to characterize it with a single parameter?

The effect of very short electric shock may be proportional to the integral of the electric current with respect to time, id est, the electric charge. In this case, the unit of the key parameter should be neither watt not volt, but Coulomb. Is it case of the electric eel?

In Culture

This section is really lacking in quality. I think it should be trimmed down to only a few examples. The section gets a little off topic. The concept of being an apex predator is usually not thought of when people think of these examples. My suggestion is to trim it a little. Justinmeister 00:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

List of apex predators

I'm moving the section of Images of Superpredators to a separate article called List of Apex Predators. Feel free to add any new animals to the list but make sure you find a reference before you do. Cheers. Justinmeister 20:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

What Animals Are Apex Predators?

No animal in the world is completely safe from predation, so we should stop removing some like leopards etc. A crocodile may eat a tiger or lion, though smaller ones will get preyed on by tigers and jaguars. Sperm whales may be taken down by a pod of orcas. A wolf on its own can be killed by cougars or bears. Cougars are eaten by alligators, though rarely. Great white sharks are eaten by orcas. A single army ant would be helpless, but a whole swarm could do considerable damage. The most poisonous creatures have enemies too, poison-dart frogs are preyed on by the frog-eating snake. Jellyfish are a main food source for sea turtles, and even cobras fall prey to mongooses. Anacondas can get eaten by giant otters, and these in turn may get killed by jaguars, which anacondas can take down rarely. Any sort of bear would be vulnerable to orcas in the ocean. And even eagles and owls would be easy prey for mammalian predators if not for their power of flight. So... which ones are apex predators? What I think is any omnivore or carnivore that isn't a regular prey item will suffice, whether it be so throughout its range or only regionally. Dora Nichov 12:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• That's the problem. It's difficult to determine which animal is an apex predator, as there doesn't seem to be a clear cut way of defining it. Therefore, we should only include animals that are classified as such by biologists. Verified, of course, by a reputable source, such as a published, peer-reviewed paper or a textbook of some kind. Justinmeister 19:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Are adult orcas preyed on by anything? They may be the true apex predator of the ocean. Certainly them over sperm whales or any shark? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bernie Roscoe (talk • contribs) 19:30, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Within their Environment!!!

Consider Apex predators within their environments. An Elephant in the Serengeti is an Apex Predator it fits the definition of an adult, are not normally preyed upon in the wild but move it out of it's ideal environment and it falls prey to man. The same can be applied to all other Apex predators. The key here is 2 things: 1. The animal is in it's ideal environment 2. Consider the fully grown Adult. Kendirangu 11:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

No, the elephant is not an apex predator! Look "predator" up in the dictionary! It has to be carnivore!!! An elephant is a HERBIVORE! By the way, if you don't even know what herbivore means, look that up as well. So...

1. The animal is in its environment
2. It's a healthy adult
3. It's a carnivore or at least omnivore
4. Healthy adults aren't normal prey for anything

And that's it. Dora Nichov 12:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Copyeditting/General Cleanup

This article reads very poorly because of its superfluous, winded or redundant examples. Many of these examples would be better off if they were made into bulleted lists. At the very least, it should be copyedited. --76.214.201.157 05:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Removed the "In culture" section

I removed the "in culture" section, as it was really unnecessary (link to my edit), especially in this article. If a hawk appears on the national symbol of Egypt or an eagle is the national symbol of a country, it hardly merits mentioning in the Apex predator article. Just mention it in the hawk/Egypt or eagle articles. No need for so many examples. Also, some of the examples seemed pretty trivial to me ("Lions and tigers and bears—Oh, my!" of Wizard and Oz???). BuddingJournalist 07:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite needed

This article really needs a complete rewrite by someone familiar with the subject. The concept of "Apex predator" is nebulously defined in the current article, and contains some odd examples (human+dog combination?). Citations would really help too. BuddingJournalist 07:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Humans and dogs are both nasty predators except to each other and perhaps a domestic cat that they might befriend. Were I contributing to this article from a non-human perspective, I would have to put humans in the same league with the orca, the Komodo dragon, big cats, wolves, bears, and crocodiles -- creatures not to be messed with.

Dogs are major killers of livestock and wildlife; dogs kill about 20,000 cattle a year. That itself qualifies a dog as a "big-game" hunter in its own right. Ask any cattle or sheep interests whether they want stray dogs lurking around their stock. Ask any poultry producer whether dogs are welcome. I've seen dead hens outside a chicken coop and I have no question of what happened to them.

Dogs are menaces to deer.

Humans are also dangerous hunters to most beasts of the earth. With the arguable exceptions of cetaceans, this is the most cunning creature on Earth and the most organized of all killers. Does anyone question that a hunter with a gun is one of the worst things that a game animal might see? That a dog may be necessary in such a hunt?

If you have seen the documentary film Winged Migration, then you may recall one of the greatest perils to birds: a man hunting with a gun and a dog. Even if the dog exists to flush birds to be shot or fetches the downed bird, the dog need not deliver the death bite to qualify as a killer. Dogs hunt in packs in much the same manner as wolves, except that the leader of the pack may be a human. Do we deny that a wolf is a killer just because it 'only' guides its prey toward the wolf that does the killing or drags downed prey from water? Likewise, what else could we call an animal that particpates in human fishing? A dog used in fishing, even if it "only" pulls the nets and guards the catch must then be considered a predator because its behavior is essential to the kill.

If it participates in the killing or fetches the killed prey the dog must then be considered a predator even if it only 'flushes' or 'fetches' they prey. The relatively-rare dog attack indicates the potential of this animal as a killer.

It may be unsettling to think of your beloved pet, no matter how trustworthy and affectionate it is, as a killer. But that's exactly what a dog is if it gets hungry and has to fend for itself. A dog is still a wolf, and wolves are formidable killers. If they are more specialized (human choice), they are still capable of wolf-like organization with the aid of an animal (humans) that themselves organize even more effectively than wolves.

Humans and dogs are now the two most-common large predators on land. The only question is how many dogs qualify as "large", a matter of definition.

In most of the world, humans and dogs are the two top predators in size, power, and cunning. As predators a human and a medium-sized dog are near-equals in the food chain.--Paul from Michigan 05:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I chose to use a lion as an example of a consummate social (super)predator in contrast to a tiger as a consummate solo (super)predator because of the obvious similarities of the two creatures. A wolf may be more social than a lion, but it is not so obviously similar to a tiger as is a lion. It may be picky on my part... but I think the contrast more effective. --Paul from Michigan 08:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree on the need for a rewrite. The first sentence/paragraph starts out well but then ends weakly. After a number of other muddled sentences, it just isn't clear what an apex predator is. Fixing this part would be a great help. I'll watch it for a while hoping that a biologist-type who can use the correct wording will take on the challenge. If not, I might take a swing at it myself.--CheMechanical 08:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Examples Section

Why does this section exist? We already have an article called List of Apex Predators. Justinmeister 21:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

As well, the extinct superpredators section is unneccesary as well. It's unreasonable to list every superpredator and explain why they qualify. That can be accomplished in each animals respectful article. Justinmeister 22:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Literary examples

Someone added an obscure book (The Terror) suggesting that a polar bear might have dispatched the crew of the Franklin expedition. A polar bear hunting people down and killing them would explain much... but so would a polar bear scavenging the dead bodies of forlorn travelers. So would expeditions members dying of hypothermia or drowning as they ended up on ice floes that themselves failed to hold their weight or drifted off and melted.

Kipling's The Jungle Book, Sienkewicz' Quo Vadis, and Benchley's Jaws are far better known, and more appropriately included. All three have had major cinematic treatments. Nobody yet knows why the Franklin expedition perished, so the conjecture that it died of polar bear attack, however reasonable, is itself "original research". I was tempted to delete reference to The Terror but refrained after finding that the author had won some awards for some novels.

Even if Jaws is almost contrafactual (humans are unsuitable prey for sharks because they have too little fat), it was a best-seller and at least one film treatment was quite successful. That lions and bears were used in Roman spectacles in which prisoners were murdered is attested in the Talmud, which prohibits dealings of lions and bears (I assume also tigers) to those who might use them in predatory spectacles that involve the killing of human victims.

I am tempted to dredge up the example of Daniel in the lions' den.--Paul from Michigan 15:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

'In Culture' Section

At the risk of being criticised for wandering in and making extensive changes, I've removed the section on 'In Culture'. My reason for this is simply that I don't believe the section contributes anything at all to the article - it's just a list of very tenuous and trivial links to fiction/mythology references, none of which add anything to the reader's understanding of the terms 'superpredator' or 'apex predator'.

