Talk:Predation/Archive 1

Archive 1

cold blooded killers

I pulled the following from the article:

Further, predators generally avoid one another: the biomass 
of prey species is greater than that of other predators and 
predation upon competing predatory species may involve a 
great caloric outpout and an undue risk of injury.
. . .
Similarly, competing species of shark may feed on the same 
species but ignore each other due to the potential harm 
involved.

There are some technical inaccuracies, but that's not why I yanked it. (I actually wanted to delete more, and may yet, but for now, I'm starting small). The second half of this article gets way off topic. It's a good point to make, but 2/3 of the article is devoted to explaining what predators are not. We need more on what predators are. The bit I took out gets off topic from the original tangent. Jmeppley 06:53, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

How is the fact that predators generally don't prey on one another tangential to the topic of predation? And what are the technical inaccuracies? The point about pets at the end does wander. I tidied it as best I could. Marskell 13:54, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I just feel like there's too much being devoted to the habits of a subset of predators under certain conditions. Also much of the section strays from NPOV and sounds like an impassioned defense of carnivores. Which brings me to another point, this all possibly would make more sense on the carnivore page.

Having said that, I did overreact last night. On re-reading what I clipped, there is only one mistake and it's just terminology confusion. (biomass is not the word you're looking for, more on that in a bit) I skimmed it and saw it as needless extension of an already over-indulgent paragraph. I apologize for coming down so had on your addition. It actually does add something new. I was just trying to shrink the paragraph and opted to take out the most recent addition. I posted it here, not entirely to single it out as the sole problem with the section, but to make sure that the content wasn't lost as we try to re-write the article. Also, on re-reading, I agree that it's the second paragraph that needs more work.

Now...Biomass is just the organic material in an organism. A 100 pound lion has the same biomass as a 100 pound antelope. You're thinking about energy conversion. There is a rough rule of 1/10 that say something like one tenth of the biomass of a prey species is converted to biomass of a predator that eats it. So a prey population can support a predator population an order of magnitude smaller. In other words the biomass of a hundred pound lion reflects 10 hundred pound antelope that it has eaten over it's lifetime. In reality this is much messier, the number 10 is a VERY rough estimate, there aren't 10 antelope, but parts of many more antelope that add up to the equivalent of 10 antelope, and at some point the lion stops growing, so a lion that just reached it's maximum size represents, say, 7 antelope, and an older lion could represent something like 15. (Again, these numbers are all just rough estimates and aren't meant to be taken literally)

Anyway, you may have known that, but I got a little carried away in my explanation. Having written all this, I don't have time to play with the actual article right now. I really think most of this stuff should be trimmed down severly and moved to the carnivore page. Actually, IMO, the stuff you wrote along with a much less wordy version of my explanation should be the bulk of what stays. Jmeppley 21:30, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

First, I agree that moving material and perhaps merging might be in order--but to predator not to carnivore. Insofar as this remains a page it ought to be technical. We should unpack the science of predation as a behavioural strategy.

Regarding biomass: I claim no special knowledge but think I understand the concept adaquetely. In fact, your unpacking it actually underscores the point I was trying to insert. Say there is an order of magnitude more deer meat than fox meat in a given area. Which species will the grey wolf--who can kill both--prey upon? The former, obviously--more of it and easier to kill. Predation in the uber sense, is caloric output versus caloric reward. Lions can kill cheetahs and hyenas but it would certainly be a stupid strategy to choose those species as targets when hundreds of thousands of water buffalo and zebra are hanging about. The caloric output required and the risk of injury outweighs the caloric reward. I think points of this sort are quite on topic here.

Admittedly, "biomass" isn't perfect, in that it can refer to apple peels in your garden through a living a predator, but I couldn't think of more precise term. I do find inter-predator interaction fascinating and if we have a predation page we should discuss it. Oh, and I actually created a Generalist and specialist animals page yesterday. When you "sectionized" this page I thought you'd either looked at my contrib's or it was a weird case of serendipity. In any case, it's a totally inadequate stub. Check it out and expand. Marskell 22:58, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I actually looked for a page on specialists and or generalists and failed to find your page. Oops. It's a good start. I think we should not merge it into predation since there are types of specialization that do not involve predator/prey interactions. The most well-known are pollniators/flowers, but there are more.

An inter-predator interaction section is a good idea. Go for it.

