Jump to content

Talk:List of apex predators/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Coyotes, Bobcats, Bush Dogs, New Guinea Singing Dog, and Crocodile Monitor[edit]

Shouldn't these animals make it in the list? Eventhough coyotes are preyed upon by wolves and perhaps even mountain lions, most of the areas that coyotes inhabit do not contain these predators. Coyotes are the apex predators in most of its range. In fact, coyotes are one of the few predators whose range have increased since the growth of cities and highways. They benefit from their close proximity with suburban areas, and thus many coyotes live near them. Wolves and mountain lions cannot live too close to modern civilization. Furthermore, wolves were basically wiped out of the United States until its reintroduction in Yellowstone about a decade ago, and coyotes have continued to grow in numbers to occupy the wolves' previous ecological niches which makes them the apex predator in those niches along with mountain lions and bears. Bobcats should be on the list. I know their smaller than lynx's, mountain lions, and wolves, but I've never heard of a bobcat being predated by any of them. Besides, the common household cat is on the list. According to the Wikipedia article on Bush Dogs, they form packs to hunt down large prey which also should allow them to defend themselves against the jaguar, the only known large terrestrial predator in South America that could predate on the Bush Dogs. The New Guinea Singing Dog should be an obvious entry into the list. It's related to the dog, and dogs are on the list. In New Guinea, I can't think of any terrestrial predator that could predate on them. The Crocodile monitor should be accepted also on the list. It's pretty big. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.165.231.187 (talk) 10:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The house cat is only an apex predator as an introduced species, and the singing dog is the same species as the normal domestic dog. No need listing the same species twice. ;) Dora Nichov (talk) 12:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Entries[edit]

I've added a few entries, and I hope no one minds. I understand some are controversial such as the Giant Squid and Colossal Squid since Sperm Whales feed on them. But we don't know if those are sick or old squids. Anyhow, they are high enough in the food chain to dominate most creatures in their habitat.

"Most" is not all. It's either an apex predator, or it isn't. They are commonly eaten by sperm whales. I've just removed the Humboldt squid for the same reason. See http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/03/070312-giant-squid.html Rogerborg (talk) 15:32, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the "Red Fox" entry is unlinked. Is it being taken off the list? Paladin.cross (talk) 03:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Omnivores[edit]

A Giant panda isn't really an apex predators. I mean, it's diet is almost completely bamboo. Calling it a "predator", let alone an apex predator is a bit of a stretch. Justinmeister 18:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... But IS true that it sometimes eats meat (mostly fish and mice) and that it has few predators. Dora Nichov 11:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • True, but an animal has to be a PREDATOR in order to qualify as a apex predator. Eating meat occasionally when it can find it in easy forms doesn't exactly instill sense of predatory feeding patterns. Remember, the point of being an apex predator is not whether an animal is ever preyed ever, it means that it is at the top of the food chain. A subtle difference. Justinmeister 07:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I once stated that the giant panda would qualify as a superpredator if it were at all a predator. Adult pandas are clearly at the top of their food chains, but unlike such creatures as elephants and hippos they are slightly predatory. I was unwilling to list the giant panda as a superpredator until I found that it ate occasional fish or mice, but that is enough to make it a predator.

Besides, a giant panda looks and acts much like a stereotypical superpredator and is probably descended from creatures that were more significantly carnivorous.

A grizzly bear, for example, is less carnivorous than most humans. --Paul from Michigan 03:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Dora Nichov 12:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should humans even be on this list? I mean even though it's true that many humans eat large quantities of meat it is very rare that we eat our own prey and that's part of the definition of a predator. --EsbenSloth (talk) 20:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of entries[edit]

Okay, the original research that has been going on in this article has gone on long enough. IT's not an editors place to classify which animals are apex predators are and which are not. I'm going to leave all undisputed apex predators (grizzlys, cougars, orcas etc.) and then remove all the rest. If you want to add new entries, find a source somewhere (outside wikipedia, as it's not a verifiable source) that states explicitly the animal is in fact an apex predator (or a superpredator). BAsically, don't add an animal without a source to back it up. Justinmeister 07:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The King Cobra entry should also be removed. There are animals (the mongoose being the common example) that hunt them. Ayengar 18:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted 'alpha' written before humans, and cats from the list. The citation "*Cat* [1] only describes a cat as a superpredator in context to two other species. Also, cats are commonly preyed on in the wild, by feral dogs, coyotes, other cat species, and others most easily labeled 'varmints'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zebadiahjones (talk • contribs) 09:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The ultimate predator[edit]

As said in another part of the page discuss, humans can kill practically anything if armed. Maybe it would be interesting to give them the special status of "the ultimate predator". What do you think of it ?

Bête spatio-temporelle

Contingent superpredators[edit]

Criteria of what constitutes an apex predator can depend upon the location. There are creatures with huge ranges that are superpredators in some areas and not in others. For example, humans are not the top predator where there big cats, bears, giant snakes, crocodilians, hyenas, Komodo dragons, or certain sharks are. But many such places exist. The same can be said of dogs, animals roughly equal to humans as predators if large enough. I'd also add that when humans and dogs hunt in tandem, practically no prey is safe from them. (Small dogs might be prey for raptor birds, but no raptor bird would ever take a Great Dane).