References from holy texts relating to stories about animals rightly belong in the article for the holy text in question - assuming any given story is considered of sufficient significance to merit a specific mention.

Similarly, the use of predatory species in Roman games is no doubt fascinating; but again, this information belongs in articles about the species themselves, or, preferably, in articles relating to Roman spectacles.

The reference to the use of guard dogs by the Nazis is of no relevance. Many cultures and societies and groups have used guard dogs precisely because dogs can be trained to exhibit predatory behaviour.

The remainder of the references are flimsy at best, and simply don't add anything to the definition of this specific ecological term. Not one of the references in the 'In Culture' section was dependent on the animal being a superpredator - all are dependent only on the fact that the animals referenced are predators. - Shrivenzale 02:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Can we blank this page...

...and start again. I don't even know where to begin. Marskell 10:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Blanking is considered vandalism unless the material is a vanity page, patent nonsense, blatant non-NPOV, or major copyright violation. Some people find the article useful.

Face it -- the fault is a lack of a definition. This is an article in flux. There are articles on hyperpredation and hypercarnivores. Dolphins and seals perform hyperpredation upon shoals of fish but fall short of the superpredator category because they are prey for orcas and sharks; domestic cats are hypercarnivores but not always superpredators where they might be prey for dogs, raptor birds, bigger cats, or some snakes.

I understand where the disputes are; some people cannot accept that their cuddly, affectionate pooch is little less a killer than is a Big Cat. Face it: Man's Best Friend is one of the last animals that one could want as an enemy, and even if a dog attack usually results from some human folly, it is potentially lethal. The best defense that dogs and humans may have against each other is affection that keeps each other from becoming food for the other at some opportune time. I am convinced that wolves did not come to early human habitations except to eat more -- which implied that they would do even more killing of prey -- and more effectively with the aid of a creature even more cunning and with color vision and better tools. Humans may have been off limits as food to a wise wolf... but other than that, dogs seem to eat better than wolves to this day, and have become more common. Then again, some people contend that dogs are still wolves because they separated so recently and can still interbreed.

Because humans and dogs are the two most common large predators on land they deserve the attention that they get.

My suggestion: propose an alternative article if you want to try it -- here on the discussion page.--Paul from Michigan (talk) 20:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Total rewrites are fine (in fact there is a tag on the article asking for one). But don't blank the page as an intermediate. Either write an entire new article, or trim this back down to a stub. This article has no referencing at all, so no one can really adequately dispute against it. BE BOLD!!--ZayZayEM (talk) 23:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean blank the page literally but to to consider a complete rewrite. This is all OR. Marskell (talk) 17:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

And Paul, your opinion on dogs (or mine) is completely irrelevant. Wikipedia articles require reliable sources; this page has none. In fact, cutting this back to a two sentence stub would be well within policy bounds. Marskell (talk) 17:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

In fact, that is what I have done. I will help to work on it. Marskell (talk) 17:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

A google scholar search shows a large majority of papers use the term for aquatic species, interestingly. Marskell (talk) 18:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Old material

Do not readd this material unless you add reliable sources.

...and some predators are at the end of a food chain having only three stages (grass→deer→wolf), the bare minimum for inclusion. Some, like big cats, bears, hyenas, crocodiles, wolves and large dogs, some sharks, giant snakes, the leopard seal, the sperm whale, and the orca, are potential man-eaters, although most of them avoid aggression against humans. Even those not dangerous to humans (e.g., owls) are formidable predators in their niches. A species of an animal might be a superpredator in some environments but not in others; one such is the domestic cat, which as an introduced species has caused extinction of vulnerable species on oceanic islands and in the Australian Outback.

Formidability in a niche is not enough to make a creature a creature a superpredator. Preying mantises and bullfrogs can kill almost anything of their own size or smaller -- but they are themselves prey for much larger creatures. Venom, even if deadly, is inadequate to make a superpredator of a creature so fearsome as a rattlesnake that is prey for eagles, hawks, cats, pigs, kingsnakes, or roadrunners either immune to the sting or able to strike faster and more decisively than the snake. Box jellies and Portuguese Man o' War that can kill humans with their stings are routine food for some sea turtles also disqualified as apex predators that tiger sharks routinely prey upon. Even some seal and sea lion species are easy prey as adults for sharks, polar bears, and orcas; once onshore they have been killed by bears and lions as prey.

Such an animal as a river dolphin or the Baikal seal, either of which would be ordinary prey for orcas in the open ocean, have no such predators in their usual habitats and are thus superpredators.

All superpredators are at least part-time predators; strict filter-feeders are generally excluded, but such a creature as a whale shark that occasionally hunts and devours great numbers of herring qualifies. Such giant herbivores as elephants and hippopotamuses are excluded even if they are more dangerous to humans than are the big cats.

Ecological role

Overlapping ranges of different apex predators may cause some confusion, as some are much larger or differently adapted than others. A predator becomes an "apex predator" when the other species living alongside it cease to consider that animal prey or only attempt to attack it in the most dire of situations. For instance, although killer whales (orcas) occasionally attack and, even more rarely, feed upon great white sharks, both remain apex predators because such an occurrence is sufficiently rare for it to be considered a freak event. However, orcas frequently target leopard seals as prey, making seals a regular item on the menu, and thus seals are not apex predators (even though orcas are their only consistent predator). Tigers, lions, and crocodiles exemplify apex predators that occasionally interact violently with one another but do not normally risk contact with prey that might kill or cripple them.

Dogs might be vulnerable to larger and more powerful predators, but in many places they are the most powerful predator except for humans. Dogs and humans, arguably the two most common large predators on most lands, are more likely to co-operate in hunting than to attack each other; as such they are effectively peers as predators at the top of the food chain in most of the world. As collaborators dogs and humans participate in some of the most efficient hunting and even fishing, even if the dog is "only" a retriever, sled dog, or net-puller that can reasonably expect to share some of the catch. Power, speed, agility, strength, cunning, voracity, organization, intelligence, superb senses, and sharp teeth make dogs no less a deadly menace to much livestock and wildlife than are wolves.

The same weapons that make superpredators such formidable hunters (claws, talons, teeth, strength) typically make them superb defenders of themselves. Even so seemingly vulnerable a predator as the electric eel that uses electrical charge to kill small fish and crustaceans as prey can give a potentially lethal shock to even such an obviously dangerous animal as a caiman, jaguar, cougar, dog, giant otter, anaconda, or human, causing the misguided predator to seek something less troublesome.

Some apex predators ordinarily hunt singly—sperm whale, alligator, reticulated python, anaconda, king cobra, snapping turtle, eagle, and any cat other than the lion; some are highly social in their hunting strategies — lions, wolves, dogs, dingoes, African hunting dogs, dholes, orcas, harrier hawks, and the driver ants and fire ants that in some niches are top predators. In addition, the status of an apex predator depends only on its surroundings, not its innate hunting ability. All species are highly attuned to their environment, and apex predators more so. Outside of their normal context such a predator could easily become prey to unfamiliar species, as might a Komodo dragon in the grasslands alongside lions and hyenas. A sea star, cone shell, octopus, or sea anemone that might have predators elsewhere might be the arch-predator of some small tide pool.

Humans can be viewed as the "ultimate" apex predator if one applies the food-chain definition, as humans have largely eliminated the threat of being preyed upon in the wild, using technology, especially firearms, and even other animals such as dogs, falcons, cheetahs, horses, and elephants (even if the latter two are non-predators) to subdue, evade, or kill wild animals that pose danger. In certain regions of the world, however, mostly wilderness, humans are still a prey species. Predators such as lions, leopards, Nile crocodiles, and saltwater crocodiles retain notoriety for being "man-eaters", as the humans they interact with possess only relatively primitive defensive weapons. Still, by and large, humans have surpassed the evolutionary limitations of their bodies and as a result are safe from virtually all natural predators.

External links

• "Man-eating lions not aberrant, experts say," National Geographic News, January 4, 2004
• "Making the Case for Man-Eaters," National Geographic Today, October 9, 2003
• "Native Carnivores in the Southern Rockies

---

Says who? I note the lack of a signature from someone who has made an imperious cut. That was underhanded even if such was not intended.

Some of this is self-evident.

1. What is a reliable source, anyway? Could a filmed wildlife documentary be a reliable source qualify? Such is observation, the cornerstone of scientific inquiry. Unless the filming is discreditable for some reason, such as staged filming or photographic forgery, questionable purposes in the filming (propaganda or for shock value for a program of slight educational value), or that some subsequent research has discredited the interpretation, film seems as valid as a book. That film is in extensive use in schools to demonstrate the principles of all sciences, including biology, suggests the legitimacy of filmed sources -- with the usual caveats of reputability and educational value.

