Talk:Apex predator/Archive 1

message: I have removed the word "complete" from "list of apex predators".  Though I don't know what in particular would need to be added to it, I'm sure the list is very far from being complete: there is one apex predator per ecological chain, and there must be a lot more chains than those.  I suspect that any such list that was complete would be too long for this page. --Saforrest 23:01, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Complete" 

message: I am going to add the dingo, the de facto tiger of Australia (so long as it avoids the water), in the absence of big cats as competitors. The bobcat and the lynx, both too large as adults to be prey for raptor birds, can be added. After some reflection, I recognize the elephant seals, as adults, nearly invulnerable due to their size; orcas may patrol beaches full of elephant seals -- but for the pups, leaving the adults alone. The only animals on land that could imaginably prey upon adult elephant seals are grizzly bears and lions. 
    
:I have dropped all the seals. Our own pages on the topic clearly reference P. Bears, orcas and great whites as predators. Lemurs can be killed by raptors and the addition of monkeys is just silly. We should also probably tighten up bear and just list the three big ones--smaller bears are killed by tigers where they overlap in Asia. Tigers cannot kill adult male grizzlies but that's about it. Marskell 09:42, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Additions and removals

message: I think I read somewhere that Orcas sometimes feed upon sperm whales too.  Anyone know more about it?
:They do. In groups, they'll just rip-off pieces of meat until they bleed the sperm whale to death. BabyNuke 17:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sperm Whales apex?

message: ANTS? Birds, lizards, frogs, other insects, snakes, bears and goddamn anteaters eat ants. This page is becoming ridiculous. I removed seals again per above. Spiders will eats wasps. Marskell 16:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What the hell are we doing? 

message: Any documented maneater (tiger), presumed maneater (reticulated python) or potential maneater (wolf/dog) should go to the head of the pack. A recent fatal attack upon a marine biologist suggests that predation may have been a factor -- even if the leopard seal might have confused the woman with a seal or a penguin.  Although leopard seals are potential prey for killer whales, what isn't should it go into the ocean?  
This creature has much the same niche in the Antarctic as the Polar Bear has in the Arctic. It kills larger prey than does any of the other seals (penguins; other seals), and has documented ability to kill humans. Most seals and sea lions fall short of the superpredator category because some predators (orcas, sharks, polar bears, and in some shorelines lions and formerly grizzly bears) seem to hunt them specifically. 
The leopard seal is an extreme predator unlike any other species of seal or sea lion. Seals and sea lions should be excluded from the list of superpredators except for this extreme predator.--66.231.41.57 04:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leopard Seal, one last time 

message: They are formidable predators, even if predation is not their primary means of feeding, and they would deserve attention as one of three creatures (Man and otters are the other two) to use tools in predation. Chimps are known to use grass to capture ants and termites as prey. They can gang up on monkeys and prey upon them. 
But chimps are prey for big cats? Hardly. They are difficult prey. Their color vision (a trait that makes Man difficult prey) makes them difficult to catch by surprise; they can see the Big Cat that is well camouflaged for deer-like prey that lack color vision. They can go up trees onto branches that even leopards would avoid.
Most significantly, they are also too large to be prey for raptor birds that take the smaller monkeys. They are vulnerable to crocodiles, to be sure, but so is any creature smaller than an adult hippopotamus that gets into the water even to drink (including Man and lions). --66.231.41.57 12:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chimpanzees, again 

message: Shouldn't we include some Dinosaurs too?  Tyranosaurus Rex would be an apex predator.
...If we are to add dinosaurs like T. Rex, we would have to include many other extinct superpredators -- sabertooth cats, thylacines, phorusrhacoids and Neanderthal Man all known to have been among the nastiest predators of their time. The problem with T. Rex include that (1) some controversy remains over whether it was a predator or a scavenger (partially rendered irrelevant by the inclusion of vultures), and (2) that dinosaur-era ecology is poorly known, and (3) with our unfamiliarity of other extinct environments, it would be difficult to avoid controversies involving other dinosaurs throughout the Jurassic, Triassic, and Cretacious eras.  T. Rex seems like one of the nastiest creatures that could ever enter a human nightmare, but much of the nightmare is itself a result of the human imagination. The image of T. Rex in Walt Disney's animated Fantasia seems well-attested. A good look at a fossilized skeleton of that creature in the Field Museum of Natural History leaves little doubt that no living land creature of our time, including an elephant or a salt-water crocodile, could survive contact with an animal with such obvious build. Man would have to be well armed (as with a rocket launcher) to deal with it.
A paragraph including extinct superpredators has existed at times, only to be deleted regularly. That segment is rightly kept short because of our limited knowledge of extinct ecosystems, and it is rightly limited to those creatures (ammonoids, Allosaurus, T. Rex, Megalodon, sabertooth cats, phorusrhacoid birds, Neanderthal Man, and the thylacine -- the latter extinct only in 1936).  These creatures are at least different enough from other superpredators that they would not be confused with another already on the list, and most of them are part of mass culture. As such they are worthy of discussion largely as links. 
We have a long list of existing superpredators, and it would get unwieldy if we were to include predecessors of extant superpredators.  So long as there have been cat-like, bear-like, wolf-like, and whale-like creatures, one or the other of them has qualified as a superpredator since such creatures came into existence and inclusion of such creatures would make a mess of this article. It's enough to distinguish the various species of living cats even if they are all very similar in shape, behavior, and ecological roles.  Surely some superpredators existed in every era back to at least the creatures of the Burgess shale, but we know little enough about fossil ecosystems to determine even what was predator and what was prey in most such ecosystems. Attempts to include more than a handful of extinct superpredators would make this article unwieldy and controversial in the extreme.--66.231.41.57 14:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dinosaurs 

message: If qualifications exist among some groups of predators more similar to each other than dissimilar (example: the cats, as homogeneous a group of predators as may have ever existed in build and behavior), then shouldn't 'sharks' be so qualified? Great white, tiger, bull, mako, Greenland, and hammerhead sharks well fit the image of the relentless man-eater. (Even the docile whale shark -- a plankton eater -- qualifies as a predator, if no menace to Man because it has almost no natural enemies. Filter feeders seem to violate the criteria that most of us have for superpredators, so whale sharks might be dropped from the list or recognized as exceptions). 
Humans and orcas are
the foremost predators, are the only imaginable predators upon the largest sharks. 
Small sharks are prey for larger predators, as is shown in a film clip of a giant octopus catching, overpowering, and killing a shark smaller than itself. Small sharks exist, and they seem to be in less-than-apex position s in the food chain.  --66.231.41.57 18:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sharks 