I have a particular desire for having humans and dogs on the superpredator list because they are the two most common large predators -- and they are prolific killers and take big prey.

It's not so much "original research" as it is a "thought experiment" (Einsteinian in spirit if not validity): what would some intelligent alien recognize as the most intimidating predators on Earth. Orcas, grizzly bears, salt-water crocs, and giant snakes are obvious enough. But why not humans, creatures which if armed can kill anything? Why not dogs, some of the most aggressive predators on Earth?

If the first experience with Earth of some alien civilization were the receipt of "Lassie" or "Flipper" reruns from wayward satellite broadcasts, then that civilization would recognize that neither "Lassie" nor "Flipper" is to be messed with even if humans see them as benign. Armed humans are of course the extreme predator that even tigers and polar bears dread.

"Armed human" clearly goes back onto the list.

So do river dolphins (their only imaginable predators -- killer whales -- don't go up rivers to prey upon them) and the Baikal seal, a seal out of the range of such imaginable predators as tigers, polar bears, and killer whales because of its limited range. It might have been (Siberian) tiger food at one time, but the Siberian tiger is now extinct in its range. --Paul from Michigan 02:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very true. Dora Nichov 12:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Original research is defined by wikipedia as "a term used in Wikipedia to refer to material that has not been published by a reliable source. It includes unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories, or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or which, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation." I suggest you read this page. Only add entries that a biologist has classified as an apex predator. I know it can be a pain to get off your ass once and a while and actually verify an unsourced statement but No Original Research IS one of the most important aspects of wikipedia. Justinmeister 20:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is of a definition. Who has an incontrovertible definition? Note well that dictionary definitions (other than those of such specialized activities as law and mathematics) ordinarily have no standing in official activities. Nobody has yet offered an incontrovertible definition of a superpredator. The strictest criterion leaves one with a useless and un-encyclopedic null set because any creature accessible to humans is vulnerable to some weapon (especially firearms) that humans have developed and used. If someone says "in the wild", then one must conclude that once humans venture into the wild they are into the wild. Biology is not as hard a science as mathematics.

Can we accept filmed footage of wildlife behavior as reliable sources? Can we assume that a film clip of an orca killing a Great White Shark is genuine for the simple reason that such footage is hard to fake because it is impossible to stage? One can assume that someone like Jacques Cousteau, David Attenborough, or Steve Irwin, among others, demonstrated or demonstrated acute knowledge of the behavior of animals that they filmed even if they are not academic biologists.

The ecological roles of the largest or most visible animals are well-known. Does anyone doubt that a Great White Shark is a killer? Does anyone doubt that dogs are among the most aggressive creatures on land?

Some conclusions are valid even if they do not come from any authoritative source. Thus, if fire-breathing dragons do not exist, then we can rule out any possibility that fire-breathing dragons prey upon mice. Does anyone need an official citation to make recognize such a statement as "fire-breathing dragons do not prey upon mice" as valid by Wikipedia criteria? If a wild creature is not in the range of some other creature, then beyond any question, predation of one of those creatures upon the other is impossible even though some accidental or staged encounter might lead to predation. So if someone asserts that the Baikal seal would be easy prey for tigers, orcas, polar bears, and some sharks, but too hard for any other predators, that is not enough to disqualify the Baikal seal as a superpredator within its limited range.

"Novel interpretations" is not the question here; absence of a universally-accepted definition is more of an issue. There are good reasons for the prohibition of original research -- typically that opinions of unqualified persons cannot ordinarily be accepted as unqualified fact, particularly when those attempt to create worthless controversy as creationism in biology and Holocaust denial in history.

So we might as well show that the controversy exists and recognize that if well structured, the list can contain the means of distinguishing between different predatory creature on how they can fit different (but not absurd) classifications of what is and is not a superpredator. A large domestic dog that is not a superpredator in sub-Saharan Africa or tropical South America or Asia due to crocodilians, big cats, giant snakes, and hyenas is clearly a superpredator in some niches where those creatures (example: Japan) do not exist. The controversy in this topic is not so much what some animal does or does not do but instead what criteria exist for determining whether some creature is or is not a superpredator. --Paul from Michigan 16:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • You make some good points but let me ask you a question. If you, me and other editors of this article decide through consensus that a Komodo dragon is not an apex predator, but someone finds an article where a biologists states explicitly that the Komodo dragon is the dominant predator/superpredator/apex predator, would you allow the Komodo dragon in the list? It seems obvious but since this is a problem of definition, then why worry about the definition? Leave the determination of a predator's status in the food chain to biologists. For example, the only reason I added Lake trout and smallmouth bass to the article is because I found a paper written for a peer-reviewed journal that talked about their roles as apex predators. It was not because I weighed the criteria for an apex predator and determined myself that those two fit the bill to be listed. Justinmeister 18:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Different definitions of apex predators exist. The strictest definition (Class 1) is one that the animal, predatory at least part of the time, is never preyed upon in the wild as a healthy adult under normal circumstances in any usual environment except by its own species. Even this allows some wriggle room for cannibalism and for a creature being prey as an egg, larval form, infant, or juvenile, or being subject to predation should its environment be destroyed. Thus one must keep most crocodilians on the list even if they are vulnerable as eggs or as infants or that if their waterhole dries up they are vulnerable to attacks by big cats, hyenas, bears, or whatever. One would have to keep eagles on the list even if one recognizes that they would be killed if sucked into jet engines (freakish circumstances) or that if they were injured (broken wing) that they would be vulnerable to wolves, big cats, or whatever.