Fictional accounts do not qualify as sources, though they might qualify as illustrations, even if they have literary or cinematic merit (Moby Dick, Quo Vadis?, Jaws).

2. It is worth noting that early humans have gained dominion upon the Earth in part through predatory activities -- with the aid of tamed wolves (that is, dogs). Nothing in the definition indicates that humans and dogs, even if not full-time predators, are not superpredators'; they clearly share the top of the food chain in most land environments. Even if one notices that some humans raise dogs for meat, such dogs aren't the largest breeds. German Shepherds, Rottweilers, Great Danes, Mastiffs, and even St. Bernards would be far too dangerous to keep for such a purpose.

3. The minimal level of species required to have a chain leading to a superpredator is obviously three, as in (grass→gazelle→lion). Isn't that obvious? Does anyone question that a gazelle is a herbivore and that lions largely eat herbivores? Surely, even if lions on occasion kills a part-time predator (warthog, chimpanzee, baboon, human) as food, we know what lions largely eat: large herbivores. Antelopes. Gazelles. Cape buffalo. Zebras. Giraffes. Occasional hippos and sub-adult elephants.

4. Much of the discussion in the excised material is of definition. Some superpredators are obviously the largest and most imposing carnivores (big cats, wolves, bears, crocodilians, sharks, orcas, some whales); some are out of reach (largely birds, none of which approach the size of even wolves) of potential predators by their habitat.

But this isn't "Big, Bad, Predators", "Vicious Predators", or even "Giant Predators". The definition does not exclude a creature if it is cute, cuddly, tame (that is, predictable), or human. If anything, humans and dogs are the most ominous creatures that many of their prey could ever confront. After all, we are the most dangerous creature that has trod the Earth since at least T. Rex.

If such creatures as electric eels use the same method (electrical shock) that they use to kill prey to make themselves off limits to some much larger and deadly predators that might otherwise eat them. I have seen footage of electric eels giving non-lethal shocks to a caiman and have seen evidence that they can give a nasty shock to a human. I expect that a jaguar or dog somewhat similar in scale to a human would have good cause to avoid an electric eel.

Likewise, the infamous driver ants and fire ants might be picked off singly, but no animal could imaginably attack a swarm profitably. These animals are undeniably predatory.

4. Does hyperpredation -- that is, decimation of large populations of prey species -- qualify? This would include either dolphins utterly destroying shoals of fish (even if in unintended collaboration with seals, sharks, and sea birds) or feral cats driving some bird and mammal species into extinction. The Crown-of-Thorns starfish infamous for destroying coral reefs might qualify under this criterion.

5. One theme has caused confusion: whether the qualification is simply that the ability to prey upon humans establishes a creature as a superpredator. Except for the pig, all such creatures are generally recognized as apex predators somewhere... and I am not sure that the feral pig isn't the largest predator in some environents.

6. I have sought to show the breadth of predatory behavior -- which includes overwhelming size (sperm whale); striking silently and singly from the air, as does an eagle upon a hare; stealthy ambush, as by a crocodile just underwater in a river or by a big cat hidden in a grove; a well-organized hunt, as by wolves or lions; tool use (especially firearms) and collaboration with other creatures (dogs, hawks, cormorants, and cheetahs) that humans do with such lethality; remarkable strategy (harrier hawk); sheer force (giant snakes); overwhelming numbers (fire ants and driver ants); and intelligent exploitation of the environment (bears). To be sure, some of the techniques are built-in gimmicks, such as superb vision (owls and humans for specialized use), venom (king cobra, but only because the king cobra isn't prey for other animals), electric shock (electric eels, rays, and catfish which aren't closely related) and even echolocation (dolphins, where there isn't something bigger to attack them). Some are nasty cusses with near-invulnerability in their usual niche because of armor (snapping turtles) or disposition (badgers). Formidable techniques and lethality are not enough for an animal that has a significant predator throughout its range; even box jellies and Portuguese Man o' War that can kill humans with their stings face sea turtles that devour them readily and easily.

7. We cannot ignore location. Although seals and dolphins are obvious prey for orcas and sharks, at least two seal species seem to be out of range of them: the Baikal Seal (largely Lake Baikal) and the Weddell Seal, a seal that lives out of the range of all sharks and orcas. River dolphins, likewise, are out of range of any such predators.

Superpredator behavior is not all alike; we need a scope that demonstrates the breadth of biology and behavior of top predators. The cut deletes much valuable material that has been attacked not so much for demonstrable falsehood (which would be immediate cause for deletion in itself) or irrelevance, but instead because someone has become a 'source fanatic'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul from Michigan (talk • contribs) 12:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Reliable sources are defined on our Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policies. I strongly urge you to read these, particularly the second: you've clearly been conducting original research on this page and you're still doing so in your above post. Your making deductions about what is and is not an apex predator. You're deductions don't count; neither do mine. I didn't mean to be under-handed: I brought this up more than a year ago and was well within policy bounds. This old version does not have a single source. (The National Geo link could be incorporated, however.) Marskell (talk) 14:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

How far do we go?

So such statements as

• 5 + 3 = 8,

• Abraham Lincoln was the sixteenth President of the United States,

• Tokyo is the largest city in Japan,

• Carbon nuclei have six protons,

• California 1 largely follows the Pacific coastline,

• Dmitri Shostakovich wrote fifteen completed, numbered string quartets,

• The Boston Red Sox won the 2007 World Series,

and

• Lions prey largely upon large herbivores

need sources?

Such statements as

• Four-dimensional geometry has unsurmountable mathematics

• George W. Bush is the greatest (or worst) President in American history

• Tokyo has the world's worst traffic congestion

• "Berzelium" would be an appropriate name for the (still-undiscovered as of 2007) 120th element

• California 1 is the most beautiful highway in the world

• The string quartets of Dmitri Shostakovich are greater expressions of music than are those of Béla Bartók

• One can now compare the 2007 Boston Red Sox favorably to the 1927 New York Yankees

and

• Crocodiles are the most fearsome known predators

would all be controversial opinion. That's why I try to avoid making esthetic judgments except as repudiation of blatant nonsense. If someone tried to state that the Ohio Turnpike west of greater Cleveland is scenic, I would delete it in an instant because it fails the "joke test" of reality (as in, "Danielle Steele creates the finest literature") But even for California 1 (which is spectacular) I could introduce so very different an alternative as Vermont 9, which has different features (landforms and vegetation).

And crocodiles? The late Steve Irwin could tease the crocs to force them to display their behavior knowing that he could outrun them once the croc was on land after it left its pool. I never saw him do such in the presence of a big cat, bear, or even a dog that could outpace him on land. Under some circumstances I could argue that a dog is even more deadly than a crocodile which kills only for food or self-defense, a well-fed crocodile being less dangerous than a mother bear with cubs. Then again, I'm not the sort who throws stones at Great Danes, and I'm not a burglar who takes the chance of getting mauled or killed upon meeting an animal that has many tiger-like characteristics of behavior and build. It is obvious, after all, that only a fool dares make an enraged enemy out of "Man's Best Friend" or so starve it that its only way of achieving short-term survival is to kill whatever is available (including an unfortunate person) for food. Or do I need a source to state that dogs have sharp teeth, sharp claws, powerful muscles in their legs and jaws, and and an intimate knowledge of human vulnerabilities? That it is a voracious and unfussy eater?

(I once had a citation of a repeated incident in a Nazi concentration camp in which dogs under control of brutal handlers killed inmates -- as demonstrated in a legal conviction, one of the accused being sentenced to death. Someone removed that citation! Maybe it was too gruesome, even if it was genuine, for some tastes).

For your apparent satisfaction, at least as I interpret your dictate, every sentence would have to be either direct quotation of public-domain material (to avoid copyright violations) or have a citation. No commercial encyclopedia could ever go to that level even with expert contributors paid extremely well -- which would require that Wikipedia become a less-widely-usable pay-per-use or advertiser-supported (and editorially compromised) entity. At such a level one might as well buy a disc version of such an encyclopedia as Encyclopedia Britannica even in the knowledge that such a collection of knowledge is obsolete on current events and has limited scope.

What is in a talk page does not need to be encyclopedic. But even the articles result from co-operative development. Patent nonsense and overt vandalism don't last long in an article widely read. Neither does awkward grammar or quirky prose.

Most of us have seen film of predation at work -- and we see polar bears dispatching seals, and not making meals out of concrete blocks. Such knowledge is common knowledge among those who give a damn.

To be sure, I would not consider adding the material that I put in last time into the main page without major modification. Falsity must of course be excised, as must indefensible opinion.