message: * Kingdom Animalia: Animals
** Phylum Cnidaria: Jellyfish, corals, sea anemones and hydras
*** Class Anthozoa: Sea anemones
*** Class Cubozoa: Box jellyfish, sea wasp
*** Class Scyphozoa: True jellyfish
*** Class Hydrozoa: Portuguese Man O' War
** Phylum Mollusca: Clams, oysters, mussels, snalis, slugs, octopuses, squids, etc. 
*** Class Cephalopoda: Octopuses, cuttlefish, squid and nautilises
**** Order Octopoda: Giant octopus
*** Class  Gastropoda: Slugs, snails and other "stomach-foot" creatures
**** Family Conidae: Cone shells
** Phylum Arthropoda: Insects, arachnids, crustaceans, centipedes, millipedes and other "joint-legged animals"
*** Class Arachnida: Spiders, scorpions, ticks, mites, etc.
**** Order Araneae: Spiders
***** Family Theraphosidae: Tarantulas and bird-eating spiders
**** Class Chilopoda: Centipedes  
*** Class Insecta: Insects
**** Order Hymenoptera: Bees, wasps, sawflies, and ants
***** Family Formicidae: Ants (army ants and fire ants)
** Phylum Echinodermata: "Spiny-skinned" creatures
*** Class Asteroidea: Starfish
** Phylum Chordata: Animals with backbones
*** Class Chondrichthyes: Cartilaginous fishes
**** Order Lamniformes: Sharks
*** Class Osteichthyes: Bony fishes
**** Order Actinopterygii: Ray-finned fishes
***** Family Acipenseriformes: Sturgeons
***** Family Anguilliformes: Moray eels
***** Family Characiformes: Piranhas
***** Family Gymnotiformes: Electric eels
***** Family Esociformes: Pikes
***** Family Myctophiformes: Anglerfish
***** Family Perciformes: Groupers, jewfish, barracudas, swordfish and marlins
*** Class Reptilia: Reptiles
**** Order Squamata: Lizards and snakes
***** Family Boidae: Pythons, boas, and anacondas
***** Family Colubridae: Cobras and king snakes
***** Family Varanidae: Monitor lizards and the Komodo Dragon
**** Order Testudines: Turtles and tortoises
***** Family Chelydridae: Snapping turtles
**** Order Crocodilia: Crocodiles and alligators
**** Order Theropods: Bipedal Dinosaurs
***** Family Tyrannosauridae: Tyrannosaurus Rex (extinct)
*** Class Aves: Birds
**** Order Procellariiformes: Seagulls, gannets, albatrosses and petrels
**** Order Ciconiiformes: Herons
**** Order Pelecaniformes: Pelicans and cormorants
**** Order Falconiformes: Birds of prey - eagles, hawks, falcons, ospreys, condors and secretary birds
**** Order Strigiformes: Owls
**** Order Gruiformes: Crane-like birds
***** Family Phorusrhacidae: terror birds (extinct) 
*** Class Mammalia: Mammals
**** Subclass Marsupiala: Pouched mammals
***** Order Dasyuromorphia: Thylacines (extinct since 1936), Tasmanian Devil
**** Subclass Placentalia: Placental mammals
**** Order Carnivora: Carnivores
***** Family Felidae: Lions, pumas, tigers, leopards, jaguars, snow leopards, cats*
***** Family Canidae: Wolves, dogs*, dholes, African hunting dogs and dingos
***** Family Mustelidae: Skunks, wolverines, otters, and badgers
***** Family Hyaenidae: Hyenas
***** Family Ursidae": Bears and Giant Pandas
***** Family Phocidae: Earless seals: Leopard Seal, Baikal Seal 
**** Order Cetacea: Whales
***** Family Physeteridae: Sperm whales
***** Family Delphinidae: Dolphins and orcas
**** Order Primata: Primates
***** Family Hominidae: Humans and chimpanzees 
Note: dogs qualify if large or in packs, when hunting with humans, or if trained for attack or fighting, but not otherwise.
Cats (Felis  cattus, including the domestic cat) qualify if in colonies, within human environments, and in some insular areas (including Australia) where they can do great damage to native wildlife. WAS 4.250 17:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV list removed from article

message: "However, in any careful analysis, it can be shown that all species are involved in a food web and are part of an interdependent ecosystem. The most apex predator, man, is himself prey to other humans; when poorly armed and alone to bears, large cats and other beasts; and to parasites of all kinds. Bacteria prey on man as much as man preys on bacteria. What is and is not an apex predator is defined more by human culture than scientific analysis." (I wrote this paragraph. It was deleted by another. So long as the prior insanity listing snails and other ridiculous other species doesn't continue, it doesn't need to be in the article.) WAS 4.250 20:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletd paragraph

message: strongly oppose merger with predation.  different topics...each deserves considerable spaceAnlace 22:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: do not merge with predation

message: The qualification that giant pandas, as herbivores, are non-predators and thus not superpredators  needs little refutation to place them among the superpredators. Predation is not the cornerstone of their life, but they are predatory enough, and about every other aspect of their lives is characteristic of a superpredator. They are not easy prey for any other animal, and their defenses are typical for bears. 
They seem to represent one course of development of a superpredator into a non-predator, but that evolutionary path is not yet complete.   
Although giant pandas are predominantly vegetarian, they occasionally  make kills of small creatures: 
Pandas are also known to eat eggs, the occasional fish, and some insects along with their bamboo diet. These are necessary sources of protein. 
--Paul from Michigan 04:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First let's start with the "King" cobra. This snake is REGULARILY killed and preyed upon by mongoose. Species of pythons have been recorded predating on them aswell, so have tigers. How do they qualify as "superpredators"? Do you just happen to have an infatuation with them an just suppose that they are "apex predators"? You are mistaken. They are dangerous and predatory, but not apex. Of all venomous snakes, black mambas, taipans and eastern browns would be more qualified for that status than the king cobra. 
Secondly, crocodiles are preyed upon by large pythons and anacondas. They are also preyed upon by tigers, lions and even leopards. So how are they "superpredators"? 
Third, owls? Raptors are already mentioned...owls are raptors. What is the need for another picture of a raptor?
Fourth, dolphins? They are preyed upon by sharks and killer whales, how are they "apex predators"? Please explain?
And fire ants? They are eaten by all kinds of lizards, frogs and all sorts of other animals. Please explain how they are at the top of the food chain in their habitat?  
The leopard seal may qualify. 
Until you give explanations, they are all going, simply because none are "apex predators". TheGoodSon 02:49, 03 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Giant Panda as superpredator 

message: Do you understand the concept of an "apex predator"? 
It is a predator that is not preyed upon. It is a predator at the top of the food chain wherever it may habitated. King cobras are preyed upon by mongoose and are killed by tigers and stepped upon by elephants. How does that qualify them as "apex"? Hyenas are second fiddle to lions, thus they are not at the food chain and are not apex predators. Crocodiles are killed by tigers and lions, and even large constrictors - so they are not "apex". 
Solitary cats are not apex predators. Leopards are under lions in Africa and under Tigers in Asia, Jaguars are under the Anaconada in South America. 
You don't seem to understand the concept of apex predators and you just want to assume that all predators that have "strong jaws", "lived among dinosaurs", and the such as apex. They are predators, but not "APEX". 
Understand the concept of a superpredator first, than try to edit. TheGoodSon 15:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As a major in microbiology, I am quite sure that you are absolutely clueless as to what an apex predator is. You listed the wolverine, but can you explain why? If the wolverine is an "apex predator", than what does that make the bear or the cougar? Or wolves for that matter? An apex predator is a predator that is at the very top of the food chain wherever it may habitate. None of the animals you listed can be defined as apex predators. You are assuming that any "rough and tumble" (wolverine) and "dangerous" (king cobra) predators are apex, meanwhile they are not even near the top of the food pyramid. I will happily continue deleting any non-apex predators that you keep listing. TheGoodSon 17:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Don't assume the reader knows any of those things.  Besides that's not the point.  The point is to illustrate the article with relevant pictures. Malamockq 14:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  TO "PAUL FROM MICHIGAN" 

