Talk:List of apex predators

message: Why isnt it listed as an apex predator? By definition an apex predator is an animal that
1. Kills and consumes prey.
2. Is not hunted regulary by another animal.
Spinosaurus was a giant | Spinosaurid. who are believed to be oppurtunistic Theropods who hunted fish, Dinosaurs and ate carrion. So Spinosaurus fills the first point. Was Spinosaurus regulary hunted? Only Theropods with the size to do so, Bahariasaurus and Carcharodontosaurus. Bahariasaurus was an omnivore, Carcharodontsaurus was a fair bit smaller than Spinosaurus, and specialised in hunting Sauropods. Enough Said, Spinosaurus was an apex predator. Ill change the page to match. Spinodontosaurus (talk) 21:08, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spinosaurus 

message: I just can't agree with this reasoning of putting an asterisk next to "human". If some *other* species had introduced *itself* into a new habitat (something that, arguably, *all* the animals on this list did in one way or another - and some did via migration, just like humans) there would be no asterisk. So, biologically speaking, in terms of understanding the world, it's just incorrect. It may have some utility for conservation practice and understandng the effect of our unique sepcies on the rest of the system however, I can buy that.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.176.22 (talk) 03:29, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I'm removing it. —Pengo 02:10, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

text: Someone stuck human for aquatic, that should probably be removed.--97.81.126.252 (talk) 23:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  humans 

message: As a matter of field observation fact, the list of the supposedly apex predators (i.e. the species which is NOT hunted upon in a healthy adult state) needs drastic shrinkage or at east serious commenting. Because right now it contains huge amount of mistakes.
True apex predators are very rare creatures and for instance on land there are only several species of the mightiest of biggest of them.
The status of apex predator has NOTHING to do with a creature like African Wild Dog - it is hunted upon by lions on a regular basis, or a chimpanzee - it is a regular target for a leopard with up to 70% of adult deaths caused by this cat in certain areas. If you mean that those creatures are apex predators in a zoo when they are given a rabbit for a play - that's another story, but you have to mention the fact that in a normal natural ecosystem they are not immune to attacks from another predator species. Even the biggest cats or bears are not apex predators in the areas where the two co-exist (Russian Far East with population of both the biggest tiger and one of the biggest brown bear subspecies). 
I can only imagine that in the natural state it is only the polar bear, the lion and big crocodilians are truly apex predators. In remoted areas like an island or an Ethiopian hillside other species can abtain such a status like polar fox or Ethiopian wolf.
But it is a total absurd to claim that a cheetah, or chakma baboon or a bob-cat can be regarded as apex predator.
Verify the list!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.110.6.20 (talk) 16:59, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  List verification needed. 

message: I know this is painfully obvious to any who reads this, but near the line where it describes apex predators as those whose healthy adults are not preyed upon, shouldn't it mention that some of these animals are preyed upon by humans, even as healthy adults?  Also,there are various other exceptions in which a healthy animal may be hunted and still considered to be an apex predator.  I just think the article would make it a bit more accurate, because the way it reads right now sounds like these animals are never hunted under any condition (barring the noted environmental condition).
—Potatman (talk) 21:03, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Humans as predators, etc. 

message: Please add Lyvyatan Melvillei to the list of extinct apex predators.
It absolutely deserves to be on this list, seeing as how it has the largest bite in tetrapod history so far and would have come in direct contact with C. Megalodon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Livyatan_melvillei
74.15.204.92 (talk) 03:22, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: Wikipedia should not be used to cite itself. Topher385 (talk) 10:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from 74.15.204.92, 1 September 2011 

message: Snakes, as far as I know, are always shy and timid and scared. Is there a reason some are listed as Apex Predators? Is it because they aren't hunted on by a species in their specific environment? I mean, most snakes (or all?) act like they are potential prey and huntable. Doesn't that count?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.245.229.247 (talk) 06:25, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm not expert, some clarification needed 

message: Randy Orton
Cory975 (talk) 05:49, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have hyperlinked it for you; you may go there at you leisure. Dru of Id (talk) 08:58, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 28 December 2011 

message: 1. Why is Dunkleosteus listed under dinosaurs that were apex predators. Dunkleosteus was a placoderm, a fish. It was not a dinosaur! It should be moved to the section listing other, non-dinosaurian apex predators. Come to think of it, why do dinosaurs get their own category instead of being lumped together with the other prehistoric predators, some of which were more closely related to dinosaurs than to other creatures on the same list.
2. As possibly the largest terrestrial mammalian carnivore in history, Andrewsarchus needs to be on this list. I know it is thought by some to be a scavenger, but so are some of the other creatures on this list, such as Tyrannosaurus. In fact, few prehistoric carnivores have been confirmed one way or the other to be scavengers or active hunters.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinolover45 (talk • contribs) 18:12, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Two complaints for the prehistoric apex predators section