The Komodo dragon fits the strictest definition quite well; I have introduced it on the assumption that the creature has no conceivable predator within its range. Would tigers kill them if they had the chance? Of course -- but their geographic ranges don't overlap. Would T. Rex eat tigers if it had the chance? Probably -- except that tigers and T. Rex have never been on the same planet at the same time.

"Part-time predator" allows such a creature as a grizzly bear, an animal that spends significant amounts of time eating vegetation.

It is enough to refute a creature on the list in accordance with the strictest definition by proving that some animal preys upon it. Oddly, the Great White Shark fails because orcas prey upon them on occasion.

Obvious examples: Nile crocodile, orca, sperm whale, lion, tiger, jaguar, polar bear, grizzly bear, American alligator, anaconda, reticulated python, bald eagle, golden eagle, harpy eagle. Not-so-obvious ones include the Baikal seal -- not a spectacular seal but one out of the range of any usual possible predator of seals except perhaps the Eurasian brown bear. Show that the Eurasian brown bear preys upon these seals as adults and you can drop this one off my list, and I will quit offering it as an example.

Another criterion, one that you seem to accept by introducing the lake trout and the smallmouth bass is the creature that is the top of the food chain in one or another ecosystem. I could call this "Class 2", except that that would be a neologism, and it would fit animals that have large ranges, but might have predators in some parts of their ranges. Leopards are a prime example; their large range overlaps the range of lions and includes much of the range of tigers, both of which are known to kill and eat leopards. But where tigers and lions are not to be found, leopards are the supreme predators.

More possible predators exist for dogs -- bears, big cats, crocodilians, giant snakes, hyenas, wolves, and for small ones, raptor birds. Some are even harvested as human food (disgusting practice, in my opinion) -- so such small dogs as Yorkshire terriers are not superpredators. That said, many places exist in which dogs face no bears, big cats, crocodilians, sharks, killer whales, giant snakes, or wolves. That might not be South Africa -- but it would describe most of Europe and North America. Because they are potential prey for raptor birds, small dogs are not superpredators. But large ones can be under criteria that allow leopards to be considered superpredators. Large dogs and medium dogs in packs take a great toll of livestock and wildlife. Ask sheep interests, poultry producers, or cattlemen whether they want large dogs or packs of dogs of any size other than their own around. Consider that dogs left behind in Antarctica after early expeditions thrived by hunting penguins, themselves large creatures, and had to be removed to protect the penguins. Dogs became, for all practical purposes, the 'tigers of Antarctica' in their ecological role.

Dogs are the second-most-common land predators, and depending on the line that one uses for distinguishing "large" ones from "small" ones, possibly the second-largest number of large superpredators (again superpredators, second class). Humans are of course first among large land predators. The same animals that pose predatory hazards to dogs pose dangers to humans. But the ranges of humans and those of dogs are practically identical. The only valid cause for failing to recognize humans as superpredators in the same class as leopards, cougars, wolves, and dogs is that some humans are vegetarians. Enough of the species is not vegetarian that humans are somewhere between grizzly bears and dogs in the herbivore-carnivore range.

Because the range of the lion's mane jellyfish includes polar waters where sea turtles cannot live, this deadly cnidarian must go to the second class of predators.

My proposed Class 3 encompasses some creatures already disqualified in the strictest and second-strictest categories is the 'maneaters'. Any documented, presumed, or potential maneating species must be placed in this subclass 3a. Tigers, lions, jaguars, bears, Nile and salt-water crocs fit clearly in Class 1. Cougars and leopards clearly fit Classes 1 and 2 as documented maneaters. Hyenas and the infamous Great White, Tiger, Whitetip, and Hammerhead sharks fail to fit Category 1 and 2 but fit Class 3 extremely well. Presumed maneaters include a few that leave too little evidence (reticulated pythons, anacondas, Komodo dragon) behind if they have us on the menu. Potential maneaters (Subclass 3c) include those superpredators that, like the orca and the sperm whale (Class 1), dogs and wolves (Class 2), and such creatures as piranhas, leopard seals, and walruses, have the potential to kill humans in predatory attacks even if they choose not to do so. The proof of them as potential maneaters is that they kill creatures larger than us as prey. Again, ask a cattleman what he thinks of having a pack of large dogs around.

Some persons who have the most disgusting eating habits might place humans in category 3a even if human cannibalism is rare.

Taking a bite of flesh (snapping turtle), drinking some blood (leeches, fleas, ticks, mosquitoes) doesn't count; the animal must have the potential to do grievous bodily harm.