message: Let me try a definition: Wikipedia articles must cite their sources and should not contain original research. I suggest you two stop wasting words and find sources. "...it may be best to delete the images and rely upon our own ideas of what superpredators look like." Absolutely not. No one here should be in the business of listing things as a superpredator until we have refs saying so. Marskell 16:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion

message: PAUL FROM MICHIGAN:
Who told you that "solitary cats" are "apex predators"? Have you ever taken ecology? Are you even done with high school? Jesus Christ, I'm quite sorry, but if you want to immerse yourself in the excrement of your own idiocy, go right ahead, don't drag the article along with you. Tigers are THE only APEX predators of the solitary felines, leopards fall short because their numbers, population and survival depends upon lion in Africa and Tigers in Asia. Likewise, Cougars are under Jaguars and Anacondas in South America and black and brown bears and wolves. Jags contend with large anacondas and black caiman. They are predators, but not "apex predators". TheGoodSon 19:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  For jesus' sakes 

message: 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.
hii
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)
thread_title: Inappropriate Picture

message: 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)
thread_title:  Mythical creatures  -- No! 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Great Horned Owls prey on skunks regularly—in some areas, skunk makes up the majority of their diet. It's not an apex predator. PenguinJockey 02:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Humans are THE apex predator, period.  Apex predator does not mean "never killed by another predatory species";  It means not a usual food source for other carnivores.  We (humans) are actively hunted by NO animal, and we have/do actively hunt and kill EVERY other animal on the planet.  Our intelligence IS natural, so our ability to make and use weapons and technology to hunt is, in fact, innate.  Man's lethal prowess is his intelligence.  You think a big cat has stealth and cunning?  Not compared to a man with a rifle, able to kill his prey from distances so great the prey animal cannot even see or hear him!  The old argument of taking away a Human's tools making him helpless is no more valid than if one were to remove another predators claws and teeth.  And I tell you what......I guarantee that a fit human being can defeat another predator of equal size if that animal were to lack it's lethal tools! 
Much love<
Dr Mike
thebrinydeep@gmail  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.24.169.74 (talk) 09:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

text: Apex predator does not mean "never killed by another predatory species";  It means not a usual food source for other carnivores. -- Wrong. Apex predators are species that no other species preys on. We (humans) are actively hunted by NO animal -- false. -- 71.102.128.42 (talk) 23:03, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Skunk 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Anacondas And Cats Might Not Be An Apex Predator / References Cited

message: 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)
thread_title:  A rule 

message: 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)
thread_title:  In Culture 

message: 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)
thread_title:  List of apex predators 

message: 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)
replies: text: * 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)

text: * Are adult orcas preyed on by anything? They may be the true apex predator of the ocean. Certainly them over sperm whales or any shark?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bernie Roscoe (talk • contribs) 19:30, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: What Animals Are Apex Predators?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Within their Environment!!! 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Copyeditting/General Cleanup 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Removed the "In culture" section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Rewrite needed 

message: Why does this section exist?  We already have an article called List of Apex Predators. Justinmeister 21:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Examples Section 

message: Someone added an obscure book (The Terror) suggesting that a polar bear might have dispatched the crew of the Franklin expedition. A polar bear hunting people down and killing them would explain much... but so would a polar bear scavenging the dead bodies of forlorn travelers. So would expeditions members dying of hypothermia or drowning as they ended up on ice floes that themselves failed to hold their weight or drifted off and melted.
Kipling's The Jungle Book, Sienkewicz' Quo Vadis, and Benchley's Jaws are far better known, and more appropriately included. All three have had major cinematic treatments. Nobody yet knows why the Franklin expedition perished, so the conjecture that it died of polar bear attack, however reasonable, is itself "original research". I was tempted to delete reference to The Terror but refrained after finding that the author had won some awards for some novels. 
Even if Jaws is almost contrafactual (humans are unsuitable prey for sharks because they have too little fat), it was a best-seller and at least one film treatment was quite successful. That lions and bears were used in Roman spectacles in which prisoners were murdered is attested in the Talmud, which prohibits dealings of lions and bears (I assume also tigers) to those who might use them in predatory spectacles that involve the killing of human victims.
I am tempted to dredge up the example of Daniel in the lions' den.--Paul from Michigan 15:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Literary examples 

message: At the risk of being criticised for wandering in and making extensive changes, I've removed the section on 'In Culture'.  My reason for this is simply that I don't believe the section contributes anything at all to the article - it's just a list of very tenuous and trivial links to fiction/mythology references, none of which add anything to the reader's understanding of the terms 'superpredator' or 'apex predator'.
References from holy texts relating to stories about animals rightly belong in the article for the holy text in question - assuming any given story is considered of sufficient significance to merit a specific mention.
Similarly, the use of predatory species in Roman games is no doubt fascinating; but again, this information belongs in articles about the species themselves, or, preferably, in articles relating to Roman spectacles.
The reference to the use of guard dogs by the Nazis is of no relevance.  Many cultures and societies and groups have used guard dogs precisely because dogs can be trained to exhibit predatory behaviour. 
The remainder of the references are flimsy at best, and simply don't add anything to the definition of this specific ecological term.  Not one of the references in the 'In Culture' section was dependent on the animal being a superpredator - all are dependent only on the fact that the animals referenced are predators.  - Shrivenzale 02:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  'In Culture' Section 

message: ...and start again. I don't even know where to begin. Marskell 10:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't mean blank the page literally but to to consider a complete rewrite. This is all OR. Marskell (talk) 17:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

text: And Paul, your opinion on dogs (or mine) is completely irrelevant. Wikipedia articles require reliable sources; this page has none. In fact, cutting this back to a two sentence stub would be well within policy bounds. Marskell (talk) 17:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

text: In fact, that is what I have done. I will help to work on it. Marskell (talk) 17:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

text: A google scholar search shows a large majority of papers use the term for aquatic species, interestingly. Marskell (talk) 18:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Reliable sources are defined on our Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policies. I strongly urge you to read these, particularly the second: you've clearly been conducting original research on this page and you're still doing so in your above post. Your making deductions about what is and is not an apex predator. You're deductions don't count; neither do mine. I didn't mean to be under-handed: I brought this up more than a year ago and was well within policy bounds. This old version does not have a single source. (The National Geo link could be incorporated, however.) Marskell (talk) 14:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we blank this page... 