message: I don't think the Segisaurus have his place in the list of Apex predators. It was insectivore or scavenger, and was just one meter long. So the Segisaurus is NOT an apex predator. 16:30, by a Wikipedia contributor.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.21.187.76 (talk) 20:31, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Segisaurus 

message: How is the African wild dog an apex predator, when other predators regularly attack it and steal its kills? 71.205.174.204 (talk) 18:29, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No animals regularly kill and eat healthy adult AWDs. Editor abcdef (talk) 06:43, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  African wild dog 

message: Most information in this article is incorrect - if an animal constantly appears in the diet of another predator as proven by research studies (e.g. many Asian bear species are part of different tiger subspecies' diets), they are not an apex predator. This article is unsourced and expect tons of misinformation. I am going to improve it when I have time. BigCat82 (talk) 22:33, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The brown bear is an apex predator in most of its range. 155.138.238.76 (talk) 01:59, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Source? Do not introduce fractal errors into the article without discussion here. With the exception of Kodiak bears most other brown bears are prey items in most of their range, as per brown bear page supported by peer reviewed journals. BigCat82 (talk) 08:15, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you denying that grizzly bears are top predators in North America? Tiger predation on bears in some areas is not "most brown bears".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.138.233.194 (talk) 02:12, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  They are, so?? We are not talking about grizzly bears as you keep adding the false information brown bears as the apex predators and since only a few brown bear species are apex predators, your edits are disruptive and have been reverted. From the above conversations you obviously understand not all brown bears are apex predators but you keep adding this false information back 3 times. Please respect wikipedia rules and further violations will not be tolerated. BigCat82 (talk) 11:54, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: They are apex predators. The Russian Far East is only a fraction of their range. There are plenty of predators on this list that are dominated and preyed on in certain parts of their range (the article even states it above) and yet you feel the need single out the brown bear. Also, I am not disrupting as the brown bear was listed here for a long time and I'm just reverting it back. YOU are the one being disruptive.  155.138.245.231 (talk) 14:28, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is my last warning. You can't add unsourced content without consensus. If you keep adding this obviously false information, you may be blocked from further editing. You also agree not all brown bears are apex predators but you keep adding it back, and those that are apex predators such as Kodiak bears and grizzly bears, are already in this article. I don't care what you think, I just care what information is correct. You can't say mammals are apex predators because some species like tigers and lions are while the rest are not. The same goes for brown bears. BigCat82 (talk) 16:58, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't threaten. You're the one going against consensus. And it more than just Kodiak and grizzly bears that are apex. 155.138.244.79 (talk) 17:15, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's not a threat, I just state the rule as you already made 4 reverts into this article and it may get you banned as per wikipedia rule due to edit warring. There many subspecies of brown bears and a few are obviously apex predators, many are not. Ursus arctos collaris, Ursus arctos isabellinus, Ursus arctos pruinosus, etc, are not. For those uncommon brown bears species, you still need a source to show they are. I am explaining to you one last time, you can't say a large group of animals apex predators as long as some are obviously not. Even if all big cats are apex predators but no editor put "big cats" as apex predators here as the term isn't scientific. You can add individual bear species that are apex predators, but not a collection that includes those are clearly not and questionable here. Note removal of unsourced materials requires no consensus, only adding it requires consensus. BigCat82 (talk) 17:20, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't have to be just about subspecies. The brown bear's has a vast range far greater than the tigers so you can't possibly deny that they are apex in most of their range. 155.138.232.177 (talk) 18:04, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Whether I deny or accept it doesn't matter. If some brown bears are not, we just cannot say all brown bears are apex predators. It is plan and simple. Those are not rare exceptions. You also agree that not all brown bears are apex predators here but you keep putting the same content here - adding false information knowingly is a clear violation of wikipedia. I have to emphasize again, the term brown bear includes lots of different subspecies and some are prey items of other apex predators. You can say lions and tigers are apex predators because ALL subspecies of lions and tigers are apex predators in their range with no exception. But this is not the case for brown bears. Even the adult Ursus arctos lasiotus, the 2nd largest brown bear subspecies after the Kodiak bears, still fall preys to Siberian tigers. The representative apex predators of brown bears, Kodiak and grizzly bears, are already mentioned in the article. Besides, check the rest of the listed apex predators - only subspecies that are clearly apex predators are included here (e.g. American black bear instead of merely putting the generic name black bears that included other black bear subspecies) and this is the current standard of the article. And finally, next time start a new section on a new topic since this section is for wild dogs only. BigCat82 (talk) 19:19, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Brown bear