Need I offer a Class 4? This would include keystone predators that might not be apex predators (feral domestic cats) and animals like dolphins and humans or even chimpanzees that have a wide array of predatory techniques. That dolphins can decimate a shoal of small fish could qualify them as keystone predators.

Class 5? Very dangerous venomous predators whose only predators are those few specialists immune to their venom can eat, or animals that can kill with electricity or echolocation. Those include cone shells and some octopuses; some spiders and scorpions: and such cnidarians as Portuguese man-of-wars, lion's mane jellyfish, box jellies, (I know about sea turtles), and (if mongooses don't find them too big) king cobras. (If king cobras are not mongoose food, then they are in Class 1). Rattlesnakes do not count because they are easy prey for kingsnakes, roadrunners, raptor birds, and pigs; they are probably wise to avoid domestic cats because whoever bites first in such a confrontation kills the other. Someone introduced sea snakes -- until I pointed out that sea eagles prey upon them. Electricity is similar to venom in effects, so we can treat the electric eel as if venomous. Although an electric eel might not kill such likely troublemakers as caimans, jaguars, giant snakes, raptor birds, piranhas, humans, otters, river dolphins, or dogs, they can force a predator to abandon the effort to prey upon it. So far as I can tell, no creature has ever developed immunity to electricity. Echolocation by dolphins can also kill small prey. It may be strange to treat an electric eel or a dolphin as if it were a venomous creature, but the effect is much the same.

Class 6? These creatures kill as prey creatures larger than themselves, whether singly (6a), like preying mantises or tigers, in groups (6b) lions, wolves, piranhas, or driver ants. This does not include defensive attacks that might kill a larger creature (example; a rattlesnake bite to a human).

Class 7? Use of tools in predation. Human use of spears, nets, poisons, botas, and above all firearms make humanity the most prolific of all killers. Chimapnzees are known to use blades of grass to capture ants and termites.


NPOV? Nothing says that Wikipedia must be free from recognizing that controversy exists on a subject. The controversy remains more on definitions than upon what the most visible animals are able to do. What is wrong is in presenting a controversial idea without recognizing that it is potentially controversial.

Large, dangerous, or common predators seem to have high profiles in nature.

So some creatures fit this classification:


It's only a proposal. --Paul from Michigan 02:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Paul From Michigan. Let's lay down a new rule: "all obvious apex predators (carnivores or omnivores that aren't normally taken as prey as healthy adults) go back onto the list, regardless of sources, though you need to discuss it first before you put it on", OK? Now, Justinmeister, let's analyze what you removed:

Key:

  • Stay: Should be enough to put back on list
  • Controversal: Awaiting further discussion
  • Go: Definitely not going back on

You can disagree with "Stay" or "Go" if you have a good agrement, but I'd welcome your comments about the "Controversal" animals more.

The List:

  • Snow Leopard (Stay): I can't think of anything that will kill a snow leopard as prey, unless it's an Asian black bear, but not often I suppose.
  • Hyena (Stay): Sure lions will kill one, but I don't think as prey.
  • African Wild Dog (Stay): Show me what predators eat it and I'll agree it should be removed.
  • Dhole (Stay): The only thing that can kill a dhole in it's range is a tiger or probably a bear, and that's not often. A pack can easily kill the fiercest tiger.
  • Nile and Saltwater Crocodiles (Stay): Out of water, large cats may take one, but in the water they're definitely apex predators. I mean, a hippopotamus can kill one but hippopotamuses are herbivores and don't kill for food.
  • Baikal Seal (Stay): As Paul From Michigan said, show us brown bears prey regularly on it and we'll stop saying it's an apex predator.
  • Sperm Whale (Stay): WHY did you remove this one!!?
  • Electric Eel (Stay): I can't think of any predators of this animal, can you?
  • South Polar and Chilean Skuas (Controversal): I don't know much about these, so please discuss!
  • Tasmanian Devil (Stay): Supposing the thylacine is extinct, it has no predators.
  • Wolverine (Stay): Bears may kill one, but not for FOOD!
  • Giant Otter (Controversal): They're vicious all right, I mean, they eat anacondas and caimans! And they have no fear of anything in packs, but alone they may get attacked by jaguars, so...
  • Badger (Stay): Nothing regularly attacks badgers for food...
  • Dog (Stay): It's a potential man-eater! Don't you know they kill MUCH more people than cougars or wolves do? Where there's no large predators, it should qualify as an apex predator.
  • Coyote (Stay): With cougars and wolves becoming rare, this smart canine is rising to the top of the food chain in some areas.
  • Snapping Turtle (Stay): Other than alligators, what else can kill a snapping turtle? And alligators don't appear in all of its range.
  • Tuna (Go): OK, whoever first added this must not have been thinking straight...
  • Walrus (Controversal): I'm not sure if polar bears occur in all of its range or not. If they do, then not, if they don't, then yes, it's an apex predator.
  • King Snake (Go): It should be easy for predatory mammals and birds to get this one...
  • Fire and Driver Ants (Stay): Nothing stands in the way of a swarm!
  • River Dolphin (Stay): No orcas in rivers!
  • River Otter (Controversal): Can anyone provide me with information about its predators?
  • Fisher (Stay): Never heard of it being prey for anything...
  • Bullfrog (Controversial): If we count its status as an introduced predator, yes.
  • Box and Lion Mane Jellyfish, Portuguese Man-Of-War (Go): Sea turtles regularly eat them.
  • Cone Shell (Controversial): What eats it?
  • Centipede (Go): Often eaten by many animals
  • Spider (Go): Oh, very funny, it being apex...
  • Scorpion (Go): Meerkats, among many other animals, love to eat it.
  • Poison-Dart Frog (Controversial): I've heard this frog-eating snake regularly eats it, can anyone provide more information?
  • Cane Toad (Controversal): See bullfrog entry.
  • Human (Stay): Haven't you heard of the most dangerous animal on earth?
  • Neanderthal (Stay): See human entry.
  • Phorusrhacos (Stay): Definitely apex, it's a terror bird for goodness sake!
  • Thylacine (Stay): On Tasmania, yes.
  • Megalodon (Stay): Whoever removed this was insane, completely barking mad and crazy.
  • Smilodon (Stay): See Megalodon entry.
  • Postosuchus (Stay): Just tell me any possible predators and I'll stop ranting...
  • Deinosuchus (Stay): Think it's funny to remove the largest crocodilian ever? (Or second largest, depending on your viewpoint).
  • Cameroceras (Stay): What at the time could eat it? If you don't know what it was, click on the link for goodness sake, don;t just remove it because you don't know what it is!
  • Gastornis (Stay): *Sigh* Do you really think anything in the Paleocene could threaten a bird with a beak that can crack a coconut?
  • Basilosaurus (Stay): See Megalodon entry.
  • Andrewsarchus (Stay): See Megalodon entry.
  • Giant Panda (Controversial): Well, it is predatory to a certain extent, and it isn't normal food for any predator...
  • Skunk (Go): Regular prey of the great horned owl.
  • Chimpanzee (Go): Don't leopards hunt them?
  • Baboon (Go): Often attacked by lions and leopards.