I would still argue that the bulk of what was there before should go in carnivore. The issue is that predator has two meanings. The first is as a synonym for carnivore. The second (particularly the noun form—predation—in a scientific context) has a braoder meaning that includes carnivory, herbivory, parasitism, and cannibalism. I would propose that predation cover the more general sense with a prominent link in the beginning to carnivore. But we should wait on that to see if anyone else has an opinion. Jmeppley 23:48, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

When I started generalist/specialist I certainly wasn't thinking it should be merged anywhere. It's this page that could ultimately merged and really perhaps we should slap the label on it and see if we get comments. I think this business belongs in predator for a few reasons. The obvious semantic one (predation --> predator) to begin with. More importantly, carnivore is actually a taxonomic label, even if the page naturally treats it in a behavioural sense. Carnivore is a mammalian order first and a behavioural type second and the two may actually stand in opposition: a good percentage of taxonomic carnivores are practically classified as ominivores. But when I call an animal a predator, I'm not concerned about whether it only eats meat or what its taxonomic status is--I'm only concerned about whether it practices predation. In sum, I see predator and predation as basically coterminous, while carnivore is not strictly equivalent to either term. Marskell 23:14, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm apparently quite dense. I just now noticed that there is a separate predator page from this page. Your plan sounds good and it looks like someone else agrees with you (Kchishol1970 tagged it for merge). Jmeppley 04:23, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Thinking about it, it is a pretty obvious merge. Assuming no complaints over the next 24 I'll go ahead and do it. Marskell 09:58, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Fish?

wtf? I've seen fish nibbling the toes of waterbirds before but they're usually fighting for food. The fish do take the youngsters though, but adults?!? Dunc_Harris|☺ 21:45, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Try this: [1] Graft 01:23, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I replaced the Great White Shark with the Killer Whale (orca) as an example because killer whales eat Great White Sharks.--66.231.47.145 00:27, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but orcas move around a lot while Great Whites are highly territorial. Graft 14:22, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Motivation and popular belief

The section on "Motivation" for predation beings with the following sentence:

Contrary to conventional belief, predation is not typically an indiscriminate urge to kill other living beings.

I think the relevance (and accuracy) of this sentence is pretty questionable. I highly doubt that it is actually conventional belief that predation is a indiscriminate urge to kill other living beings. I would simply remove the sentence or, better yet, change it to segue properly into the next sentence without attributing this belief to the masses at large. But I don't know... What do you think? Any examples of where this belief is expressed?

--BadLeprechaun 23:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Moving this page to Predator (biology)

At first I thought that Wikipedia screwed up, but it looks like Duncharris does not want "predator" moved to "predator (biology)" so that "predator" can be a disambiguation page.

After the move, the link structure would go like this:

• Predator
  • Predator (biology)
  • Predator (movie)
  • RQ-1 Predator - military
  • Predator's Gold - book
  • Predation - the act

Predator Growth

Two reverts only seconds after I modified the structure and content of "Predator".

The biological predator piece here lacks substantially compared to the Predator the movie and even the RQ-1 Predator articles. Predation and Predator's Gold contain a similar amount of information. This justifies moving the piece on biological predators to a new location called "Predator (biology)" and then turning the generic word "Predator" into a disambiguation page.

Additionally, a friend and I will be compiling a piece on apex predators and so "apex predator" will now be a self-sufficient piece and that justifies its being linked in the article.

Duncharris reverted the new organization and links so quickly that I suspect a bot may be behind it. Revert bots will not allow this piece to grow, even though they are, ironically, predatory. How about letting this get reorganized, DuncanHarris (if there is a person there)? You might just like it. I'd appreciate you not being so quick to revert.

The main Wikipedia page needs to stay with the first and primary meaning of the term. I suspect that's why you got reverted. Otherwise we get into such silliness such as the Ice age page referring to a movie, which some wanted to do. Pollinator 22:41, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

I understand why you would want it to stay that way. What you are saying is that it would be best if there are no disambiguation pages and the most "common" words appear first with links to other terms at the bottom of the common-word page. Here are two reasons I would like it disambiguated:

• "A predator" would most likely mean the animal kind--unless one was a sci-fi fan or a military buff or a psychologist, at which point it would be more specific. Note that "a predator", even though it is the name of a movie, is also the creature in the movie, whereas "the Ice Age" is the same thing in the movie and in geology and thus is closely related in it's setting.
• A disambiguation page eliminates the need to scroll down through an entire article of something that is not very tightly related to it, like a table of contents. Who knows, maybe much much more will be added to the page on biological predators.

