Talk:Predation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A summary of this article appears in biological interaction.
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
High rated as high-importance on the assessment scale
Please help improve this article or section by expanding it.
Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. (January 2007)
To-do list for Predation: edit · history · watch · refresh
  • Create a broader article on "exploitation" or "antagonism" in ecology (on "true" predators, grazers, herbivore/carnivore/omnivore, parasitoids, parasites/pathogens and others)
  • Expand lead section to around 4 paragraphs
  • More on adaptations, especially behavioral (e.g. prey drive, anti-predator behaviors)
  • Cannibalism
  • Mathematical models (e.g. Lotka-Volterra equation)
  • Evolution of diets
  • Discuss loss of predatory instinct by artificial selection (e.g. domestic dogs)
  • Predators and conservation
  • Uses (biological pest control)
  • Eventually consider splitting into predator and prey, or other possible subarticles, when the article gets too large.
  • Go back through from November to January and check for vandalism that has slipped through
  • Improve on media. A video would be really good.
Priority 2  

Predation/Old and Talk:Predation/Old are older versions of this page before it was merged with the article at Prey.


wtf? I've seen fish nibbling the toes of waterbirds before but they're usually fighting for food. The fish do take the youngsters though, but adults?!? Dunc_Harris|☺ 21:45, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Try this: [1] Graft 01:23, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I replaced the Great White Shark with the Killer Whale (orca) as an example because killer whales eat Great White Sharks.--66.231.47.145 00:27, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but orcas move around a lot while Great Whites are highly territorial. Graft 14:22, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Motivation and popular belief

The section on "Motivation" for predation beings with the following sentence:

Contrary to conventional belief, predation is not typically an indiscriminate urge to kill other living beings.

I think the relevance (and accuracy) of this sentence is pretty questionable. I highly doubt that it is actually conventional belief that predation is a indiscriminate urge to kill other living beings. I would simply remove the sentence or, better yet, change it to segue properly into the next sentence without attributing this belief to the masses at large. But I don't know... What do you think? Any examples of where this belief is expressed?

--BadLeprechaun 23:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moving this page to Predator (biology)

At first I thought that Wikipedia screwed up, but it looks like Duncharris does not want "predator" moved to "predator (biology)" so that "predator" can be a disambiguation page.

After the move, the link structure would go like this:

  • Predator
    • Predator (biology)
    • Predator (movie)
    • RQ-1 Predator - military
    • Predator's Gold - book
    • Predation - the act

[edit] Predator Growth

Two reverts only seconds after I modified the structure and content of "Predator".

The biological predator piece here lacks substantially compared to the Predator the movie and even the RQ-1 Predator articles. Predation and Predator's Gold contain a similar amount of information. This justifies moving the piece on biological predators to a new location called "Predator (biology)" and then turning the generic word "Predator" into a disambiguation page.

Additionally, a friend and I will be compiling a piece on apex predators and so "apex predator" will now be a self-sufficient piece and that justifies its being linked in the article.

Duncharris reverted the new organization and links so quickly that I suspect a bot may be behind it. Revert bots will not allow this piece to grow, even though they are, ironically, predatory. How about letting this get reorganized, DuncanHarris (if there is a person there)? You might just like it. I'd appreciate you not being so quick to revert.

