Talk:Apex predator

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ecology Portal

This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Ecology, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve ecology-related articles.

Start

rated as start-Class on the assessment scale

Mid

rated as mid-importance on the assessment scale

Talk:Apex predator/archive 1

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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?

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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...

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

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] '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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Refs from List of

^[1]

^[2]

^[3]

^[4]

^ Meng Fan, Yang Kuang, and Zhilan Feng (September 2005). "Cats protecting birds revisited". Bulletin of Mathematical Biology 67(5): 1081-1106. ISSN: 0092-8240. Retrieved on 2006-12-19.
^ DeMartini, Edward E., Friedlander, Alan M., and Holzwarth, Stephani R. (2005). "Size at sex change in protogynous labroids, prey body size distributions, and apex predator densities at NW Hawaiian atolls". Marine ecology progress series 297: 259 -271. ISSN: 0171-8630. Retrieved on 2006-12-21.
^ Lepak, Jesse M., Kraft, Clifford E., and Weidel, Brian C. (2006). "Rapid Food Web Recovery in Response to Removal of an Introduced Apex Predator". Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 63(3): 569-575. ISSN: 0706-652X. Retrieved on 2006-12-13.
^ Kuhn, Carey E., McDonald, Birgitte I., Shaffer, Scott A., Barnes, Julie, Crocker, Daniel E., Burns, Jennifer, and Costa, Daniel P. (2006). "Diving physiology and winter foraging behavior of a juvenile leopard seal (Hydrurga leptonyx)". Polar Biology 29(4): 303-307. ISSN: 0722-4060. Retrieved on 2006-12-21.