Talk:Apex predator/archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

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

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)