Now, I ask you: is filmed material a valid source? Because marketable film almost as a rule has scripted commentary, deliberate structure, and at least the editing of improvised responses it is considered a literary exercise if it is any good. (That of course distinguishes home movies, surveillance film, and "shock video" from the higher grade of documentary suitable for widespread viewing or inclusion in school curriculum. I reject (sure, this is opinion) the contention that all knowledge must originate in a book; sometimes the ancient Chinese proverb "a picture is worth a thousand words" is a severe understatement. Besides, most knowledge begins with observation.

So it was with Jacques Cousteau's undersea excursions that extended marine biology beyond the seashore and the bias of commercial fishermen and whalers. So it is with David Attenborough. So it was (with some qualifications) with Steve Irwin and Marlon Perkins. Or the many wildlife photographers of National Geographic -- magazine, coffee-table book, or film.

How is film to be cited?66.231.41.57 (talk) 07:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

A video's reliability would depend on the publisher. YouTube is not a reliable source, for instance: it lacks editorial oversight and any of its videos might have been doctored. An ABC news clip, by contrast, would be considered reliable. For this page, general news outlets are not best, however; actual zoological sources should be found.

"Lions prey largely upon large herbivores," would not need a source as, per WP:V, it's not a statement likely to be challenged. "Crocodiles are the most fearsome known predators" is just silly. Statements of this sort try to compare apples and oranges and that's not what the professional literature is concerned with.

See WP:CITE for info on formatting sources. Marskell (talk) 12:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course. "Crocodiles are the most fearsome known predators" is silly not only because it introduces peacock words, but also because it is contestable. The crocodile that a person can easily run from or that isn't the immediate peril that a threatening grizzly bear that one can't outrun poses. That's circumstance; one doesn't contemplate the prospect of the End of the Universe when one has a confrontation with a bear.

I have added two obvious examples of land superpredators, with references: lions and tigers. The tiger is shown to have only one threat: human poaching. The lion is shown to have only one threat: human trophy hunting. Because poaching and trophy hunting are not normal behavior for any species other than humans, and such illicit hunting does not ordinarily lead to the collection of meat for human consumption or that of domesticated animals, the lion and the tiger are land superpredators -- or nothing is.

Would a BBC, National Geographic (but not for National Geographic Channel, owned by the oxymoronic News Corporation (my opinion, to be sure, but I'm hardly alone in that), a/k/a FoX) or Jacques Cousteau documentary fit? Even if they are "edutainment", they:

• 1. are not made for shock purposes
• 2. have extensive editorial (including scientific) control
• 3. have educational merit
• 4. carefully document known phenomena
• 5. are unstaged, or are staged with a stated and valid excuse
• 6. are not made as propaganda (example: pro- or anti-hunting)
• 7. are not fiction
• 8. (on points) are not introduced material from a layman without obvious defense from an editor

To be sure, they could be factually obsolete or in error -- not that scientific journals accessible to comparatively few people and with greater rigor -- but with the virtue of greater accessibility? Ignore celebrity voiceover artists; ignore esthetic effects or other populist touches; these offer appeal, but not authority. Educated and refined observation is essential to all science.

Note the qualification that I placed on National Geographic Channel; NGS videos produced for other entities (PBS, Turner Broadcasting) aren't so questionable for neutrality as those made for FoX. In view of the suspect quality of such FoX "documentaries" as When Good Animals Go Bad as well as the political bias that Fox demonstrates. I wouldn't cite Greenpeace material, either.

Unless a topic entails knowledge at the fringe of human ability to comprehend (quantum physics), or the absollute necessity of specialized education (medicine as applicable to clinical practice) Wikipedia must be intellectually accessible for most possible users. If it becomes accessible only to grad students and PhDs it loses some of its intended utility. Intellectual rigor that is obviously necessary for quantum physics does not apply to ecology, something that one need be an expert to understand except at the cutting edge. At a certain level of intellectual rigor, one imposes the barriers that Scientific American Magazine has to persons who have no possible access to post-secondary education. Wikipedia may not get away with sacrificing credibility for populist appeal; it cannot sacrifice logical rigor and insistence upon fact. Neither does the Nature series on PBS or National Geographic Magazine. But Wikipedia maintains one great asset that even the most rigorous scientific journal, let alone a mass-market documentary can: it is never in final form, and it corrects itself as a printed journal cannot. A retraction in JAMA of an article from the past does not change old editions in circulation.--Paul from Michigan 09:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Humans and dogs

Nothing in the definition excludes a creature as a superpredator if it is "cute", "cuddly", or "us". If it is at the highest trophic level and is at least a part-time predator, then it fits the definition, even if it is an adorable pet most of the time that occasionally hunts, alone, in a pack, or in concert with some other predator and faces no predator in some parts of its range. There are no wolves, bears, big cats, sharks, crocodilians, giant snakes, hyenas, leopard seals, piranhas, or killer whales in the wild (unless escaped zoo animals or "exotic pets" -- freakish circumstances which seem to violate the word "normally" in the definition) in most of the American Midwest. Unless one can show that some creature dispatch either humans or large dogs, then the only animals that can prey upon either humans or large dogs in most of the American Midwest are either themselves or each other, and because they do so rarely, they are by definition superpredators in that part of the world. The only qualification would be for a human or a dog that has chosen vegetarianism. If one consumes a steak or buys a leather jacket willingly and in knowledge of its provenance -- that it used to be part of a creature of the Bos genus killed for its meat and hide on the behalf of a human consumer -- then one is a predator at least by proxy.

Much human hunting and fishing is, strictly speaking, predatory. I won't let dogs off the hook; they are major killers of wildlife and livestock. --Paul from Michigan 09:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Paul, no one has said anything about dogs not being predators because they're cute and cuddly, so I'm not sure why you keep bringing it up. The example isn't ideal though, as you're essentially calling them alpha predators with human assistance.

In any case, find a source for these points, if you'd like to include them. Marskell 17:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Marskell on this one. No one is using the arguments you are countering Paul. You raving on about it only further serves to paint you as someone trying to push an unsourced agenda through OR. Please familiarise yourself with wikipedia guidelines and policies on [{WP:CITE|citing sources]], original research (including WP:SYNTH), reliable sources, verifiability, fringe theories, Balance and editing article abouts topics you like--ZayZayEM (talk) 01:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I got the dog in as a menace to livestock and wildlife. More widespread than any other large predator other than humans, and far more common than any carnivore except perhaps the domestic cat, it deserves recognition as the effective "big cat" in much of the world.

In these case the dog needs no "assistance" from humanity except to get it within range of other creatures. If anything, predatory behavior by dogs is almost invariably unwelcome.--Paul from Michigan (talk) 23:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Improve context suggestions

Do we have a diagram illustrating trophic levels. This is not a topic directly involved in apex predation, and would be better illustrated by a diagram with accompanying prose rather than text alone.

I also feel that there is a fair bit missing from this article that makes it hard to access from a non-ecology/biology background.--ZayZayEM (talk) 01:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

This old section seems to be valid

Formidability in a niche is not enough to make a creature a creature a superpredator. Preying mantises and bullfrogs can kill almost anything of their own size or smaller -- but they are themselves prey for much larger creatures. Venom, even if deadly, is inadequate to make a superpredator of a creature so fearsome as a rattlesnake that is prey for eagles, hawks, cats, pigs, kingsnakes, or roadrunners either immune to the sting or able to strike faster and more decisively than the snake. Box jellies and Portuguese Man o' War that can kill humans with their stings are routine food for some sea turtles also disqualified as apex predators that tiger sharks routinely prey upon. Even some seal and sea lion species are easy prey as adults for sharks, polar bears, and orcas; once onshore they have been killed by bears and lions as prey.

as an essential negative definition that rules out some creatures as illustrations of violations of the definition. The eating habits of those species and that they are prey are well established. Does one need a definition of "formidability"? --Paul from Michigan (talk) 05:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Big cats not apex predators

Should Lions be removed from this classification or should a conflicting article Lion be edited for quote "The lion is an apex and keystone predator, although they will resort to scavenging if the opportunity arises."?

Absolutely not! We are not rejecting animals as apex predators if they are only part-time predators. Scavenging, strictly speaking, is not predation any more than is feasting upon grains or fruit (humans, dogs, wolves, bears). Part-time predators (humans, dogs, and grizzly bears) at the top of the food chain are by definition superpredators. One can reject as a superpredator an animal that lives entirely by scavenging even if it is at the top of the food chain (most vultures) because no large animal is likely to take cover because of a vulture. Likewise, the presence of a giant panda, which occasionally kills fish or mice as prey isn't likely to shape the behavior of animals such as deer that it can never catch -- even if a panda would gladly eat venison if given the opportunity. Humans, bears, wolves, and dogs are bad news to any animal that might see it as food even if such creatures are not obligate carnivores.