message: I saw that a bureaucrat had removed Anomalocaris, Hainosaurus, Mosasaurus, and Prognathodon from the list of apex predators. TBH, I'm not sure about the others, but many sources do confirm that Mosasaurus was indeed an apex predator. It even says here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosasaur#Paleobiology
--PCAwesomeness (talk) 16:50, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apex predator mosasaurs 

message: This list has serious issues.  Some of the extant species are plain wrong, for instance the Tiger quoll isn't an apex anything, the article is contradictory and in parts factually incorrect.  Where an animal is an apex predator solely due to human habitat destruction, for instance the Coyote or the various jackel species, it should be stated as such.  To the uninformed this article could be very misleading. 
I propose the extant terrestrial species be split to clarify true apex species from those that have filled a man-created void.
Cavalryman V31 (talk) 06:19, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Serious issues 

message: hello, i think hyenas and wild dogs shouldn't be on the list because big cats sometimes eat them.
TheFeralCat (talk) 18:20, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  wild dogs and hyenas 

message: as some know, i removed hyenas from the list. just to say, don't think i hate hyenas, they are actually my second favourite animal. and i found proof. not only are they mostly scavengers, but i found these pictures. https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=lion+killing+hyena&safe=active&biw=1366&bih=659&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAmoVChMI7_24_-_DxwIViCPbCh0ayAnd&dpr=1
TheFeralCat (talk) 09:03, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: hyenas

message: Honestly, I could look at the dinosaur apex predator section, and it seems like they could just put in any predatory dinosaur they could find, while the non-dinosaurian extinct apex predator section is much more sensical and organized. Can someone do a cleanup on this page?
PCAwesomeness (talk) 02:21, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I think Ceratosaurus, Deltadromeus, Guanlong, Herrerasaurus, Eocarcharia, Daemonosaurus, Kryptops, Skorpiovenator, Aerosteon, Zupaysaurus, Staurikosaurus and Zhenyuanlong should be removed as they themselves are dwarfed by some of their neighbors like Torvosaurus, Saurosuchus, Suchomimus, Yangchuanosaurus, Oxalaia, Postosuchus and Carcharodontosaurus. Same with Platecarpus who's smaller than Tylosaurus.184.186.4.209 (talk) 02:56, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dinosaur Apex Predator Section is Really Messed Up 

message: Hi. The snake is not an apex predator, as a lot of predators eat it: 
*Jackals
*Wild dogs
*Hyenas
*Servals
*Wildcats
*Caracals
*Lions
*Cheetahs
*Leopards  — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheFeralCat (talk • contribs) 16:08, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: african snake

message: i found some pictures of lions and a leopard eating hyenas, none of a cheetah yet. Unfortunately i don't know how to put them on here. For evidence i can show you, search "lion eating hyena".
TheFeralCat (talk) 09:15, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Spotted Hyena

message: Fishes like Tuna and white sturgeon are eaten as food by humans. They are hunted right?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.5.51.165 (talk) 17:27, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seafood listed here 

