# Talk:Apex predator

I added back the obvious reality that all cat species (including the domestic cat) are formidable predators so that the gallery would not be loaded with cat images. The tiger and lion (probably also the cheetah) are different enough in their hunting techniques to merit inclusion in the gallery, but all other cats (including the domestic cat) are so similar to tigers in build, behavior, and hunting techniques that one solitary cat (the tiger) is enough.Pbrower2a (talk) 16:31, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I see what you're trying to do but the 'all' or 'other' wording isn't right. I'll give it a tweak. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:39, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
I added the cheetah for its distinctive style of hunting -- with the caveat that it often loses its prey. As a bonus I get to add a hyena, an animal not yet in the gallery, as the sort of creature that can take prey away from a weaker cheetah that made the kill. 
Cheetahs are distinct among the cats in their hunting techniques, and unlike all other cats except the lion, they can be social predators. I tweaked the caption of the tiger to indicate that cats other than the lion and cheetah are similar enough in build and technique that there is no need for a caption including any other cat. Pbrower2a (talk) 07:16, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Nope. The article is not slightly lacking in cats: the article is way topheavy in images, and very light on cited text discussing the actual biology. Wikipedia is not some National Geographic magazine full of Big Cats and exciting landscapes, that is not our function. It's time for serious articles in ecology - a biological science - to reflect the actual research and conservation literature. An article of the current length would normally contain no more than four or five images. There's plenty of room on Commons for gallery pages. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:24, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

In this section, recognition hardly exists that food chains on land, involving some of the most imposing predators (Big Cats, hyenas, and canids) can be short. Man may be more a herbivore than a carnivore, but most large herbivores recognize his danger to them as if he were a bear, Big Cat, wolf, or dog and is the definitive keystone species.  Add to this, animals capable of overpowering and killing people as prey generally recoil from such because of the threat of being hunted down and killed. This applies even to the dog, the smallest animal that one can see as a solo man-eater due to its ability to overpower humans and its unfussy appetite.   
It is likely that such a renowned predator as a lion is nearly at 3.0 on the trophic scale as it eats almost exclusively large herbivores, themselves 2.0 on the trophic scale. Lions rarely eat any carnivorous animal, including humans. At this, a lion is probably less predatory than a meerkat which nobody has placed as an apex predator even if it subsists on such things as insects and small mammals that themselves eat primary producers (that is, plants). Meerkats are always at risk from predation by raptor birds even if they were above 3.0 on the trophic index. The domestic cat, which falls short of being a top predator (prey for dogs and raptor birds) in most places even if it eats carnivorous or partly-carnivorous insects, rodents, and birds. The domestic cat, an obligate carnivore, would be decidedly above 3.0 on the trophic scale, higher than dogs or humans that are top predators in much of the world -- and paradoxically lions and tigers close to 3.0 on that scale.Pbrower2a (talk) 15:53, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

This can be mentioned, as always, with suitable reliable sources. I've added a little more detail from Bonhommeau 2013, contrasting the (terrestrial) plant-based diet of Burundi with the meat-and-fish (i.e. terrestrial/marine) of Iceland. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:59, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Are dogs higher or lower than humans on the trophic level? That probably depends upon what humans feed them or allow them to eat. Among traditional Inuit hunters I would expect them to be equal in the trophic scale.

Perhaps a good start would be to work from reliable sources rather than speculating on talk pages. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:14, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Speculating on talk pages? If I don't have access to peer-reviewed sources, then maybe someone else does and might start looking. 
I state the obvious when I discuss human hunting with falcons, cheetahs, and dogs... These are predatory animals at or near the top of the food chain, and that is one form of 'interaction' with apex or near-apex predators. Pbrower2a (talk) 23:41, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing. However, "stating the obvious" means you are stating your opinion, which is what Wikipedia calls "original research", a policy I urge you to read, as it will save you much time and embarrassment; in a word, it is forbidden here. There is no doubt that the predators you mention are high in their food webs. Their use by humans does not change that in any way in the view of ecologists; they have no effect on human trophic level (we'd have to eat them for that). Further, Wikipedia talk pages are not forums for discussing what the science is. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:31, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Dogs, falcons, and cheetahs are apex predators. Whether Man eats them or is their prey is not relevant when such is a rarity in much of the world. The prey that these animals put in the human diet elevates humans a bit on the trophic level. Does Bonhommeau state where dogs are on the trophic level? These are extremely common predators, and quite lethal.
A dog that has a diet exactly like that of its human would be at the same trophic level as the human family in which he lives, which explains why I would say so of the traditional Inuit hunter. 
but back to the issue that caused me to insert the passage that you deleted: the human-canine, human-falcon, and human-cheetah collaboration in the hunt are interactions between humans and apex predators. For many animals, one of those teams of killers is definitely to be avoided. Pbrower2a (talk) 21:01, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have to say this, but you are still missing the point entirely.
1) This page is NOT for discussing the topic of apex predation, but the content of the article (WP:FORUM).
2) Editors are NOT allowed to use their own knowledge, skill, background, or opinions to shape articles (WP:OR).
3) Articles must be based on reliable, published sources (WP:RS).
4) Articles must be objectively verifiable, not based on editors' private knowledge (WP:V).
I hope you can see that these interlock to say, in a word, that it is not an editor's job to start speculating, as I have explained to you before, on what a dog's diet is or anything else. It is not allowed to add passages that are uncited, and indeed policy allows any editor to remove anything that is uncited. It is not appropriate to fill talk pages with discussions based neither on policy nor on cited fact. I'd be grateful if you could read the four policies I have named here, and change your approach accordingly. Many thanks, Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:08, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Comparison of size of orca and great white shark.svg
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:36, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

I know that Wikipedia is not a forum, but I gotta say that Chiswick Chap did a really good job on this article. Many thanks. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 15:28, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

That's very kind of you. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:21, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Prehistoric superpredators.png
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:06, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

This article is marked as good article, but it is missing an exahaustive list of Apex predators, that would be usefull. 188.237.175.253 (talk) 12:53, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Agree! 173.90.75.20 (talk) 16:24, 1 March 2025 (UTC)