Most predators (humans obviously excepted, along with dolphins, seals, snakes, and spiders) scavenge if they must. Scavenging is carnivorous behavior, and almost any voracious predator (examples: canids, bears, cats, hawks, sharks, monitor lizards, and crocodilians) is an efficient scavenger even if not an apex predator (crabs and lobsters). Scavenging is usually easier than hunting, but it does not always present itself as an opportunity. I have seen dogs eat road-kill deer, and wolves feast upon carrion in the winter.

As a rule, any apex predator is bad news to potential prey. Predators and prey are often in evolutionary struggles, behavioral as well as physical, to continue catching prey -- and avoid becoming prey. Such an animal as a Thompson's gazelle has been honed to avoid becoming food for big cats by becoming faster than the cats; the big cats must get increasingly clever as well as swift if it is to catch a gazelle.

... To reject an animal as a superpredator because it occasionally scavenges or eats much vegetable material is to ensure that many biomes have no superpredator, an absurd situation that would cut the significance of the article to triviality.. In much of the world, that in which dogs and humans are the effective top of the food chain, such a rejection would establish that in some parts of the world there is no superpredator. Even such an animal as the grizzly bear, less carnivorous than either dogs or humans, would be rejected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul from Michigan (talk • contribs) 18:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

         I never requested Lion be removed from the classification of apex predator, only questioned      
         should this article state "or the big cats are not apex predators because they are not predators".
         Otherwise I see two conflicting articles. Personally I believe big cats should be listed as an        
         apex predator and the quoted line removed from the article entirely. Typera - 20:19 -2008-03-12  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Typera (talk • contribs) 07:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC) 

Polar Bears

I find it strange that the Polar Bear is quoted as the largest land predator, is the fact that a kodiak bear is bigger something of a predator forgotten. The kodiak bear is generally longer and normally heavier than the polar bear, it even says so in their Wikipedia entry. Gryphon 83.67.115.242 (talk) 14:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Reduction to a definition = vandalism

I have reverted a major cut that verges on vandalism. What remained after that cut was a veritable definition that itself falls short of an article of encyclopedic scope.

If someone wishes to modify the text incrementally, then such is appropriate. That includes, of course, consolidations of text and removal of disputed material. Such is better done with a scalpel than with a meat cleaver.

The definition of a superpredator is obvious enough: that in some of its normal environment as a healthy adult it a predatory creature not subject to predation at any obligatory stage of its existence except by members of its own species. For example, the most dangerous animals to dogs are usually other dogs, and the most dangerous animals to crocodilians are usually other crocodilians of the same species. Sources for all animals considered superpredators are cited. Maybe the word "superpredator" or the phrases "top predator" or "apex predator" are not used, but in least those that I have used, the context fits the definition. For example, in much of the world, dogs and humans share the top of the food chain even if some parts of the world have creatures (crocodilians, giant snakes, big cats, bears, sharks, killer whales, bears, and hyenas would kill one or the other. In much of the world, dogs and humans are the top predators, especially where the two creatures cooperate in hunting. That range of biomes is large enough that both animals must be ranked as superpredators in much of the world lest there be no superpredators where they are the top killers of wildlife. If the Komodo Dragon qualifies as a superpredator throughout its range, then one must recognize dogs and humans as superpredators at least in biomes such as the British Isles where they face no larger killers. That they range into areas in which some other larger and more dangerous creatures live should not cloud the issue.

All superpredators evoke fear by their presence. Does anyone question that deer have good cause to flee humans or dogs -- but not cattle?

Where citations are not included on creatures, then those are defined out of the category or are used to demonstrate that the creature is not a superpredator. Thus, even if pigs are not considered superpredators, their ability to eat rattlesnakes demonstrate that rattlesnakes are not superpredators.

Can some creatures be superpredators in some environments and not in othes? Certainly. Lions have good cause to not try to swim in crocodile-infested waters, and Nile crocodiles have good cause to avoid going an excessive distance away from waterways where they can get away easily from lions. Lions are land predators; crocodiles are aquatic predators. I can imagine one predator that could make short work of a tiger: a killer whale. But even at that, the tiger is not a hunter of the open ocean, and it faces no obvious threat except for an armed human or other tigers on land.

The article is reverted. Please -- change it by editing out questionable material instead of trashing the article.--Paul from Michigan (talk) 07:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Paul, I appreciate that you want to add to the encyclopedia but clearly you do not understand critical policies, particularly no original research. You cannot decide what is an apex predator. A source must say it first. That's it. It's very simple. If the source does not mention the term apex predator you cannot use it here to claim an animal is one. Even worse, you are coming up with your own completely tangential, unsourced commentary. Marskell (talk) 08:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Fitting the definition is adequate. I do not need some official source to tell me that an object that I make out of three joined line segments is a triangle or at least a representation of one. That the cited source leaves no ambiguity that the animal fits a reasonable definition of an apex predator should be adequate. Some conclusions are implicit -- not explicit. The sources typically come from government agencies, universities, or publications. Government agencies (let us say an Environmental Ministry, a State Fish and Game Department, or the US Department of the Interior) are obvious enough. Universities? Even if much of the contributed material is from students, one can assume that some PhD exercises some editorial control to maintain credibility of the institution. Magazines? If it's National Geographic it has some editorial control and a staff of fact-checkers, and if it's the National Enquirer (ask Carol Burnett on the legal definition of a magazine in a libel case that she won) it is likely to put shock value that sells editions over accuracy.

Peer-reviewed material is an impossible standard. It's inaccessible to most people due to its expense and rarity, and under the strictest standard -- that the article must describe the creature with the defined word. Most of us can easily recognize what animals eat what other animals. So if an article says that the orca or tiger is a prolific and efficient predator exempt from attacks from other predators... under your criteria, then that's not an adequate source, at least as I understand your critique.

The best way to deal with a faulty source is to refute it.

So what is the definition?

1. Top of the food chain in a significant part of its range as a healthy adult.

That rules out animals that might be predator as well as prey throughout their ranges and lifecycles, such as salmon. That allows an animal that might be a top predator in a large range -- humans and dogs so that an animal such as a Komodo dragon is not defined as a superpredator just because its range does not overlap with that of tigers. If dogs and humans are the top two land predators in Ireland, then both animals get at least as much credibility as superpredators as does the Komodo dragon; Ireland is of course much larger than Komodo.

An animal stumbling into an area in which it does not belong (a lion in crocodile-infested waters or a crocodile not within easy range of water when in the presence of lions) is not disqualified. That a tiger would be prey for an orca if it went into the open ocean where orcas lurk is a freakish circumstance.

Any injured or sick animal -- even a tiger -- is likely prey. All creatures eventually become decrepit.

2. Predatory, obtaining a significant part of its caloric intake from the flesh of creatures that it has killed.

That rules out such non-predators as elephants, giant redwoods, and animals so slightly predatory as the giant panda. It also rules out animals that are far better described as scavengers than predators (such as most vultures).

3. Not obligated to forage in areas in which it is usual prey for some other creature.

That rules out Emperor penguins that must forage for food in waters infested with leopard seals. That probably rules out the chimpanzee, relatively safe in trees, but vulnerable on the ground.

4. Cannibalization within the species does not deny superpredator status. For many animals, the biggest menace is larger animals of its own species. A lion cub, a sub-adult alligator, or even a dog is subject to the hazards of membership in an aggressive species, and that's before one even discusses murder, as the animal posing the greatest danger to humans is fellow humans. If anything, being more at risk from members of one's own species than from other animals is one indicator of being at the top of the food chain.

As for the commentary: it's necessary for cohesion.Paul from Michigan (talk) 22:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Clearly it is an animal that a wide variety of other creatures recognize as an overt danger as a predator, not one simply to be avoided because of its defenses against a would-be attacker. Elephants of course confront any social predators (humans, lions, canids) that get too close because such are the only animals that pose any threat of predation. Most others attempt either flight, camouflage, burrowing, mimicry, or concealment upon the presence of a superpredator, or rely upon spines, venom, or impenetrable shells as a defense.

I interpret something like "top of the food chain and an effective predator" as an adequate statement that an animal is a superpredator. If such a statement is made in blatant error, then all that is necessary is a refutation.