OK, so start discussing, everyone!! Dora Nichov 06:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • First of all, hats off to Dora Nichov for the list. I'm glad actual discussion is going on. First, my inclusion of lake trout and smallmouth bass. This was to make two points. First, it seems, according to the paper I read (I cited it at the bottom of the page), that a species can be an apex predator for a certain area of their habitat (which is what you guys have been saying without proof). Second, and most importantly, it was to demonstrate how, and only how, entries should be listed. I found an article that stated they were both apex. This brings up an important point. What if someone stumbled upon this article and read that the Cameroceras was an apex predator? Such a person may say "says who?" and put a {{tl:Unreferenced}} tag, wait a few weeks for someone to prove it is, and when no one does, he would remove it from the article. THis is the way wikipedia works. If you can't prove something is true, it doesn't belong in a wikipedia article. Dora Nichov, throughout your list, you often say "name something that preys on *blank* and I'll remove it". Well, I say to you, "find a source that says it has no predators in a certain region and I won't delete it". When I say source, I don't mean your knowledge that's in your head. I mean, find one of your biology textbooks, find a passage that says, "Megalodon had no natural predators" or better "the Megalodon was the superpredator in its habitat" and then source it like I did with Lake trout. By the way, even though orcas may prey on great whites, they probably should stay, simply because most articles or papers I've read seem to call it one. Dog though, is probably not a good entry (assuming you're referring to the domesticated species) since they don't live in their natural habitat. Justinmeister 19:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At least let us put the obvious on! Like river dolphins. Even if we have no sources, let us put the obvious. Dora Nichov 14:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, you can't really find sources for some extinct/rare animals, can you? Dora Nichov 14:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it's unnecessary to have sources for some predators that are obvious. River dolphins can probably stay without a source. As well, it is probably sufficient to find a source for extinct animals that says their the largest predator of their time, or something like that. I don't think most insects count, considering how easy they can be consumed. I think for an insect to be on the list, it needs a source. Anyway, Lions mane should be removed, since even that lame source from that website says it is eaten by other species. All domesticated species I don't think should count, since they are not in the wild. I've never heard of the term apex predator lending itself to domesticated animals like dogs. Although I could be wrong about that. Any ideas that would say otherwise? Justinmeister 07:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I, too, am questioning whether we should add introduced/domestic species. Dora Nichov 08:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try looking for an online journal that talks about domesticated animals. Maybe there's a mention of whether they are considered a dominant predator or something. I'm thinking of moving the entry on human to be included at the top description. Something like "However, the only true apex predator is the homo sapiens due to its ability and will to kill any predator that exists". Any suggestions? Justinmeister 16:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. So far we have agreed to put these animals back (according to latest comments, some have already been put back, but it's good to make a list all the same):