What do you think? And more importantly, how does any of that justify DuncHarris unlinking the link I added to apex predator, too?

Koshki June 12, 2005

There are several styles of disambiguation used Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Disambiguation. For my money I would agree with Dunc_Harris and Pollinator that in this case, the biological use of the word 'predator' is a type 3 Primary topic disambiguation, and so should stay where it is. Although, it would be feasible to move the Other Uses section to the page Predator (disambiguation) with an {{otheruses}} link at the top of this page.

However, if you still disagree, it might be a good idea to raise the question at Wikipedia:Requested moves to get a wider range of input. -- Solipsist 19:28, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You have a good solution, Solipsist. I will try that. And I did read through the disambiguation guidance pages before even attempting the move. I want to point out, too, that Duncharris has not bothered to join this discussion. Nor has anyone discussed the merits of his unlinking the apex predator page. Duncharris also has a track record of indefinitely banning people from Wikipedia. It would be horrible if he is abusing his administrative position by trying to start revert wars so that he could ban people. We'll see shortly if he immediately reverts the link to a disambiguation page or if he actually takes the time to appreciate new contributions.

--

Koshki 05:57, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Looks like we are getting it sorted out now. -- Solipsist 09:06, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

   I'm wondering about section 3.3.1 "mobbing" behaviour. 
   Im sure someone is taking the piss mob is like on every single line,
   there is another word i'll think of it in minute, if someone has a suggestion please say.
   Duckman142

Two different definitions for Apex Predator

Hi,

It seems to me that this article contains 2 different definitions for "Apex Predator":

1. A predator that is not eaten by other predators
2. A predator that plays a central role in its eco-system

It would be nice for the article to make clear which one is the definition of the term.

Cheers,

Rene The definition (which comes from a peer-reviewed source) for marine environment is the "fourth or higher trophic level", which implies the second or higher predator. This implies a large variety of animals that might have predators upon them -- for example, loggerhead turtles that prey upon jellyfish that prey upon predatory fish. Loggerhead turtles are themselves prey for orcas and sharks, but the fourth trophic level allows a large number of animals that might be local (by marine standards) top predators. If the definition were the absolute top throughout the seas, then very few animals -- probably the orca and the sperm whale -- could be discussed as superpredators in marine environments. There might be animals in deep sea environments (abyssal plain and the deepest trenches) of whose ecological roles are nowlittle known. Where there are no orcas, such creatures that might be usual prey for an orca (sharks and any whales) are safe. Where the large predatory sharks as well as orcas are absent, then humans, the largest seals, dolphins, and sea turtles are safe from predation and are superpredators. Where sea turtles are absent, then pelagic jellyfish and similar organisms are top predators. Such hit-and-fly creatures as predatory birds that approach the sea for easy prey and then fly off to safe perches elsewhere might be local top predators. The open oceans are no more monolithic environments than is land. In view of the paucity of knowledge of deep-sea environments, one is wisely advised to say little. Lacustrine environments may fit the same definition -- but the definition in a peer-reviewed source does not address fresh-water environments. One definition is the one of the predatory animal at the top of the food chain. That usually applies to land biomes where food chains are very short. The fourth trophic level might not exist: the lion that preys upon wildebeest that eat grasses is the absolute top of the food chain on the African savanna, and it is "only" at the third trophic level. Most large land predators (bears, big cats, giant snakes, hyenas, large canids, and humans) are at the third trophic level. Much can be said about such hit-and-fly predators as raptor birds (example: the falcon that preys upon hares that eat grasses is at the third trophic level). Paradoxically, a small land predator -- a domestic cat -- may operate on the fourth trophic level by eating a small bird that preys upon grubs that eat vegetable material -- and might itself be prey for larger predators. Is the domestic cat better described as a supepredator than a lion because it is at a "higher" trophic level? Comparatively few large land predators are 100% predatory. Hyenas, big cats, and large canids all scavenge. Some of the large predators are better described as omnivores -- dogs, humans, coyotes, chimpanzees, baboons, and most bear species. (The polar bear is an almost strict carnivore for lack of vegetable foods in its environment; the panda is an ineffective hunter because of its lack of speed, but it eats meat if given the opportunity). All of the animals in this paragraph are difficult or dangerous prey at least as adults and are generally left alone even by other predators. Example: dogs are difficult to stalk due to their keen senses, and a pack of dogs can tree almost any other land predator that the pack cannot drive off. Much unlike the norm in oceanic environments, the food chains are well known on land environments and most non-polar fresh-water environments. Questions remain on whether one can decide whether an animal is itself a predator -- and that especially applies to humans, some of which are strict vegetarians. Likewise, is the raising of livestock or poultry for food predatory behavior? Such activity has greatly reshaped much of the world's land surface. That said, some humans have had to live lives best described as 100% predatory. --Paul from Michigan (talk) 14:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Predator and Prey (or the name of this page)