message: Do not readd this material unless you add reliable sources. 
...and some predators are at the end of a food chain having only three stages (grass→deer→wolf), the bare minimum for inclusion. Some, like  big cats, bears, hyenas, crocodiles, wolves and large dogs, some sharks, giant snakes, the leopard seal, the sperm whale, and the orca, are potential man-eaters, although most of them avoid aggression against humans.  Even those not dangerous to humans (e.g., owls) are formidable predators in their niches. A species of an animal might be a superpredator in some environments but not in others; one such is the domestic cat, which as an introduced species has caused extinction of vulnerable species on oceanic islands and in the Australian Outback. 
Formidability in a niche is not enough to make a creature a creature a superpredator. Preying mantises and bullfrogs can kill almost anything of their own size or smaller -- but they are themselves prey for much larger creatures. Venom, even if deadly, is inadequate to make a superpredator of a creature so fearsome as a rattlesnake that is prey for eagles, hawks, cats, pigs, kingsnakes, or roadrunners either immune to the sting or able to strike faster and more decisively than the snake. Box jellies and Portuguese Man o' War that can kill humans with their stings are routine food for some sea turtles also disqualified as apex predators that tiger sharks routinely prey upon. Even some seal and sea lion species are easy prey as adults for sharks, polar bears, and orcas; once onshore they have been killed by bears and lions as prey.   
Such an animal as a river dolphin or the Baikal seal, either of which would be ordinary prey for orcas in the open ocean, have no such predators in their usual habitats and are thus superpredators. 
All superpredators are at least part-time predators; strict filter-feeders are generally excluded, but such a creature as a whale shark that occasionally hunts and devours great numbers of herring qualifies. Such giant herbivores as elephants and hippopotamuses are excluded even if they are more dangerous to humans than are the big cats.   
==== Ecological role====
Overlapping ranges of different apex predators may cause some confusion, as some are much larger or differently adapted than others.  A predator becomes an "apex predator" when the other species living alongside it cease to consider that animal prey or only attempt to attack it in the most dire of situations.  For instance, although killer whales (orcas) occasionally attack and, even more rarely, feed upon great white sharks, both remain apex predators because such an occurrence is sufficiently rare for it to be considered a freak event.  However, orcas frequently target leopard seals as prey, making seals a regular item on the menu, and thus seals are not apex predators (even though orcas are their only consistent predator).  Tigers, lions, and crocodiles exemplify apex predators that occasionally interact violently with one another but do not normally risk contact with prey that might kill or cripple them. 
Dogs might be vulnerable to larger and more powerful predators, but in many places they are the most powerful predator except for humans. Dogs and humans, arguably the two most common large predators on most lands, are more likely to co-operate in hunting than to attack each other; as such they are effectively peers as predators at the top of the food chain in most of the world. As collaborators dogs and humans participate in some of the most efficient hunting and even fishing, even if the dog is "only" a retriever, sled dog, or net-puller that can reasonably expect to share some of the catch.  Power, speed, agility, strength, cunning, voracity, organization, intelligence, superb senses, and sharp teeth make dogs no less a deadly menace to much livestock and wildlife than are wolves.  
The same weapons that make superpredators such formidable hunters (claws, talons, teeth, strength) typically make them superb defenders of themselves. Even so seemingly vulnerable a predator as the electric eel that uses electrical charge to kill small fish and crustaceans as prey can give a potentially lethal shock to even such an obviously dangerous animal as a caiman, jaguar, cougar, dog, giant otter, anaconda, or human, causing the misguided predator to seek something less troublesome.
Some apex predators ordinarily hunt singly—sperm whale, alligator, reticulated python, anaconda, king cobra, snapping turtle, eagle, and any cat other than the lion; some are highly social in their hunting strategies — lions, wolves, dogs, dingoes, African hunting dogs, dholes, orcas, harrier hawks, and the driver ants and fire ants that in some niches are top predators.
In addition, the status of an apex predator depends only on its surroundings, not its innate hunting ability.  All species are highly attuned to their environment, and apex predators more so.  Outside of their normal context such a predator could easily become prey to unfamiliar species, as might a Komodo dragon in the grasslands alongside lions and hyenas. A sea star, cone shell, octopus,  or sea anemone that might have predators elsewhere might be the arch-predator of some small tide pool. 
Humans can be viewed as the "ultimate" apex predator if one applies the food-chain definition, as humans have largely eliminated the threat of being preyed upon in the wild, using technology, especially firearms, and even other animals such as dogs, falcons, cheetahs, horses, and elephants (even if the latter two are non-predators) to subdue, evade, or kill wild animals that pose danger. In certain regions of the world, however, mostly wilderness, humans are still a prey species. Predators such as lions, leopards, Nile crocodiles, and saltwater crocodiles retain notoriety for being "man-eaters", as the humans they interact with possess only relatively primitive defensive weapons. Still, by and large, humans have surpassed the evolutionary limitations of their bodies and as a result are safe from virtually all natural predators.
==== External links ====
*"Man-eating lions not aberrant, experts say," National Geographic News, January 4, 2004
*"Making the Case for Man-Eaters," National Geographic Today, October 9, 2003
*"Native Carnivores in the Southern Rockies
-----
Says who? I note the lack of a signature from someone who has made an imperious cut. That was underhanded even if such was not intended.
Some of this is self-evident. 
1. What is a reliable source, anyway? Could a filmed wildlife documentary  be a reliable source qualify? Such is observation, the cornerstone of scientific inquiry. Unless the filming is discreditable for some reason, such as staged filming or photographic forgery, questionable purposes in the filming (propaganda or for shock value for a program of slight educational value), or that some subsequent research has discredited the interpretation, film seems as valid as a book. That film is in extensive use in schools to demonstrate the principles of all sciences, including biology, suggests the legitimacy of filmed sources -- with the usual caveats of reputability and educational value. 
Fictional accounts do not qualify as sources, though they might qualify as illustrations, even if they have literary or cinematic merit (Moby Dick, Quo Vadis?, Jaws).
2. It is worth noting that early humans have gained dominion upon the Earth in part through predatory activities -- with the aid of tamed wolves (that is, dogs). Nothing in the definition indicates that humans and dogs, even if not full-time predators, are not superpredators'; they clearly share the top of the food chain in most land environments. Even if one notices that some humans raise dogs for meat, such dogs aren't the largest breeds. German Shepherds, Rottweilers, Great Danes, Mastiffs, and even St. Bernards would be far too dangerous to keep for such a purpose.   
3. The minimal level of species required to have a chain leading to a superpredator is obviously three, as in (grass→gazelle→lion).
Isn't that obvious? Does anyone question that a gazelle is a herbivore and that lions largely eat herbivores? Surely, even if lions on occasion kills a part-time predator (warthog, chimpanzee, baboon, human) as food, we know what lions largely eat: large herbivores. Antelopes. Gazelles.  Cape buffalo. Zebras. Giraffes. Occasional hippos and sub-adult elephants.    
4. Much of the discussion in the excised material is of definition. Some superpredators are obviously the largest and most imposing carnivores (big cats, wolves, bears, crocodilians, sharks, orcas, some whales); some are out of reach (largely birds, none of which approach the size of even wolves) of potential predators by their habitat.
But this isn't "Big, Bad, Predators", "Vicious Predators", or even "Giant Predators". The definition does not exclude a creature if it is cute, cuddly, tame (that is, predictable), or human. If anything, humans and dogs are the most ominous creatures that many of their prey could ever confront. After all, we are the most dangerous creature that has trod the Earth since at least T. Rex.
If such creatures as electric eels use the same method (electrical shock) that they use to kill prey to make themselves off limits to some much larger and deadly predators that might otherwise eat them. I have seen footage of electric eels giving non-lethal shocks to a caiman and have seen evidence that they can give a nasty shock to a human. I expect that a jaguar or dog somewhat similar in scale to a human would have good cause to avoid an electric eel. 
Likewise, the infamous driver ants and fire ants might be picked off singly, but no animal could imaginably attack a swarm profitably. These animals are undeniably predatory. 
4. Does hyperpredation -- that is, decimation of large populations of prey species -- qualify? This would include either dolphins utterly destroying shoals of fish (even if in unintended collaboration with seals, sharks, and sea birds) or feral cats driving some bird and mammal species into extinction. The Crown-of-Thorns starfish infamous for destroying coral reefs might qualify under this criterion. 
5. One theme has caused confusion: whether the qualification is simply that the ability to prey upon humans establishes a creature as a superpredator. Except for the pig, all such creatures are generally recognized as apex predators somewhere... and I am not sure that the feral pig isn't the largest predator in some environents.  
6. I have sought to show the breadth of predatory behavior -- which includes overwhelming size (sperm whale); striking silently and singly from the air, as does an eagle upon a hare; stealthy ambush, as by a crocodile just underwater in a river or by a big cat hidden in a grove; a well-organized hunt, as by wolves or lions; tool use (especially firearms) and collaboration with other creatures (dogs, hawks, cormorants, and cheetahs) that humans do with such lethality; remarkable strategy (harrier hawk); sheer force (giant snakes); overwhelming numbers (fire ants and driver ants); and intelligent exploitation of the environment (bears). To be sure, some of the techniques are built-in gimmicks, such as superb vision (owls and humans for specialized use), venom (king cobra, but only because the king cobra isn't prey for other animals), electric shock (electric eels, rays, and catfish which aren't closely related) and even echolocation (dolphins, where there isn't something bigger to attack them). Some are nasty cusses with near-invulnerability in their usual niche because of armor (snapping turtles) or disposition (badgers). Formidable techniques and lethality are not enough for an animal that has a significant predator throughout its range; even box jellies and Portuguese Man o' War that can kill humans with their stings face sea turtles that devour them readily and easily.
7. We cannot ignore location. Although seals and dolphins are obvious prey for orcas and sharks, at least two seal species seem to be out of range of them: the Baikal Seal (largely Lake Baikal) and the Weddell Seal, a seal that lives out of the range of all sharks and orcas. River dolphins, likewise, are out of range of any such predators.    
Superpredator behavior is not all alike; we need a scope that demonstrates the breadth of biology and behavior of top predators. The cut deletes much valuable material that has been attacked not so much for demonstrable falsehood (which would be immediate cause for deletion in itself) or irrelevance, but instead because someone has become a 'source fanatic'.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul from Michigan (talk • contribs) 12:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reliable sources are defined on our Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policies. I strongly urge you to read these, particularly the second: you've clearly been conducting original research on this page and you're still doing so in your above post. Your making deductions about what is and is not an apex predator. You're deductions don't count; neither do mine. I didn't mean to be under-handed: I brought this up more than a year ago and was well within policy bounds. This old version does not have a single source. (The National Geo link could be incorporated, however.) Marskell (talk) 14:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Old material