  • Snow Leopard
  • African Wild Dog
  • Hyena
  • Dhole
  • Nile Crocodile
  • Saltwater Crocodile
  • Baikal Seal
  • Sperm Whale
  • Electric Eel
  • South Polar Skua
  • Chilean Skua
  • Tasmanian Devil
  • Giant Otter
  • Wolverine
  • Badger
  • Coyote
  • Snapping Turtle
  • Walrus
  • River Dolphin
  • River Otter
  • Fisher
  • Human
  • Neanderthal
  • Smilodon
  • Postosuchus
  • Deinosuchus
  • Phorusrhacos
  • Thylacine
  • Megalodon
  • Cameroceras
  • Gastornis
  • Basilosaurus
  • Andrewsarchus
  • Cat
  • Dog
  • Cane Toad
  • Clouded Leopard
  • Monkey-Eating Eagle
  • Lion's Mane Jellyfish

Still awaiting discussion:

  • Giant Panda

Dora Nichov 10:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned above, cats are in fact superpredators if they are introduced to a isolated habitat and subsequently become feral (proof given at the bottom of the article page). I did find a scholarly paper that identified the Giant trevally as an apex predator. I'll add it along with its reference. Justinmeister 18:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Found another source that classifies the leopard seal as an apex predator. Justinmeister 18:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Dora Nichov 06:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've found out that poison-dart frogs are indeed preyed upon by some snakes and spiders, so I've edited the list. But I'm still quite sure the giant panda would qualify as an apex predator. And I've added a few more predators to my list that I think are apex. Dora Nichov 12:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fire ant, in my opinion, should go back even with the qualification that it is an 'introduced' predator. I have put an asterisk beside the entry. I could imagine chimps (no wild chimps live in the southern United States!) preying upon it, but I can't think of any creature that could make significant killings of fire ants in the southern United States without getting hurt badly. No creature is going to make fire ants a significant part of its diet in the southeastern United States, especially in a swarm.

Walrus? I have seen footage of a polar bear attacking a pack of walruses on shore (National Geographic Channel)... but that footage shows that a very young walrus is killed. Adults all get away. Walruses prey largely on sessile prey (clams) which isn't so impressive... but they are known to prey on seals. Fish? I would think so. Polar bears are quite possibly the most formidable predators on land or ice... but once in water, an adult walrus has all of the advantages, including size. Polar bears would have to attack them in packs to get them at sea, and polar bears are not pack hunters.

Harrier hawk? I have seen some remarkable footage of a pack of harrier hawks collaborating to catch and kill a rabbit. The rabbit might have escaped one, but not the gang. Can anyone imagine a predator upon these arch-killers? They are the only social predators among the raptors.

With one qualification (killer whale) we might be able to reintroduce some dangerous sharks and supremely-efficient dolphins. We could have a section just for them. After all, both are formidable killers. Unhealthy and immature dolphins might straggle behind the pod and be picked off by sharks... sharks usually keep their distance from dolphins in hope of picking off an occasional fish that escapes one set of lethal jaws only to reach even another, or perhaps an unhealthy, stillborn, or dead dolphin. Some sharks (whitetip, Great White, tiger, bull, mako) are documented man-killers, if not man-eaters. Even if the dolphin has a reputation as 'cute' and 'cuddly' -- so does the dog, also a formidable killer. Paul from Michigan 15:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good points. Dora Nichov 01:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And great rewrite, Paul from Michigan. Dora Nichov 01:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i won't remove the new Chimpanzee mention for now; but to the best of my knowledge chimpanzees are a food source for leopards, at the least. i will, however, dig for any evidence that says otherwise, just to make sure.... on another note: is this article even worth maintaining? sure, given a particular location, we get a look at trophic interactions and can see who preys on who in a given place/time. but "apex predator" seems more a role that depends on context (with notable exceptions, i'll grant) than the "solidity" this entry seems to grant it. (should we even count small island ecosystems?) if we wanna keep it, we really do need to take some advice from Justinmeister (above). sources sources sources! let's cut out the b.s.-ing. i myself will try to get on it too, over the next few weeks. - Metanoid (talk, email) 04:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What Animals Are Apex Predators?[edit]

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]


Good points. Predators might kill each other in territorial disputes or in an effort to destroy the competition (lions killing hyenas). Injured, ill, or decrepit superpredators (humans and perhaps dogs excluded) aren't going to last long in any environment. Likewise, such a creature as an elephant may recognize big cats, humans, and even dogs as untrustworthy and kill them on sight. Nobody said that being a superpredator makes life easy.

The Antarctic skua is a killer of young and feeble penguins and an eater of penguin eggs. It's hard to imagine any predator upon it within its range. Adult penguins that face no predators (at least since introduced Antarctic tigers -- excuse me, dogs, were removed) onshore, but they must hunt in waters where leopard seals and perhaps orcas and sharks lurk, and there they are vulnerable. Skuas, in contrast, need not enter the water. STAY.

Walrus: I have seen footage of a polar bear invading a walrus-filled beach, only to catch a young one that didn't get away. Although largely hunters of sessile mollusks, they are known to prey upon seals. Adults are usually too dangerous for polar bears to take on, so that leaves the question of whether orcas or sharks take them. STAY unless someone can prove that they are regular shark or orca food.

Bullfrog: Dog food. GO!