message: Let's discuss about the wolverine's status as a predator and possibly as an apex predator.  The wolverine's only true threat are wolf packs and the brown bear.  But one-on-one a wolverine could defeat a wolf in possibly most cases.  We're talking about a full adult (male) wolverine and wolf here.  A lone wolf against a wolverine can only bite the wolverine, and behind that bite of course is the wolf's big head and neck muscles also.  The wolf of course has a relatively large mouth and is larger than the wolverine (but some wolverines can attain large mass).  But the wolverine is feistier and more energetic than a wolf simply because it's designed to run at short distances versus wolves which are designed for long distance running.  The wolverine shares this trait with the cats such as lions, tigers, leopards, cougars, and jaguars.  Furthermore, the bite of the wolverine is also very strong.  Lastly, the wolverine can use its claws, so even if the wolf were to bit the wolverine's head or neck (thus preventing the wolverine from effectively using its teeth), the wolverine can still do serious damage to the wolf's eyes which are vulnerable.  The wolverine's claws can do damage to other parts of the wolf's face and body as well.  In an in-close fight, I don't know if a single wolf can handle the intensity that a wolverine can bring upon, and the wolf is thinking about preserving itself also.  The wolf can't really use it's feet (in particular its two front paws) as a direct weapon on the wolverine, they're simply not designed that way, as they're used to stand the wolf up.  The wolverine can also fight on its back (on the ground or hanging onto the wolf's face).  The wolverine can fight in any orientation for that matter.  The wolf must fight in one orientation only (or prefers to fight in one orientation), and that's standing up.  Don't get me wrong, an individual wolf is a powerful animal.  But the wolf works best chasing down animals and tiring that animal out.  The wolf does not really want to attack an animal that's full of energy especially a large animal such as a deer, elk, or moose.  The wolf's strategy is to scare it and get it running thus exhausting the prey's energy.  The wolf's second strategy is to take down the prey animal, and most of these prey animal's when brought down can no longer effectively fight back or get up especially if it's exhausted.  Most prey animals such as deer, elk, or moose aren't simply designed to fight when they're on the ground.  But the wolverine, as mentioned earlier, can fight with it's back on the ground or in any orientation on the ground (or off the ground), and this is something the wolf is not normally accustomed to, and perhaps simply not designed effectively to deal with.  But a pack a wolves could take on a wolverine, and this is the argument used as to why wolverines can't be apex predators.  But a wolverine could take on an individual wolf, but I never heard of a wolverine eating or predating on a wolf.  Usually wolverine and wolf encounters result due one fending off the other from a kill.
Brown bears are probably the only threat for a wolverine in a one-on-one situation.  But how often do these two animals encounter one another, and how often does the brown bear predate on the wolverine?  Does the brown bear actively hunt for wolverines, or would it prefer something easier to catch with a lot more meat?  Again this is meant to start a discussion.  Aamma58 (talk) 05:19, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  This page is not a forum for such discussions, nor is it an editor's role to come up with personal opinions on any such question. If reliable sources state the wolverine is an apex predator, use them. Otherwise, the species must not be listed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:04, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wolverine 

message: Where are all the citations? Every entry requires a citation to a reliable source. 
This has been posted at the head of the article since 2007, frankly a disgraceful and embarrassing record. 
It's time this mess was cleared up. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:56, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  I perceive from recent comments that the need for sourcing, per core Wikipedia policies (Original research, Verifiability, Reliable sources) has not been fully understood by all editors. Equally, the very long period during which this article has remained almost wholly uncited indicates that action is long overdue. I have accordingly commented out all unsourced list items. Each one should be added back only when it is reliably sourced, i.e. cited to a journal article or textbook that states directly that the species is an apex predator. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:17, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations needed ... since 2007 

message: Anyone think that the Clouded leopard (Neofelis nebulosa) deserves to be on this list?  It's only true threat are tigers, but I've never heard of tigers predating or attacking them, or it's very rare.Aamma58 (talk) 01:52, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's not a matter of what anyone [editor] thinks, it is a question of whether reliable sources exist that state simply and directly that the species is an apex predator. If so, the animal, and the citation, go in the list. If not, not. That's all. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:02, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clouded leopard 

message: I have updated the list with new citations, so that what is here is reliably sourced and verifiable. In other words, it now complies with WP:V and WP:RS, and steers clear of WP:OR. On the bigger question of whether such a list can be defined - is there any sense in which it can be complete, rather than a permanently incomplete and probably unrepresentative sample of a very large set of species out there, I will not speak now. What I am quite certain of is that an uncited list is unacceptable by Wikipedia policy. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:24, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: You're perfectly right, a long list with unreferenced examples of apex predators is useless and redundant; however we have to improve it and find reliable sources as soon as we can, because we cannot have a list which includes badgers and that doesn't include lions, tigers or grizzlies, which are far more "significant" and also prominent apex predators in their habitats. -- Nick.mon (talk) 12:37, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Many thanks. The question of what is "significant" or "prominent" must be evidence-based, not a matter of personal opinion. I suspect that no such selection is possible, and that no verifiable criterion for list membership (should predator x be included?) can be defined. I also suspect that the number of living and extinct apex predators is very large, and (especially in the case of extinct species) completely unknowable. If either of those things is true, the article is permanently malformed and should be deleted. Before we reach that conclusion and reach for the AfD button, I'd be interested to hear if you or anyone else can think of a verifiable list membership criterion which leads to a definable set of species. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:43, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I must admit that this is not usually my field, in fact I'm more involved in articles regarding politics and I found this page by chance. However as you said, finding reliable criteria to include a species in this list will be very difficult. -- Nick.mon (talk) 19:00, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Indeed, I think essentially impossible. I shall just redirect this for now, with AfD in reserve, there's a good case for it if necessary. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:47, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: The need for reliable sources