message: *"Man-eating lions not aberrant, experts say," National Geographic News, January 4, 2004
*"Making the Case for Man-Eaters," National Geographic Today, October 9, 2003
*"Native Carnivores in the Southern Rockies
-----
Says who? I note the lack of a signature from someone who has made an imperious cut. That was underhanded even if such was not intended.
Some of this is self-evident. 
1. What is a reliable source, anyway? Could a filmed wildlife documentary  be a reliable source qualify? Such is observation, the cornerstone of scientific inquiry. Unless the filming is discreditable for some reason, such as staged filming or photographic forgery, questionable purposes in the filming (propaganda or for shock value for a program of slight educational value), or that some subsequent research has discredited the interpretation, film seems as valid as a book. That film is in extensive use in schools to demonstrate the principles of all sciences, including biology, suggests the legitimacy of filmed sources -- with the usual caveats of reputability and educational value. 
Fictional accounts do not qualify as sources, though they might qualify as illustrations, even if they have literary or cinematic merit (Moby Dick, Quo Vadis?, Jaws).
2. It is worth noting that early humans have gained dominion upon the Earth in part through predatory activities -- with the aid of tamed wolves (that is, dogs). Nothing in the definition indicates that humans and dogs, even if not full-time predators, are not superpredators'; they clearly share the top of the food chain in most land environments. Even if one notices that some humans raise dogs for meat, such dogs aren't the largest breeds. German Shepherds, Rottweilers, Great Danes, Mastiffs, and even St. Bernards would be far too dangerous to keep for such a purpose.   
3. The minimal level of species required to have a chain leading to a superpredator is obviously three, as in (grass→gazelle→lion).
Isn't that obvious? Does anyone question that a gazelle is a herbivore and that lions largely eat herbivores? Surely, even if lions on occasion kills a part-time predator (warthog, chimpanzee, baboon, human) as food, we know what lions largely eat: large herbivores. Antelopes. Gazelles.  Cape buffalo. Zebras. Giraffes. Occasional hippos and sub-adult elephants.    
4. Much of the discussion in the excised material is of definition. Some superpredators are obviously the largest and most imposing carnivores (big cats, wolves, bears, crocodilians, sharks, orcas, some whales); some are out of reach (largely birds, none of which approach the size of even wolves) of potential predators by their habitat.
But this isn't "Big, Bad, Predators", "Vicious Predators", or even "Giant Predators". The definition does not exclude a creature if it is cute, cuddly, tame (that is, predictable), or human. If anything, humans and dogs are the most ominous creatures that many of their prey could ever confront. After all, we are the most dangerous creature that has trod the Earth since at least T. Rex.
If such creatures as electric eels use the same method (electrical shock) that they use to kill prey to make themselves off limits to some much larger and deadly predators that might otherwise eat them. I have seen footage of electric eels giving non-lethal shocks to a caiman and have seen evidence that they can give a nasty shock to a human. I expect that a jaguar or dog somewhat similar in scale to a human would have good cause to avoid an electric eel. 
Likewise, the infamous driver ants and fire ants might be picked off singly, but no animal could imaginably attack a swarm profitably. These animals are undeniably predatory. 
4. Does hyperpredation -- that is, decimation of large populations of prey species -- qualify? This would include either dolphins utterly destroying shoals of fish (even if in unintended collaboration with seals, sharks, and sea birds) or feral cats driving some bird and mammal species into extinction. The Crown-of-Thorns starfish infamous for destroying coral reefs might qualify under this criterion. 
5. One theme has caused confusion: whether the qualification is simply that the ability to prey upon humans establishes a creature as a superpredator. Except for the pig, all such creatures are generally recognized as apex predators somewhere... and I am not sure that the feral pig isn't the largest predator in some environents.  
6. I have sought to show the breadth of predatory behavior -- which includes overwhelming size (sperm whale); striking silently and singly from the air, as does an eagle upon a hare; stealthy ambush, as by a crocodile just underwater in a river or by a big cat hidden in a grove; a well-organized hunt, as by wolves or lions; tool use (especially firearms) and collaboration with other creatures (dogs, hawks, cormorants, and cheetahs) that humans do with such lethality; remarkable strategy (harrier hawk); sheer force (giant snakes); overwhelming numbers (fire ants and driver ants); and intelligent exploitation of the environment (bears). To be sure, some of the techniques are built-in gimmicks, such as superb vision (owls and humans for specialized use), venom (king cobra, but only because the king cobra isn't prey for other animals), electric shock (electric eels, rays, and catfish which aren't closely related) and even echolocation (dolphins, where there isn't something bigger to attack them). Some are nasty cusses with near-invulnerability in their usual niche because of armor (snapping turtles) or disposition (badgers). Formidable techniques and lethality are not enough for an animal that has a significant predator throughout its range; even box jellies and Portuguese Man o' War that can kill humans with their stings face sea turtles that devour them readily and easily.
7. We cannot ignore location. Although seals and dolphins are obvious prey for orcas and sharks, at least two seal species seem to be out of range of them: the Baikal Seal (largely Lake Baikal) and the Weddell Seal, a seal that lives out of the range of all sharks and orcas. River dolphins, likewise, are out of range of any such predators.    
Superpredator behavior is not all alike; we need a scope that demonstrates the breadth of biology and behavior of top predators. The cut deletes much valuable material that has been attacked not so much for demonstrable falsehood (which would be immediate cause for deletion in itself) or irrelevance, but instead because someone has become a 'source fanatic'.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul from Michigan (talk • contribs) 12:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reliable sources are defined on our Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policies. I strongly urge you to read these, particularly the second: you've clearly been conducting original research on this page and you're still doing so in your above post. Your making deductions about what is and is not an apex predator. You're deductions don't count; neither do mine. I didn't mean to be under-handed: I brought this up more than a year ago and was well within policy bounds. This old version does not have a single source. (The National Geo link could be incorporated, however.) Marskell (talk) 14:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: Do we have a diagram illustrating trophic levels.
This is not a topic directly involved in apex predation, and would be better illustrated by a diagram with accompanying prose rather than text alone.
I also feel that there is a fair bit missing from this article that makes it hard to access from a non-ecology/biology background.--ZayZayEM (talk) 01:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improve context suggestions 