As you can probably figure, one of my thresholds is dogs and humans. Any predator more formidable than either is almost certainly a superpredator. I'm willing to accept that a small dog is potential prey for hawks and eagles, and that both humans and dogs of any size are potential prey for bears, big cats, hyenas, crocodilians, giant snakes, sharks, leopard seals, and some cetaceans. In some parts of the world, humans and large dogs are the largest and most powerful killers in the area. Small dogs might be human food in some parts of the world -- but not big ones. Rottweilers and German Shepherds are not the sorts of dogs that anyone would raise to be served on a table. Either would be prey for tigers in the Sundarbans... but not in Japan, which has no big cats, bears, crocodilians, giant snakes, hyenas, sharks or cetaceans inland.

But even at that, I am willing to accept that in ecology some definitions don't have quite the rigidity that one might expect in particle physics. An animal might be a superpredator in some places and not others.

"Fitting the definition is adequate." No it is not. You're simply wrong on this, with regards to Wikipedia policy. Please read here. The remainder of your explanation is (as ever) you ticking off your own definitions and interpretations—precisely what we are not supposed to be doing on site. Despite bringing up dogs ad naseum, you have yet to produce a single source calling them an apex predator. Marskell (talk) 14:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Fitting the definition would seem adequate so long as the definition is germane. I Googled the word "superpredator" and found copious references to juvenile criminal offenders. That description might fit some other definition of "superpredator" in criminality -- but not this one in ecology. Context matters greatly. Some human who goes fishing with a rod and reel and catches fish that the family (and perhaps the family dog) devours is an ecological (if by no means criminal) superpredator -- that is, unless the fisherman lives and fishes in the tiger-infested Sundarbans in which humans are prey.--Paul from Michigan (talk) 22:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Dogs and humans, again

We have a definition, peer-reviewed, for "superpredator" in marine environments -- an animal at or above the fourth trophic level. That includes such creatures as Emperor penguins, sea otters, bottlenose dolphins, giant octopuses, squid, harbor seals, cone shells, sea anemones, box jellyfish, the Portuguese Man O'War, loggerhead turtles, chinook salmon, marlins, beluga whales, and great white sharks, all predators upon predatory fish or cnidarians but themselves subject to predation by other creatures -- such as the orca. That allows a wide variety of animals that would be considered superpredators except by the highest standard -- a predatory animal at the top of the food chain. In the sea, that would allow only as few as three animals to be considered superpredators -- the orca, the sperm whale,and humans -- and would reduce the category to a preposterously-small category. An analogy would be an article on extant species of genus Homo, which of course includes only one species -- humans.

On land, the minimum trophic level is obviously three, as such creatures as humans, big cats, large canids, giant snakes, hyenas, and bears that prey upon large herbivores generally aren't themselves prey. Raptor birds and crocodilians are generally exempt from predation, too, but they often are at the fourth or higher level when they prey upon predatory fish.

Because some creatures might operate at the second, third, and higher levels routinely [example: a grizzly bear that eats berries (second trophic level), deer (third) or fourth (when it eats salmon)] -- a top predator, even part-time -- the trophic-level definition applicable at sea isn't applicable on land. Although scavengers are not considered predators when scavenging, most large predators scavenge on occasion.

We have generally reduced the superpredator category on land to exclude animals that on occasion reach the fourth trophic level (rat, preying mantis, weasel, peccary, blue jay) that are routine prey throughout their ranges to other creatures. Domestic cats? That depends on a location, one in which the cat (often feral) is the largest predator. That makes sense in that the word superpredator seems to suggest an animal that imposes fear on others of being eaten and generally is exempt from such fear. That's a rather small group of animals on land -- humans, big cats, large canids, giant snakes, hyenas, bears, and the Komodo dragon; top killers from the skies (eagles, hawks, falcons, great horned owls); and semi-aquatic killers, including crocodilians and giant otters. If there is any common feature of such diverse creatures, these are animals not to be messed with.

Some have small ranges (the Komodo dragon, limited to a few islands); some are nearly ubiquitous (humans, dogs). Sure, there are animals that can prey upon humans... but in much of the world, those animals have a healthy respect for humans if they are even present. Dogs? That depends on size, location, training, and organization. The infamous pit bull is usually trained by having it attack and kill (and probably eat) smaller animals. The less troublesome greyhound is trained to chase rabbits before it races "professionally"; those that never develop the speed with which to catch rabbits don't race. When retired from racing to lives as pets, they are menaces to squirrels that can get away from any other breed of dog quickly enough.

Dogs in packs can at the least tree what they don't catch. That includes bears and cougars, at times in hunts with humans. In the United States, dogs are the #1 predatory threat to livestock and large wildlife. If large, attack-trained, in a pack, or hunting with humans, dogs might as well be "big cats". How large is "large"? I'd put the pit bull in the "large" category as a predator on its own merits. All in all, no cattleman or sheepherder wants an unfamiliar dog around the flock or the herd any more than a cattleman or sheepherder wants a bear, wolf, or cougar around.

Ecological role itself suggests that dogs and humans are themselves superpredators as the biggest devourers of meat on land. Yes, there are places where even large dogs are not top predators, as where there are alligators, crocodiles, hyenas, wolves, big cats, giant snakes, or bears -- but that's a large part of the world. But there are far more places where the Komodo dragon wouldn't have a chance, either. On sea? I can think of lots of animals that would make short work of a dog -- but they would also make short work of a tiger, too.

Humans and dogs are the top two predators in much of the world, and where they have driven out or destroyed their likely competition, any refusal to recognize them as superpredators suggests that in that niche, there is no superpredator. Raising animals to be killed and eaten is no less predatory than is stalking them and overpowering them with teeth and claws. Catching fish with nets or rod and reel only to eat them later is no less predatory than the methods that killer whales use upon herring.--Paul from Michigan (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Refs from List of

I now suggest that this article be redirected to Predation, which contains most of the material surviving in this article. References may be moved to that article.--Paul from Michigan (talk) 05:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Elephants and co

I see that the issue has already been brought up, but not answered plausibly in my mind.

Why aren't elephants, and other non-prey herbivores, included among apex predators?

Why should an animal be a carnivore to qualify? Predation on plants is just as much predation as predation on animals. See the article predator, which includes grazing as a form of predation. The grazing article itself is explicit: "Grazing generally describes a type of predation in which a herbivore feeds on plants (...)".

Elephants are predators, in that biological sense, and are not prey; they thus are apex predators. I see no reason not to include them.

If the issue is that elephants do not fit the public's idea of what it is to be an apex predator - fierce eye and claw, teeth dripping blood - then the article is not about a biological notion, but about a popular myth; that should be plainly stated in the article.

David Olivier (talk) 09:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

That is the first time I have ever heard grazing or any other form of herbivoury described as "predation". Neither the predation nor the grazing articles have any sources for classing grazing as predation. Furthermore, the predation article describes killing other animals to eat them as "true predation". If other forms of "predation" are not "true" predation, then arguably they are not predation. Wardog (talk) 13:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd say to the contrary that “predation” is routinely used among biologists to describe all cases where one organism eats another, irrespective of the “kingdom” of the eaten organism. Another example is the food chain article, where the sentence “On average, only 10% of the organism's energy is passed on to its predator” refers to a food chain where the base is phytoplankton and algae.

OK, you asked for an independent source. A quick search on the Web brings: Robert D. Davic, “Herbivores as Keystone Predators”:

For those uneasy with the suggestion that plants can function as prey species for herbivores, I offer the following from Wilson and Bossert (1971, p. 127):

....ecologists define predation in its broadest possible sense: the eating of live organisms, regardless of the identity of the organism. Predation includes the consumption of plants by animals, called herbivores....

Another page: “Predation”: To feed on another living thing is to be a predator, to partake in predation. Even herbivores are predators of sorts, although by predators we usually mean those animals that kill and consume animal prey relatively quickly. These are the true predators, and often dwell at, or near, the top of the food chain. That is a rather confusing statement, just like the WP article speaking of true predataors and... untrue (?) ones. I'd say that if something is not a true X, then it is not an X at all; but if I feel the urge to classify it as an X, albeit “not a true one”, it means that it really is an X, but just not the kind that comes in mind when I think of a typical X.

In other words, for biologists, like for anyone, what comes in mind when they think of a predator is something like a lion; but when they think systematically, as biologists, they include herbivores among predators.

My rant about elephants is concerned with that distinction. Either this article is about a biological notion, and then it should include herbivores among the predators; or it is about a popular theme, that of lions and tigers and tyrannosauruses rexes and sharks and eagles, who dominate and terrorise the world, sit on the apex of creation and so on, but then it should abandon all pretense of presenting a scientific notion.

As it is, the article functions as a pseudo-scientific validation of that popular myth. And that is not right.

David Olivier (talk) 23:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Another example is the WP article named Seed predation. That's about animals who eat seeds, not about seeds that eat animals!

If there are no further objections, I think I can modify the article so as to include elephants, etc.