There seem to by nultiple opinions as to the proper name of this page. Last year the decision was made to keep it at Predator instead of Predator (biology). There seems to be a new idea that it move to Predator and prey. This was done without any discussion (that I can find) and partially reverted (also without discussion). I just tied up some loose ends of the revert (removing redirects to redirects) in the interest of keeping things clean. Let's hear some discussion before doing anything major.

Personally, I'm for leaving the page at predator because everything links here already and it is in some sense the primary concept. Jmeppley 20:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

From User talk:Ewlyahoocom#predator and prey

I logged on today to find predation being redirected to predator and prey which redirects to predator. I started fixing the double redirecs before realizing what happened. It seems you renamed the page to predator and prey and someone moved it back. I've completed the move back because there were a bunch of ugly double redirects. If you have stong feelings and good reasons why your original change should be preserved, I'd like to hear them. If there already was a discussion and I just failed to find it, please point it out (on my talk page or on talk:predator). Jmeppley 20:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, there isn't a Prey specific page (and I don't think there should be) but it is a popular link, so it should go somewhere. All the links intend the predator/prey meaning, so Predator seemed the logical place to redirect to: what would a predator be without prey? But the page is pretty much one-sided (the side of the predator) so I was hoping moving the page would make it clear that the page should cover both predator and prey. Predation is actually the better name, but that's an obstructed move. In the event, whoever moved it back should have checked for double links. Or maybe they did and just didn't feel like updating them? Ewlyahoocom 08:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I was the one who merged predation here. Thinking about the prey issue though, moving it to predation may make the most sense as it conceptually includes predators and prey. Marskell 14:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Predation makes the most sense. As you say, it includes the idea of prey as well, and it's also consistent with the other biological interactions. I think it was merged into predator because the predator page had better content. Jmeppley 17:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

"It was merged into predator because the predator page had better content." Yes, basically. It was just easiest/most sensible move looking at the two pages. So rename this "Predation" then? Do we need an admin to get the histories sorted properly? Marskell 21:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Predator → Predation … Rationale: what is a predator without prey? and what is prey with predators? … Please share your opinion at Talk:Predator. Ewlyahoocom 10:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support per above. Marskell 13:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support per above, as having prey redir to predator is ridiculous. "Seems uncontroversial"? More like "is uncontroversial" if you ask me. DO IT! ;) --M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 23:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

  What am I talkign about? It's done already. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 23:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

This seems uncontroversial. I'm just going to do it. Graft 14:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

Also see previous section (#Predator and Prey (or the name of this page)) for some discussion. Ewlyahoocom 10:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Article Expansion

If "Predator" and "Prey" are to encompass one article, then this article is in great need of expansion. Any researcher coming to this article in search of specific prey information (types of prey, lists of animals of prey, techniques of prey, etc.) would have a fairly difficult time. This article is alot like a dead end. A dead end article.It needs to be further sectionalized to include lists of predators and prey species (or links to such lists), which of course can never be complete. And internal links and categories should also be included.--J. Daily 00:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Predator vs herbivores

hi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.65.125.134 (talk) 18:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Isn't a herbivore, even one that kills the plant still different from a predator in that it's eating a producer (i.e. it's a primary consumer) compared to a predator which is eating a consumer (i.e. it's secondary or higher consumer) ? Nil Einne 15:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure of its exact status, though it usually refers to animals who kill and eat other animals. I'm fairly sure the way it is portrayed in the template at the bottom is incorrect, I'll bring it up on the template talk page. Richard001 23:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

After researching the definition I can confirm predation does include all forms of eating other living organisms, including herbivory as well as parasitism and grazing. An organism that eats consumers would be classed as a carnivore. Predation often refers to animals killing and eating other animals, especially in general conversation, but ecologically it can be a more broad concept, and the interactions (predator having some effect on prey unlike detrivory is of key importance. Richard001 05:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