Otters: Sea otters are obvious prey for raptor birds, as are cats and small dogs. A sea otter that goes too far from the relative safety of the kelp 'forest' is food for sharks, orcas, and perhaps some seals. The larger otters of extratropical streams and lakes are out of the range of raptor birds. Dogs, wolves, and lynx? Once in water, otters are out of range, and they can get into the water very fast. STAY

Snapping turtles: STAY. Bears and jaguars might take them on, but I question whether a dog would. Dogs have large teeth and strong jaw muscles, but the snapper is likely to take a bite of a dog. Almost any other turtle of appropriate size is potential food for dogs and raptor birds.

Dog: One qualification is necessary -- size, if not in a pack. Raptor birds are everywhere, but they are going to avoid any medium-to-large dog too heavy to take. This is one nasty predator even if it is Man's Best Friend; domestication has simply made it more predictable around humans. "If large, in packs, or hunting with humans -- STAY!"

Lion's mane jellyfish: It hunts actively out of the range of sea turtles. I know of sea turtle predation upon Portuguese man-of-wars and cube jellies, among others. But how far do the turtles dive to get jellies? STAY.

King cobra: The largest venomous snake, a predator largely on other snakes, it would still be vulnerable to tigers, dholes, and humans if they were immune to the venom. They aren't, What is left is a mongoose. Mongooses are known to kill king cobras in staged settings -- but staged settings are "freakish circumstances". If mongooses regularly hunted king cobras as food, the king cobra would be disqualified. STAY

HONORABLE (?) MENTION:

Orcas and sperm whales apparently rule the upper reaches of the oceans to the extent that only two creatures fit the strictest standards for qualification as superpredators. The other qualifies so long as it remains in a boat (human), probably to fish. We do not fully understand the ecology of the deep oceans, so few of us can introduce any superpredators from the depths.

Even though the most dangerous sharks are orca food, they are so much a part of the lore of aquatic horrors that they must be included for attacks on humans, even if these are mistakes )contusion with seals). They merit mention, if in a different category.

A leopard seal attacked and killed a marine biologist in Antarctic waters. Even if the attack was an accident, one must recall that humans are not much larger than penguins and are the size of the smallest seals. Orca food? Maybe -- but not likely near the ice shelves. Shark food? Same thing. Controversial in the first category, but must be seen as a potential maneater because of its abilities.

Less infamous, dolphins are no less predatory than the Great White Shark, and are even more voracious. They have a remarkable repertory of killing behaviors, and are known to participate with sharks in corralling shoals of fish. They don't kill large animals; they are not built for biting off flesh. But they aren't to be messed with. They can charge any shark that gets too close. Orca food? Sure. So is the Great White.

I'd keep the cone shells until someon can establish that some other creature (perhaps one of the bigger ones) preys upon them. Is some creature immume to the venom as are the sea turtles are to jellies? Until someone shows otherwise, they stay on the list.

Domestic cat: Nobody questions its talent as a killer. All that keeps it from being the most formidable killer is its small size that precludes it as a superpredator except under unusual circumstances. One such circumstance is some islands that completely lack dogs, raptor birds, bigger cats, giant snakes, or crocodilians. Another is some parts of the Australian outback too dry for dingos, let alone crocodiles, but highly compatble to cats that can exploit a desert.

Cats have made colonies on small islands in which they can prey upon birds, lizards, rabbits, and rodents with impunity. To be sure, a cat that washes off the island will become food for some sea creature -- but likely after it has drowned. Domestic cats are weak swimmers.

Cats have done great damage to wildlife on some islands in which cats are introduced, causing extinctions and wrecking local ecologies. The qualifications for the domestic cat as a superpredator are so obvious that one could not list them as superpredators throughout their range. But there are places in which they are the top killer. --Paul from Michigan 14:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information! What else do you have to say about my list? And I know about the cat, but it had been remove long ago, so I didn't catch it on my list! And please everyone, more comments about the list! Dora Nichov 02:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Returns:

Lion's mane jellyfish: As a creture in deep water and polar seas it is out of the range of sea turtles. Most of its range is beyond shore birds, so it's hard to imagine and adult creature that preys upon it. It could end up in the digestive system of a sperm whale by accident, but that's all I can think of.

Antarctic skua: what could eat it? It is a killer of young and enfeebled penguins. It avoids open waters where killer whales, sharks, and leopard seals lurk.

Sperm whale: this is the one whale which could conceivably eat an orca. An adult sperm whale is likely exempt from predation.

OK... Dora Nichov 13:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cane toad[edit]

I am now satisfied that this invasive species is not a reliable food source in many environments. Animals that have killed it for food often die of its poison. It's certainly small enough to be dog food -- which explains why I removed the bull frog. But unlike a non-venomous bull frog, it's going to make a dog very sick, and a dog that survives the experience is going to avoid cane toads.

