Talk:Apex predator

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.

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)[reply]

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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

This article mention that the electric eel generates 650 watt.

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

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

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

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

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

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

In Culture

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Examples Section

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

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)[reply]