The main Wikipedia page needs to stay with the first and primary meaning of the term. I suspect that's why you got reverted. Otherwise we get into such silliness such as the Ice age page referring to a movie, which some wanted to do. Pollinator 22:41, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
I understand why you would want it to stay that way. What you are saying is that it would be best if there are no disambiguation pages and the most "common" words appear first with links to other terms at the bottom of the common-word page. Here are two reasons I would like it disambiguated:
  • "A predator" would most likely mean the animal kind--unless one was a sci-fi fan or a military buff or a psychologist, at which point it would be more specific. Note that "a predator", even though it is the name of a movie, is also the creature in the movie, whereas "the Ice Age" is the same thing in the movie and in geology and thus is closely related in it's setting.
  • A disambiguation page eliminates the need to scroll down through an entire article of something that is not very tightly related to it, like a table of contents. Who knows, maybe much much more will be added to the page on biological predators.
What do you think? And more importantly, how does any of that justify DuncHarris unlinking the link I added to apex predator, too?
Koshki June 12, 2005
There are several styles of disambiguation used Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Disambiguation. For my money I would agree with Dunc_Harris and Pollinator that in this case, the biological use of the word 'predator' is a type 3 Primary topic disambiguation, and so should stay where it is. Although, it would be feasible to move the Other Uses section to the page Predator (disambiguation) with an {{otheruses}} link at the top of this page.
However, if you still disagree, it might be a good idea to raise the question at Wikipedia:Requested moves to get a wider range of input. -- Solipsist 19:28, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You have a good solution, Solipsist. I will try that. And I did read through the disambiguation guidance pages before even attempting the move. I want to point out, too, that Duncharris has not bothered to join this discussion. Nor has anyone discussed the merits of his unlinking the apex predator page. Duncharris also has a track record of indefinitely banning people from Wikipedia. It would be horrible if he is abusing his administrative position by trying to start revert wars so that he could ban people. We'll see shortly if he immediately reverts the link to a disambiguation page or if he actually takes the time to appreciate new contributions.
--
Koshki 05:57, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Looks like we are getting it sorted out now. -- Solipsist 09:06, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
   I'm wondering about section 3.3.1 "mobbing" behaviour. 
   Im sure someone is taking the piss mob is like on every single line,
   there is another word i'll think of it in minute, if someone has a suggestion please say.
   Duckman142

[edit] Two different definitions for Apex Predator

Hi,

It seems to me that this article contains 2 different definitions for "Apex Predator":

  1. A predator that is not eaten by other predators
  2. A predator that plays a central role in its eco-system

It would be nice for the article to make clear which one is the definition of the term.

Cheers,

Rene

[edit] Predator and Prey (or the name of this page)

There seem to by nultiple opinions as to the proper name of this page. Last year the decision was made to keep it at Predator instead of Predator (biology). There seems to be a new idea that it move to Predator and prey. This was done without any discussion (that I can find) and partially reverted (also without discussion). I just tied up some loose ends of the revert (removing redirects to redirects) in the interest of keeping things clean. Let's hear some discussion before doing anything major.

Personally, I'm for leaving the page at predator because everything links here already and it is in some sense the primary concept. Jmeppley 20:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] From User talk:Ewlyahoocom#predator and prey

I logged on today to find predation being redirected to predator and prey which redirects to predator. I started fixing the double redirecs before realizing what happened. It seems you renamed the page to predator and prey and someone moved it back. I've completed the move back because there were a bunch of ugly double redirects. If you have stong feelings and good reasons why your original change should be preserved, I'd like to hear them. If there already was a discussion and I just failed to find it, please point it out (on my talk page or on talk:predator). Jmeppley 20:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, there isn't a Prey specific page (and I don't think there should be) but it is a popular link, so it should go somewhere. All the links intend the predator/prey meaning, so Predator seemed the logical place to redirect to: what would a predator be without prey? But the page is pretty much one-sided (the side of the predator) so I was hoping moving the page would make it clear that the page should cover both predator and prey. Predation is actually the better name, but that's an obstructed move. In the event, whoever moved it back should have checked for double links. Or maybe they did and just didn't feel like updating them? Ewlyahoocom 08:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I was the one who merged predation here. Thinking about the prey issue though, moving it to predation may make the most sense as it conceptually includes predators and prey. Marskell 14:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree that Predation makes the most sense. As you say, it includes the idea of prey as well, and it's also consistent with the other biological interactions. I think it was merged into predator because the predator page had better content. Jmeppley 17:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
"It was merged into predator because the predator page had better content." Yes, basically. It was just easiest/most sensible move looking at the two pages. So rename this "Predation" then? Do we need an admin to get the histories sorted properly? Marskell 21:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