It is an unfussy omnivore.

http://www.issg.org/database/species/ecology.asp?si=113&fr=1&sts=

As one who has suggested its removal from the list, I now suggest its permanent return, if as an introduced pest.--Paul from Michigan 23:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Cone shell[edit]

I saw footage of a whelk enveloping a cone shell, piercing the shell from the top, and then devouring the meat of the mollusk from within. The formidable cone shell, a sort of rattlesnake of the mollusk world, is thus vulnerable to a rather common predator. I hence drop a creature that I had suggested as a superpredator. Venom is not enough to make this slow, armored predator a superpredator.

Whelks don't qualify; they are vulnerable to octopuses and sea stars.

I'd love to show some mollusk as a superpredator because they are among the most conspicuous creatures in the sea and include some highly-effective killers (squid, octopus, cone shell).


Barracuda[edit]

Bony fish are rarely large enough to avoid becoming prey in the open ocean. This is a large, fast killer with excellent camouflage. Reef fish don't know what is about to hit them. Do they qualify?--Paul from Michigan 12:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think so. In some areas where large sharks are absent they should be apex predators. Dora Nichov 12:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mice?[edit]

Mice are apex predators if they are out of their normal habitat, such as on seabird nesting islands where they can prey on anything present on the island (including things like albatross chicks, hundreds of times their own size). Of course, this whole thing is a little silly... Sad mouse 20:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, we can't really say that's wrong. And rats too. Dora Nichov 04:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rats and mice are omnivores, but it's hard to imagine any part of the world where they do not face such killers as cats, dogs, or raptor birds.

What about Hogzilla? Pigs are omnivores, and an an omnivore the size of a grizzly bear is exceedingly dangerous. --Paul from Michigan 00:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely... Dora Nichov 13:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whale shark[edit]

The whale shark has been shown to eat herring, so it is not a "mere" filter feeder. I've been leery of suggesting this creature -- until I saw footage of it consuming large quantities of herring. --Paul from Michigan 00:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So yup, it's apex. Dora Nichov 13:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Velociraptor and Deinonychus were not apex predators.[edit]

They coexisted with Tarbosaurus and Acrocanthosaurus respectivelly. There is no way they were not predated, by the logic seen in the article. Eriorguez (talk) 21:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup[edit]

What's with the whole "on the land", "in the air", etc thing? Seriously, that's very unofficial. Animals aren't sorted by where they hunt, etc... And what about, say, semi-aquatic animals? Which category would they go in? A better scheme would be: Mammals, reptiles (with a bird subgroup), amphibians, etc... Also, I think all prehistoric predators should be deleted. Really, how do we even KNOW they were apex? We don't. The only extinct animals that should remain on the list are the so-called "recently extinct" (thylacine, baiji, etc). Dora Nichov (talk) 12:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made the headings, I thought it was a good starting point with the intention of further sub-dividing later, but never got round to it. Still, they are better now than one long list, when you couldn't tell a fish from a bird. Feel free to be bold and go further. I personally think the list also needs a component about habitat, because it seems there are a lot of claims being made on the basis of limited habitats. Perhaps highlight these sub-continental predators? I'm starting a section on extinct predators below. MickMacNee (talk) 12:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to remove extinct[edit]

I've seen the above comment, and others elsewhere (in the last Afd?) that the list of extinct predators is original reearch and should be removed. On first thoughts, I agree, but I wonder if there is a case to be made for a small section using sourced views of respected dinosaurologists, perhaps with a specific note about the OR aspect as part of the article. Thoughts below please. MickMacNee (talk) 12:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There were apex predators in prehistoric times. The better thing to do would be to make a separate article for the extinct animals that have been proposed to be apex predators in research works by experts or depicted as such in paleontological documentaries.
LeGenD (talk) 12:26, 05 Oct 2009 (UTC)
I don't think extinct ones should be in a separate article. Perfectly fine here. And as far as I know, animal groups aren't sorted into extinct/stillexisting in mainstream classification either. Ingolfson (talk) 06:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brown bears[edit]

Brown Bears of Siberia form 2 - 8 percent of the Siberian tiger's diet, are they still apex predators? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.61.87 (talk) 20:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very true but tigers dont prey on healthy adults to my knowledge. --81.157.181.153 (talk) 01:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clean-out[edit]

This list is massively lacking references. Anyone can give a good reason why we should not delete all the animals that don't have a reference? And no, non-inline references don't really work for a list. Ingolfson (talk) 06:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just came across this page and it appears to be completely worthless in its current state. Two of the four references which are links are dead. Lion and Tiger don't have references. Most of the most well known apex predators are missing from the list. Even animals mentioned in the Apex Predator page itself to illustrate what an Apex predator is are missing. What's the point of having a list when it's so woefully incomplete, and includes some of the most obscure examples over some of the most ubiquitous? 173.46.247.123 (talk) 04:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've got a good reason for why not; because the entire article was utter crap in the state you left it in. Reverted. 62.106.53.231 (talk) 23:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

this page sucks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.216.113 (talk) 05:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Meng Fan, Yang Kuang, and Zhilan Feng (September 2005). "Cats protecting birds revisited". Bulletin of Mathematical Biology 67(5): 1081-1106. ISSN: 0092-8240. Retrieved on 2006-12-19.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_apex_predators/Archive_1&oldid=360967419"