message: Should Lions be removed from this classification or should a conflicting article Lion be edited for quote "The lion is an apex and keystone predator, although they will resort to scavenging if the opportunity arises."?
Absolutely not! We are not rejecting animals as apex predators if they are only part-time predators. Scavenging, strictly speaking, is not predation any more than is feasting upon grains or fruit (humans, dogs, wolves, bears). Part-time predators (humans, dogs, and grizzly bears) at the top of the food chain are by definition superpredators. One can reject as a superpredator an animal that lives entirely by scavenging even if it is at the top of the food chain (most vultures) because no large animal is likely to take cover because of a vulture. Likewise, the presence of a giant panda, which occasionally kills fish or mice as prey isn't likely to shape the behavior of animals such as deer that it can never catch -- even if a panda would gladly eat venison if given the opportunity. Humans, bears, wolves, and dogs are bad news to any animal that might see it as food even if such creatures are not obligate carnivores.      
Most predators (humans obviously excepted, along with dolphins, seals, snakes, and spiders) scavenge if they must. Scavenging is carnivorous behavior, and almost any voracious predator (examples: canids, bears, cats, hawks, sharks, monitor lizards, and crocodilians) is an efficient scavenger even if not an apex predator (crabs and lobsters). Scavenging is usually easier than hunting, but it does not always present itself as an opportunity. I have seen dogs eat road-kill deer, and wolves feast upon carrion in the winter. 
As a rule, any apex predator is bad news to potential prey. Predators and prey are often in evolutionary struggles, behavioral as well as physical, to continue catching prey -- and avoid becoming prey. Such an animal as a Thompson's gazelle has been honed to avoid becoming food for big cats by becoming faster than the cats; the big cats must get increasingly clever as well as swift if it is to catch a gazelle.
... To reject an animal as a superpredator because it occasionally scavenges or eats much vegetable material is to ensure that many biomes have no superpredator, an absurd situation that would cut the significance of the article to triviality.. In much of the world, that in which dogs and humans are the effective top of the food chain, such a rejection would establish that in some parts of the world there is no superpredator. Even such an animal as the grizzly bear, less carnivorous than either dogs or humans, would be rejected.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul from Michigan (talk • contribs) 18:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Big cats not apex predators 

message: I find it strange that the Polar Bear is quoted as the largest land predator, is the fact that a kodiak bear is bigger something of a predator forgotten.
The kodiak bear is generally longer and normally heavier than the polar bear, it even says so in their Wikipedia entry.
Gryphon
83.67.115.242 (talk) 14:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polar Bears 

message: I have reverted a major cut that verges on vandalism. What remained after that cut was a veritable definition that itself falls short of an article of encyclopedic scope. 
If someone wishes to modify the text incrementally, then such is appropriate.  That includes, of course, consolidations of text and removal of disputed material. Such is better done with a scalpel than with a meat cleaver.
The definition of a superpredator is obvious enough: that in some of its normal environment as a healthy adult it a predatory creature not subject to predation at any obligatory stage of its existence except by members of its own species. For example, the most dangerous animals to dogs are usually other dogs, and the most dangerous animals to crocodilians are usually other crocodilians of the same species.  Sources for all animals considered superpredators are cited. Maybe the word "superpredator" or the phrases "top predator" or "apex predator" are not used, but in least those that I have used, the context fits the definition.  For example, in much of the world, dogs and humans share the top of the food chain even if some parts of the world have creatures (crocodilians, giant snakes, big cats, bears, sharks, killer whales, bears, and hyenas would kill one or the other. In much of the world, dogs and humans are the top predators, especially where the two creatures cooperate in hunting. That range of biomes is large enough that both animals must be ranked as superpredators in much of the world lest there be no superpredators where they are the top killers of wildlife. If the Komodo Dragon qualifies as a superpredator throughout its range, then one must recognize dogs and humans as superpredators at least in biomes such as the British Isles where they face no larger killers. That they range into areas in which some other larger and more dangerous creatures live should not cloud the issue.
   
All superpredators evoke fear by their presence. Does anyone question that deer have good cause to flee humans or dogs -- but not cattle?
Where citations are not included on creatures, then those are defined out of the category or are used to demonstrate that the creature is not a superpredator. Thus, even if pigs are not considered superpredators, their ability to eat rattlesnakes demonstrate that rattlesnakes are not superpredators.  
Can some creatures be superpredators in some environments and not in othes? Certainly. Lions have good cause to not try to swim in crocodile-infested waters, and Nile crocodiles have good cause to avoid going an excessive distance away from waterways where they can get away easily from lions. Lions are land predators; crocodiles are aquatic predators. I can imagine one predator that could make short work of a tiger: a killer whale. But even at that, the tiger is not a hunter of the open ocean, and it faces no obvious threat except for an armed human or other tigers on land.        
The article is reverted. Please -- change it by editing out questionable material instead of trashing the article.--Paul from Michigan (talk) 07:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Paul, I appreciate that you want to add to the encyclopedia but clearly you do not understand critical policies, particularly no original research. You cannot decide what is an apex predator. A source must say it first. That's it. It's very simple. If the source does not mention the term apex predator you cannot use it here to claim an animal is one. Even worse, you are coming up with your own completely tangential, unsourced commentary. Marskell (talk) 08:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