Predator → Predation … Rationale: what is a predator without prey? and what is prey with predators? … Please share your opinion at Talk:Predator. Ewlyahoocom 10:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
  • Support per above. Marskell 13:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support per above, as having prey redir to predator is ridiculous. "Seems uncontroversial"? More like "is uncontroversial" if you ask me. DO IT! ;) --M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 23:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
    What am I talkign about? It's done already. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 23:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

This seems uncontroversial. I'm just going to do it. Graft 14:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Add any additional comments

Also see previous section (#Predator and Prey (or the name of this page)) for some discussion. Ewlyahoocom 10:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article Expansion

If "Predator" and "Prey" are to encompass one article, then this article is in great need of expansion. Any researcher coming to this article in search of specific prey information (types of prey, lists of animals of prey, techniques of prey, etc.) would have a fairly difficult time. This article is alot like a dead end. A dead end article.It needs to be further sectionalized to include lists of predators and prey species (or links to such lists), which of course can never be complete. And internal links and categories should also be included.--J. Daily 00:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Predator vs herbivores

hi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.65.125.134 (talk) 18:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Isn't a herbivore, even one that kills the plant still different from a predator in that it's eating a producer (i.e. it's a primary consumer) compared to a predator which is eating a consumer (i.e. it's secondary or higher consumer) ? Nil Einne 15:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure of its exact status, though it usually refers to animals who kill and eat other animals. I'm fairly sure the way it is portrayed in the template at the bottom is incorrect, I'll bring it up on the template talk page. Richard001 23:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
After researching the definition I can confirm predation does include all forms of eating other living organisms, including herbivory as well as parasitism and grazing. An organism that eats consumers would be classed as a carnivore. Predation often refers to animals killing and eating other animals, especially in general conversation, but ecologically it can be a more broad concept, and the interactions (predator having some effect on prey unlike detrivory is of key importance. Richard001 05:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] natural enemy

I think that "natural enemy" should NOT be redirected to this page. Please consider creating new article - natural enemy might include parasites as well as predators and maybe also pests. --Vojtech.dostal (talk) 15:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, parasites are a form of predator in the broader sense, so this would probably be the best target of the two. What do you mean by 'pests'? The other form of enemy I can think of are competitors, which I suppose you could also call natural enemies. I don't think the term is used very often in biology, or at most is used informally in a vague sort of way. It would probably be better to delete it than redirect it anywhere else. Richard001 (talk) 04:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I mean this: Pest (organism), for exemple Colorado potato beetle consumes our food and thus it is our competitor. I know it is not so widely used, but see also http://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/ent/biocontrol/. Sorry for my poor English, --Vojtech.dostal (talk) 09:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I see what you mean. Usually a pest is just a competitor with human beings, though they can also be vectors of disease. I still don't see what we can do with the redirect though. Biological interaction would probably be the most suitable article of a broader scope, as it discusses antagonistic interactions and competition etc. Richard001 (talk) 20:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't know either. Maybe to Biological interaction#Antagonism. Or consider creating a stub. --Vojtech.dostal (talk) 14:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I think we would need to find some sources on it if we were going to make a stub. For now I think leaving it as is is as good as anything else (I just said "as is is as"...) Richard001 (talk) 21:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe an article on exploitative interactions in general would be an idea, which this could then redirect to. Might be a long time before one is written, though. Richard001 (talk) 05:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Looks like there has been vandalism over the summer (in my hemisphere) while I was away, e.g. the grazing section is missing. Does anyone else watch this article (as in actually checking each edit on a regular basis) besides me? Richard001 (talk) 21:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Yep, here's the edit: [2]. Just shows you the system doesn't work, huh? What am I talking about, there is no system! Richard001 (talk) 07:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)