David Olivier (talk) 23:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no need to be overly technical. I could make the case that Elephants more closely resemble parasites than predators. Since predation is an act that always results in the death of the prey, whereas parasitism involves feeding off of another life form over a period of time without purposefully killing it. As we all know elephants feed off fruit and leaves from trees, but do not kill them, or only incidentally kill them like other parasites might. If we apply definitions too strictly without looking at the intention of the word, we defeat the purpose of that word. Of course, elephants are not parasites and they are not predators; they don’t belong in the apex predator section.GuruJones (talk) 19:27, 9 April 2010 (UTC)GuruJones

Elephants and giant redwoods are consumers at the top of the food chain, but they are not what most people consider predators. It is reasonable to recognize that the ecological role of apex predator applies to an creature, at least partially carnivorous, at the top of a food chain. Sheer brutality as a predator (rattlesnakes and domestic cats) does not qualify an animal as a top predator if some animals make regular meals of them throughout their range (although the domestic cat is surely the top predator where it is the largest killer, as on some islands and in some areas of the Australian outback too dry for dingoes, crocodilians, and giant snakes).

For terrifying animals to most herbivores consider humans and dogs (the latter if large, in packs, or if hunting with humans), in many instances sharing the roles of top predators. Dogs aren't always apex predators -- at least not where there are big cats, bears, giant snakes, hyenas, sharks, or orcas, but there are many places in which the dog is a peer only to humans; dogs and humans rarely prey upon each other, and ordinarily avoid conflict. It is possible to argue that the dog takes the role of a Big Cat in many places, as its physiology and talents are similar. To be sure, small dogs are easy prey for hawks -- but big ones are off limits to predatory birds.

OK -- humans and dogs are horrible animals to face as enemies, just as are lions, tigers, jaguars, hyenas, wolves, orcas, crocodiles, alligators, bears, sperm whales, Komodo dragons, leopard seals, anacondas, and reticulated pythons. But can an animal not so terrifying be a superpredator?

Carnivorous animal at the top of a food chain -- and that could be an otter in a lake or river, some dolphin and seal species living in rivers where no sharks or orcas are to be found, badgers and wolverines that fight too hard to be worth the effort, and electric eels, rays, or catfish for which no predator has a defense. That includes snapping turtles (bad bite but never lethal) and predatory birds that nest out of the reach of any predators but pose no obvious danger to humans. Some animals might have immunity to venom (example: a king snake to a rattler), but none has a defense against electric charge -- not humans, dogs, jaguars, piranhas, giant otters, caimans, or egrets that routinely dine on fish similar in size to an electric eel within its range. --Paul from Michigan (talk) 16:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

"from grassland into tundra through predation on seabirds"

Could someone clarify (in the article itself) whether this is a "good" change? I.e., does it improve biodiversity and or amount of life? Ingolfson (talk) 11:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      sharks eat fish and seals so they are like wolfs and some birds.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.125.54.25 (talk) 21:48, 29 January 2010 (UTC) 

Reference section

There are a number of references in the section that are not cited within the article. This reference list needs updating. Uncited references should be moved to a "See also" section if they're still noteworthy. Emble64 (talk) 17:44, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Dogsled image

I have a link that includes (from Wikicommons) that whose image includes two of the deadliest predators in the world, all the more lethal because of their cooperation. It appears at this stage as a raw jpg, but if it can be turned into an image...

Except for good behavior toward humans, a large dog has all the usual characteristics of typical large carnivores -- power, speed, agility, strength, voracity, intelligence, and aggression... and sharp teeth and claws with powerful muscles behind them and keen senses -- except for the willingness to eat humans. In much of the world this is the largest predator other than himself that Man tolerates. Domestication has made it no less lethal a predator than other true carnivores even if it has become more predictable. But part of that predictability is that it participates in hunting as deadly as that of a cat, bear, hyena, wolf, giant otter, or seal. (Cetaceans may be even deadlier than any land carnivores, but they are sea creatures, and there is an image of an orca. There is yet no image of any true Carnivore; the dog is simply the most common of them even if one rules out most dogs for their small size. Man's best friend? Of course... but only a fool would do anything to make an enemy out of this creature. Dogs have been used in the hunting of even lions... of course in packs.

The other, of course, is the dog's human partner, this time with a dog sled. Few animals could ever take on this pair of killers and survive -- even polar bears. By showing a large dog as a superpredator demonstrates that large land and semi-aquatic members of order Carnivora except the Giant Panda (only a sporadic predator) are all superpredators... and that almost all of the mammalian predators on land that are superpredators are members of order Carnivora. The only other large land mammals that are superpredators are the rare Tasmanian Devil and the ubiquitous human. Humans are apes and not true carnivores, but with their extreme intelligence, organization, and tool use they are what one ecologist described as "the most terrible Tiger". Man's best friend has some very tiger-like behavior and abilities, too. Pbrower2a (talk) 01:32, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Three Image Descriptions Need Rewrite

The bottom 3 image descriptions (dog, whale shark, eagle) are some of the most convoluted, incomprehensible runon sentences i've ever seen! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.5.190.230 (talk) 09:45, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

box jelly replaces human

I have chosen to replace the image of a human hunter for three reasons: first, that humans are mentioned in the caption with large dogs as collaborators; second, that depictions of any human culture as especially characteristic of a top predator might be derogatory to that people; and third, that the gallery needs an invertebrate to create some balance. The gallery so far showed only vertebrates.Pbrower2a (talk) 07:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I now have an invertebrate, even if it is literal 'low life' -- a sea anemone against which many small sea creatures are completely helpless if washed into its grip, if it falls into its reach, or stumbles into it. The context is some very limited biomes (surge channels and tide pools), as those creatures have obvious predators elsewhere. Pbrower2a (talk) 19:28, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

quail hunting image vs. sled dogs

I think you're somewhat out of line removing the image of a human hunter, since humans are arguably the world's most most successful apex predator. In order to rectify this, I've now replaced the rather vague, and frankly not very good, image of a man traversing a snowy landscape using in a dog sled:

With something that I think is a better fitting image, of a contemporary hunter, hunting with dogs and holding a rifle:

Hopefully you'll find this more agreeable with your sensibilities, since it's now a picture of a white male (who probably nobody anywhere ever would mind being called "a top predator"). I've also changed the text from:

Dogs may be well behaved around humans – but most are still as fearsome predators as the wolves from whom they are descended. Dogs and humans have almost no predators and form the top of the food chain in much (if not all) of their shared world.
— User:?

To:

The human, with its superior intelligence and systematic use of tools such as hunting weapons (i.e. rifles and hunting dogs in contemporary history), is arguably the world's most successful apex predator; rarely preyed upon by other species.
— [[User:Gavleson (talk) 04:41, 30 October 2013 (UTC)]]

All the people on this talk page who like dogs, and still want them mentioned, hopefully doesn't miss a thing. Here's me hoping this one will stick! Gavleson (talk) 05:26, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

It's a better image, and we already have a polar or near-polar scene. It even looks better. The context is undeniable (the sled dogs may not be active hunters). Dogs in this context are not to be messed with by wild animals and are themselves apex predators at the least as 'accomplices', and the hunt in that image would be ineffective without the dogs to flush or retrieve prey.

What I have said of the dog (that it is strong, powerful, swift, agile, intelligent, cunning, voracious, and aggressive, and that it has keen senses and sharp claws and teeth) applies to practically any medium-to-large land Carnivore -- the Giant Panda that lacks the speed to catch prey is the exception. I've seen some tiger-like behavior in dogs, most obviously terrier breeds in which such is tolerated for killing vermin.

Dogs are still effective equals of Man in the food chain. Pbrower2a (talk) 12:53, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

T-Rex

The skeleton shown is the headless "Sue" in the Chicago Museum of Natural History. "Sue" is a star attraction of the museum, so to speak, and she is placed next to a depiction of an African elephant. Such is anachronistic, but it gives a good idea of how large Sue was. The elephant as shown would have been easy prey.

The head? The fossilized head was simply too heavy to be placed on "Sue's" body. It is in a separate display nearby, and the head on Sue is a lightweight model. Pbrower2a (talk) 02:26, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

"trophic level 4"

The linked article on trophic levels only goes as high as 3. What is trophic level 4, and what is higher than it? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 03:16, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I suggest you look at the article again. It clearly discusses the fourth trophic level, as well as decomposers, which can function as a further, fifth level. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:58, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Trophic levels on land often go only as high as the third level because the food chain is often a large herbivore eating grass and a large predator killing the large herbivore as meat.

grass → zebra → lion has the lion at trophic level 3. So is grass → hare → hawk

An example of "trophic level 4" on land would be this food chain:

plant → insect grub → robin → domestic cat

even if the domestic cat is not itself in a secure role as an apex predator.