text: "Fitting the definition is adequate." No it is not. You're simply wrong on this, with regards to Wikipedia policy. Please read here. The remainder of your explanation is (as ever) you ticking off your own definitions and interpretations—precisely what we are not supposed to be doing on site. Despite bringing up dogs ad naseum, you have yet to produce a single source calling them an apex predator. Marskell (talk) 14:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reduction to a definition = vandalism 

message: We have a definition, peer-reviewed, for "superpredator" in marine environments -- an animal at or above the fourth trophic level. That includes such creatures as Emperor penguins, sea otters, bottlenose dolphins,  giant octopuses, squid, harbor seals, cone shells, sea anemones, box jellyfish, the Portuguese Man O'War, loggerhead turtles, chinook salmon, marlins, beluga whales, and great white sharks, all predators upon predatory fish or cnidarians but themselves subject to predation by other creatures -- such as the orca. That allows a wide variety of animals that would be considered superpredators except by the highest standard -- a predatory animal at the top of the food chain. In the sea, that would allow only as few as three animals to be considered superpredators -- the orca, the sperm whale,and humans -- and would reduce the category to a preposterously-small category. An analogy would be an article on extant species of genus Homo, which of course includes only one species -- humans. 
On land, the minimum trophic level is obviously three, as such creatures as humans, big cats, large canids, giant snakes, hyenas, and bears that prey upon large herbivores generally aren't themselves prey. Raptor birds and crocodilians are generally exempt from predation, too, but they often are at the fourth or higher level when they prey upon predatory fish.
Because some creatures might operate at the second, third, and higher levels routinely [example: a grizzly bear that eats berries (second trophic level), deer (third) or fourth (when it eats salmon)] -- a top predator, even part-time -- the trophic-level definition applicable at sea isn't applicable on land. Although scavengers are not considered predators when scavenging, most large predators scavenge on occasion. 
We have generally reduced the superpredator category on land to exclude animals that on occasion reach the fourth trophic level (rat, preying mantis, weasel, peccary, blue jay) that are routine prey throughout their ranges to other creatures. Domestic cats? That depends on a location, one in which the cat (often feral) is the largest predator. That makes sense in that the word superpredator seems to suggest an animal that imposes fear on others of being eaten and generally is exempt from such fear.  That's a rather small group of animals on land --  humans, big cats, large canids, giant snakes, hyenas, bears, and the Komodo dragon; top killers from the skies (eagles, hawks, falcons, great horned owls); and semi-aquatic killers, including crocodilians and giant otters. If there is any common feature of such diverse creatures, these are animals not to be messed with.
Some have small ranges (the Komodo dragon, limited to a few islands); some are nearly ubiquitous (humans, dogs). Sure, there are animals that can prey upon humans... but in much of the world, those animals have a healthy respect for humans if they are even present. Dogs? That depends on size, location, training, and organization. The infamous pit bull is usually trained by having it attack and kill (and probably eat) smaller animals. The less troublesome greyhound is trained to chase rabbits before it races "professionally"; those that never develop the speed with which to catch rabbits don't race. When retired from racing to lives as pets, they are menaces to squirrels that can get away from any other breed of dog quickly enough.
Dogs in packs can at the least tree what they don't catch. That includes bears and cougars, at times in hunts with humans. In the United States, dogs are the #1 predatory threat to livestock and large wildlife. If large, attack-trained, in a pack, or hunting with humans, dogs might as well be "big cats". How large is "large"? I'd put the pit bull in the "large" category as a predator on its own merits. All in all, no cattleman or sheepherder wants an unfamiliar dog around the flock or the herd any more than a cattleman or sheepherder wants a bear, wolf, or cougar around.  
Ecological role itself suggests that dogs and humans are themselves superpredators as the biggest devourers of meat on land. Yes, there are places where even large dogs are not top predators, as where there are alligators, crocodiles, hyenas, wolves, big cats, giant snakes, or bears -- but that's a large part of the world. But there are far more places where the Komodo dragon wouldn't have a chance, either. On sea? I can think of lots of animals that would make short work of a dog -- but they would also make short work of a tiger, too. 
Humans and dogs are the top two predators in much of the world, and where they have driven out or destroyed their likely competition, any refusal to recognize them as superpredators suggests that in that niche, there is no superpredator. Raising animals to be killed and eaten is no less predatory than is stalking them and overpowering them with teeth and claws. Catching fish with nets or rod and reel only to eat them later is no less predatory than the methods that killer whales use upon herring.--Paul from Michigan (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dogs and humans, again 

message: 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.
DeMartini, Edward E., Friedlander, Alan M., and Holzwarth, Stephani R. (2005). "Size at sex change in protogynous labroids, prey body size distributions, and apex predator densities at NW Hawaiian atolls". Marine ecology progress series  297: 259 -271. ISSN: 0171-8630.  Retrieved on 2006-12-21.
Lepak, Jesse M., Kraft, Clifford E., and Weidel, Brian C. (2006). "Rapid Food Web Recovery in Response to Removal of an Introduced Apex Predator".  Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 63(3): 569-575. ISSN: 0706-652X. Retrieved on 2006-12-13.
 Kuhn, Carey E., McDonald, Birgitte I., Shaffer, Scott A., Barnes, Julie, Crocker, Daniel E., Burns, Jennifer, and Costa, Daniel P. (2006). "Diving physiology and winter foraging behavior of a juvenile leopard seal (Hydrurga leptonyx)". Polar Biology 29(4): 303-307. ISSN: 0722-4060.  Retrieved on 2006-12-21.
I now suggest that this article be redirected to Predation, which contains most of the material surviving in this article. References may be moved to that article.--Paul from Michigan (talk) 05:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refs from List of 

message: Could someone clarify (in the article itself) whether this is a "good" change? I.e., does it improve biodiversity and or amount of life? Ingolfson (talk) 11:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "from grassland into tundra through predation on seabirds" 

message: There are a number of references in the section that are not cited within the article. This reference list needs updating. Uncited references should be moved to a "See also" section if they're still noteworthy. Emble64 (talk) 17:44, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference section

message: I have a link that includes (from Wikicommons) that whose image includes two of the deadliest predators in the world, all the more lethal because of their cooperation.  It appears at this stage as a raw jpg, but if it can be turned into an image... 
Except for good behavior toward humans, a large dog has all the usual characteristics of typical large carnivores -- power, speed, agility, strength,  voracity, intelligence, and aggression... and sharp teeth and claws with powerful muscles behind them and keen senses -- except for the willingness to eat humans.  In much of the world this is the largest predator other than himself that Man tolerates. Domestication has made it no less lethal a predator than other true carnivores even if it has become more predictable. But part of that predictability is that it participates in hunting as deadly as that of a cat, bear, hyena, wolf, giant otter, or seal. (Cetaceans may be even deadlier than any land carnivores, but they are sea creatures, and there is an image of an orca. There is yet no image of any true Carnivore; the dog is simply the most common of them even if one rules out most dogs for their small size. Man's best friend? Of course... but only a fool would do anything to make an enemy out of this creature. Dogs have been used in the hunting of even lions... of course in packs.  
The other, of course, is the dog's human partner, this time with a dog sled. Few animals could ever take on this pair of killers and survive -- even polar bears. By showing a large dog as a superpredator demonstrates that large land and semi-aquatic members of order Carnivora except the Giant Panda (only a sporadic predator) are all superpredators... and that almost all of the mammalian predators on land that are superpredators are members of order Carnivora. The only other large land mammals that are superpredators are the rare Tasmanian Devil and the ubiquitous human. Humans are apes and not true carnivores, but with their extreme intelligence, organization, and tool use they are what one ecologist described as "the most terrible Tiger". Man's best friend has some very tiger-like behavior and abilities, too. Pbrower2a (talk) 01:32, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dogsled image   

message: The bottom 3 image descriptions (dog, whale shark, eagle) are some of the most convoluted, incomprehensible runon sentences i've ever seen!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.5.190.230 (talk) 09:45, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Three Image Descriptions Need Rewrite 

message: I have chosen to replace the image of a human hunter for three reasons: first, that humans are mentioned in the caption with large dogs as collaborators; second, that depictions of any human culture as especially characteristic of a top predator might be derogatory to that people; and third, that the gallery needs an invertebrate to create some balance. The gallery so far showed only vertebrates.Pbrower2a (talk) 07:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  box jelly replaces human 

message: :I think you're somewhat out of line removing the image of a human hunter, since humans are arguably the world's most most successful apex predator. In order to rectify this, I've now replaced the rather vague, and frankly not very good, image of a man traversing a snowy landscape using in a dog sled:  With something that I think is a better fitting image, of a contemporary hunter, hunting with dogs and holding a rifle:  Hopefully you'll find this more agreeable with your sensibilities, since it's now a picture of a white male (who probably nobody anywhere ever would mind being called "a top predator"). I've also changed the text from: 
:
:To: 
: 
:All the people on this talk page who like dogs, and still want them mentioned, hopefully doesn't miss a thing. Here's me hoping this one will stick! Gavleson (talk) 05:26, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  quail hunting image vs. sled dogs 

message: The skeleton shown is the headless "Sue" in the Chicago Museum of Natural History. "Sue" is a star attraction of the museum, so to speak, and she is placed next to a depiction of an African elephant. Such is anachronistic, but it gives a good idea of how large Sue was. The elephant as shown would have been easy prey.
The head? The fossilized head was simply too heavy to be placed on "Sue's" body. It is in a separate display nearby, and the head on Sue is a lightweight model. Pbrower2a (talk) 02:26, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  T-Rex 

message: The linked article on trophic levels only goes as high as 3.  What is trophic level 4, and what is higher than it? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 03:16, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest you look at the article again. It clearly discusses the fourth trophic level, as well as decomposers, which can function as a further, fifth level. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:58, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "trophic level 4" 

message: As with cats -- one bear is enough. I rewrote the caption of the tiger so that it would discuss all cats. Even the domestic cat is so similar in build and behavior (except for getting along with humans instead of killing and eating them) with a tiger that it fits the caption. The gallery would be loaded with cats if someone didn't prevent such by writing all cats into the 'tiger' caption. Lions get mention in another caption for a distant relative for their organization in prides.   
I'd pick the image of the Kodiak bear (which is basically the same bear as the Eurasian brown bear and the grizzly bear) over the image of the polar bear because the Kodiak bear is in a natural setting and is being shown as a predator -- even if a polar bear is more strictly a predator. The polar bear has a clearer image than is typical in the wild -- but it is a close relative of the great brown bears. I prefer showing predatory animals as predators in wild settings and not as inmates of zoos. If I can put dogs and wolves in the same caption (dogs really are wolves) because they can hybridize, such is appropriate with brown and polar bears.
Pbrower2a (talk) 20:47, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  One bear is enough in the gallery 

message: I've wanted some invertebrates included in the gallery, and I can now think of one: the gigantic lions mane jellyfish, as adults prey only for sea turtles in those seasons in which the range of those creatures meet. Other jellyfish, even some of the most dreaded, are in continuous peril from sea turtles.Pbrower2a (talk) 03:11, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lions' mane jellyfish 

message: I believe this article should do more to explain that most apex predators, humans being an excellent example, are themselves prey for other apex predators.Kehkou (talk) 02:25, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apex prey? 

message: This article is largely crap and needs a huge cleanup. Most of the examples (wolves in Yellowstone for example) have nothing to do with apex-ness, it's simply the effect predators have on prey. "Apex predation" may mean something in the world of fish (where predation is largely based on size) but it's virtually meaningless in environments where carnivores feed on herbivores, but not on each other, and where large carnivores eat large herbivores, and small carnivores eat small herbivores and they don't compete with each other. Look at the list of references for this article. How many of those referenced sources are actually talking about "apex" in a meaningful way? Very few.
Here's a good one: "Where two competing species are in an ecologically unstable relationship, apex predators tend to create stability if they prey upon both" Really? wouldn't any predator that preys on both have the same effect? what difference does it make to the prey whether the predator had predators of it's own? It's sheer nonsense. 71.190.240.122 (talk) 05:47, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:Undue 

message: I mean, without technology, humans are very weak and would easily get killed by these other animals. --67.80.54.108 (talk) 23:10, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: They are not natural prey of the animals. It isn't about "could they" more "do they" ZayZayEM (talk) 12:55, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should "armed humans" really count as apex predators? 

message: We're told that one of the gallery photos shows a killer whale 'observing' a Weddell seal. Since there seem to be bloodstains on the ice floe, the whale has surely been doing rather more than just 'observing' the seal - as if it were a naturalist with binoculars and a hushed voice like Britain's David Attenborough.... 213.127.210.95 (talk) 14:28, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Odd photo caption 

message: The section on humans is ridiculous!  Humans are super-predators and we have raped the sea and land of any and all species that we want.  We have supertanker fishing ships and we have hunted many animals to extinction or close to extinction.  If we wanted to we could destroy all animals on the planet including ourselves.  The entire section on humans *must* be rewritten to express these facts!  Thank you IQ125 (talk) 19:13, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Modern humans are huge distance above common apex predators. Humans living in civilizations don't "hunt" for food nor to defend territory. They do it for sport. The only thing that would make sense is to have someone from a modern hunter-gatherer-ish tribe since they actually do still hunt for such reasons. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 09:09, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Humans

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Apex predator. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080911091513/http://www.dnr.cornell.edu/cek7/Publications/Lepak_et_al_2006.pdf to http://www.dnr.cornell.edu/cek7/Publications/Lepak_et_al_2006.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:55, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I'm replacing the image of the lion with one of the great horned owl. This is not to downgrade the lion as a superb predator; it's simply that the dog is similar enough to a lioness as a social predator in build and behavior. Humans may be very dissimilar to lions in build, but they have organization in the hunt characteristic of wolves (human families have much the same structure as wolf packs, and  dogs are descended from wolves and get incorporated easily into a family much like a wolf pack) and lions. Dogs also kill much like lions.  
It's not to deprecate the lion. It's to have an predator very different in build and behavior from humans and dogs. We have two social land predators in one image. and a lion as an illustration of the key paragraph is one more. A great horned owl is a solitary, avian predator very different from a human or dog -- or a lion. 
The lion joins the more general gallery, deserving attention separate from the other cats that are not social predators. (Domestic cats are social creatures, but solitary predators) Pbrower2a (talk) 02:26, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great horned owl