At sea, such a predator as a salmon, dolphin, seal, octopus, or sea turtle might in adulthood be level 4 or higher even if any one of them is potential prey for humans, killer whales, or great white sharks.

Far more animals qualify at sea as superpredators with the trophic level of 4 defining an animal which itself eats another predatory animal than if one uses the practice of most Wikipedia editors on this subject. I tried using a sea anemone in a surge channel as a top predator even if it is low life (double entendre intended) so that I could expand the gallery to include some invertebrates; much of its prey is itself predatory. The "level 4" definition would allow

phytoplankton → small fish → jellyfish → sea anemone...

or phytoplankton → mussel → sea star → sea anemone

I had a beautiful image of a sea anemone devouring a small jellyfish in a surge channel in the gallery, and someone rejected it. Too bad.Pbrower2a (talk) 05:56, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

One bear is enough in the gallery

As with cats -- one bear is enough. I rewrote the caption of the tiger so that it would discuss all cats. Even the domestic cat is so similar in build and behavior (except for getting along with humans instead of killing and eating them) with a tiger that it fits the caption. The gallery would be loaded with cats if someone didn't prevent such by writing all cats into the 'tiger' caption. Lions get mention in another caption for a distant relative for their organization in prides.

I'd pick the image of the Kodiak bear (which is basically the same bear as the Eurasian brown bear and the grizzly bear) over the image of the polar bear because the Kodiak bear is in a natural setting and is being shown as a predator -- even if a polar bear is more strictly a predator. The polar bear has a clearer image than is typical in the wild -- but it is a close relative of the great brown bears. I prefer showing predatory animals as predators in wild settings and not as inmates of zoos. If I can put dogs and wolves in the same caption (dogs really are wolves) because they can hybridize, such is appropriate with brown and polar bears.

Pbrower2a (talk) 20:47, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Lions' mane jellyfish

I've wanted some invertebrates included in the gallery, and I can now think of one: the gigantic lions mane jellyfish, as adults prey only for sea turtles in those seasons in which the range of those creatures meet. Other jellyfish, even some of the most dreaded, are in continuous peril from sea turtles.Pbrower2a (talk) 03:11, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Apex prey?

I believe this article should do more to explain that most apex predators, humans being an excellent example, are themselves prey for other apex predators.Kehkou (talk) 02:25, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Armed humans are the most dangerous non-venomous predator that any other animal, even the salt-water crocodile, could face. Even tigers know enough that predation upon humans is a poor choice for long-term survival. Humans are generally smart enough to avoid encounters with predators stronger or more powerful than themselves. Dogs frequently hunt with humans, and when they do so they might as well be predatory equals with humans. Hunting dogs that act as if they are in the presence of humans are good reasons for taking flight.

Dogs are another example, as the animal closest to unarmed humans in the food chain. It's easy to list animals (big cats, wolves, bears, hyenas, alligators, crocodiles, giant snakes, sharks, the orca, and the Komodo dragon) that could prey upon dogs or humans -- but there are many places in which humans and dogs face none of those -- and only each other. Both have a healthy respect for each other. After all, a large dog is potentially as lethal as a cat of like size; it is simply too well behaved to be a man-eater except under circumstances that Man rarely allows. Man also behaves himself in the presence of an animal similar in abilities and build to known man-eaters. A large dog is a good reason to avoid entering a place that one does not belong. Three medium-sized dogs (like Dobermans, Rottweilers, and German Shepherds) might as well be one alligator, bear, tiger, or lioness if they should have cause to attack. a human (Dogs are strong, powerful, agile, swift, cunning, territorial, and voracious; they have horrible teeth and claws). An eighty-pound dog probably wins a hostile encounter with a human three times his size.

OK... even a tiger would be easy prey for an orca or a Great White Shark, and would have never had a chance against T. Rex. Tigers are excellent swimmers, but they don't hunt in the open ocean.

In many land environments the two supreme predators are humans and dogs. Both animals are formidable predators, and they generally do not have each other on the menu, so they effectively share the role of apex predator. That they both have ranges that go into areas in which there are more powerful predators does not deny that such killers are the top of the food chain in, for example, Ireland or Illinois. If the Komodo dragon is the apex predator of a few islands, then humans and dogs are the top predators in far larger areas.

You have a strong argument, though, for penguins which are formidable predators. In a rookery a healthy adult penguin is safe (at least since dogs have been banned in Antarctica). But penguins must hunt for food, and in the open ocean they become prey for orcas, leopard seals, and sharks. An animal that must expose itself in adulthood to predators that can easily and readily kill it, no penguin is an apex predator.Pbrower2a (talk) 14:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:Undue

This article is largely crap and needs a huge cleanup. Most of the examples (wolves in Yellowstone for example) have nothing to do with apex-ness, it's simply the effect predators have on prey. "Apex predation" may mean something in the world of fish (where predation is largely based on size) but it's virtually meaningless in environments where carnivores feed on herbivores, but not on each other, and where large carnivores eat large herbivores, and small carnivores eat small herbivores and they don't compete with each other. Look at the list of references for this article. How many of those referenced sources are actually talking about "apex" in a meaningful way? Very few. Here's a good one: "Where two competing species are in an ecologically unstable relationship, apex predators tend to create stability if they prey upon both" Really? wouldn't any predator that preys on both have the same effect? what difference does it make to the prey whether the predator had predators of it's own? It's sheer nonsense. 71.190.240.122 (talk) 05:47, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Should "armed humans" really count as apex predators?

I mean, without technology, humans are very weak and would easily get killed by these other animals. --67.80.54.108 (talk) 23:10, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

They are not natural prey of the animals. It isn't about "could they" more "do they" ZayZayEM (talk) 12:55, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Most large carnivores fear retribution from humans in the event of a predatory attack. The typical man-eating Big Cat is so injured that it can no longer catch such swift prey as deer. Bear and dog attacks often begin as territorial disputes. Once Man started getting clubs, spears, and especially firearms, Man lost his status as easy prey.

With a change in the caption, basically "if they choose to be predators", humans often have only one rival/partner at the top of the food chain -- the dog. Dogs and humans are as close to equals in the food chain as any two dissimilar animals in build and technique.

Heck, I could even change the caption to put the dog at the top of the food chain because it can scare people off. Except for good behavior, the dog is a potential man-eater. I could feature the dog's power, speed, strength, agility, cunning, voracity, and bite force typical of large carnivores.

Are humans apex predators? Only if they so choose. This allows for the qualification for vegetarianism. Pbrower2a (talk) 17:36, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Odd photo caption

We're told that one of the gallery photos shows a killer whale 'observing' a Weddell seal. Since there seem to be bloodstains on the ice floe, the whale has surely been doing rather more than just 'observing' the seal - as if it were a naturalist with binoculars and a hushed voice like Britain's David Attenborough.... 213.127.210.95 (talk) 14:28, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Humans

The section on humans is ridiculous! Humans are super-predators and we have raped the sea and land of any and all species that we want. We have supertanker fishing ships and we have hunted many animals to extinction or close to extinction. If we wanted to we could destroy all animals on the planet including ourselves. The entire section on humans *must* be rewritten to express these facts! Thank you IQ125 (talk) 19:13, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Modern humans are huge distance above common apex predators. Humans living in civilizations don't "hunt" for food nor to defend territory. They do it for sport. The only thing that would make sense is to have someone from a modern hunter-gatherer-ish tribe since they actually do still hunt for such reasons. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 09:09, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Apex predator. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080911091513/http://www.dnr.cornell.edu/cek7/Publications/Lepak_et_al_2006.pdf to http://www.dnr.cornell.edu/cek7/Publications/Lepak_et_al_2006.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:55, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Great horned owl

I'm replacing the image of the lion with one of the great horned owl. This is not to downgrade the lion as a superb predator; it's simply that the dog is similar enough to a lioness as a social predator in build and behavior. Humans may be very dissimilar to lions in build, but they have organization in the hunt characteristic of wolves (human families have much the same structure as wolf packs, and dogs are descended from wolves and get incorporated easily into a family much like a wolf pack) and lions. Dogs also kill much like lions.

It's not to deprecate the lion. It's to have an predator very different in build and behavior from humans and dogs. We have two social land predators in one image. and a lion as an illustration of the key paragraph is one more. A great horned owl is a solitary, avian predator very different from a human or dog -- or a lion.

The lion joins the more general gallery, deserving attention separate from the other cats that are not social predators. (Domestic cats are social creatures, but solitary predators) Pbrower2a (talk) 02:26, 18 April 2017 (UTC)