1. Predation is a major driver of biodiversity, but this is barely mentioned. 2. I miss the discussion of the asymmetric adaptive force of predation -- at least a mention of the dinner/life principle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.60.225.15 (talk) 10:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

natural enemy

I think that "natural enemy" should NOT be redirected to this page. Please consider creating new article - natural enemy might include parasites as well as predators and maybe also pests. --Vojtech.dostal (talk) 15:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, parasites are a form of predator in the broader sense, so this would probably be the best target of the two. What do you mean by 'pests'? The other form of enemy I can think of are competitors, which I suppose you could also call natural enemies. I don't think the term is used very often in biology, or at most is used informally in a vague sort of way. It would probably be better to delete it than redirect it anywhere else. Richard001 (talk) 04:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I mean this: Pest (organism), for exemple Colorado potato beetle consumes our food and thus it is our competitor. I know it is not so widely used, but see also http://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/ent/biocontrol/. Sorry for my poor English, --Vojtech.dostal (talk) 09:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I see what you mean. Usually a pest is just a competitor with human beings, though they can also be vectors of disease. I still don't see what we can do with the redirect though. Biological interaction would probably be the most suitable article of a broader scope, as it discusses antagonistic interactions and competition etc. Richard001 (talk) 20:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know either. Maybe to Biological interaction#Antagonism. Or consider creating a stub. --Vojtech.dostal (talk) 14:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we would need to find some sources on it if we were going to make a stub. For now I think leaving it as is is as good as anything else (I just said "as is is as"...) Richard001 (talk) 21:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe an article on exploitative interactions in general would be an idea, which this could then redirect to. Might be a long time before one is written, though. Richard001 (talk) 05:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Looks like there has been vandalism over the summer (in my hemisphere) while I was away, e.g. the grazing section is missing. Does anyone else watch this article (as in actually checking each edit on a regular basis) besides me? Richard001 (talk) 21:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Yep, here's the edit: [2]. Just shows you the system doesn't work, huh? What am I talking about, there is no system! Richard001 (talk) 07:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Inaccurate Line

In the first paragraph there is an incorrect phrase:

"Predators may or may not kill their prey prior to feeding on them, but the act of predation always results in the death of the prey." Although this is referenced, this is not true.

There are a few examples to counter this. Humans Prey on a form of Crab with Regenerative Limbs. We rip off some legs and throw them back and eat the limbs. Although with a loss of the limb not all survive, the Crab survives predation. If the quoted statement was true, this would not be considered Predation. But you would still say that if a Shark ate your Leg is was Preying on you.

Another example would be Parasites. They eat the cells of the host, feeding on the host, literally eating either the flesh or blood or both. But the host survives. In fact, like the situation of humans eating just the legs of crabs, it is in the Predator's Best interest that the Prey Survives Predation.

The only way the quoted statement would be true is if Predation was only Predation if it resulted in the death of the Prey.

While I guess it could be said that the "prey" was only, say, the blood cells in case of the Mosquito Drinking you blood, or the legs in the case of Humans eating only parts of crabs, so that technically the "prey" being singles cells do die, that would be a far stretch since when you have a Parasite in or on your body you generally think of it as feeding on you, since your cells are part of you.

Also note that not all Parasites are even feeding on the host. Some only feed on what the host eats directly, such as in the case of the tape worm, so not all Parasites are feeding on any part of the host so are not really Predators at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.182.233.127 (talk) 20:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

• While i'm not inclined to endorse the preceding (which at least needs refs to justify an edit of the article), my reason for visiting this talk page was my related concern re the same passage, as to

  but the act of predation always results in the death of the prey.

This is clearly a mis-statement: it implies that the act of preying upon one's prey is the defining objective phenomenon, and that it has been demonstrated to inevitably result in the prey's death. It's not just that anyone who sincerely tried could come up with exceptions to that supposed demonstration: in fact, it's silly to suppose that predation is a phenomenon whose instances are defined by the characteristics of the individual acts of predation. Predation fundamentally describes a relationship between species, and what that clause says about the individual acts in a pattern of predation is almost certainly not only too definitive, but also not to the point. I don't know enuf to rewrite it, but i'm sure it should be closer to

A predator/prey relationship is is one where the predator species's primary nutritional adaptation evolved as a process that normally resulted in the death of the individuals preyed upon.

than to what is there now.
--Jerzy•t 01:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Subsidized Predator

Do you think any mention of subsidized predation (when a predator benefits from human activities) should be in the article? I wanted to know before I went and made a new section.Ratattuta (talk) 18:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

• Like when my neighbor won't chose between feeding their cat and keeping it inside? Wildlife preserves? Worth covering, but i'm not clear where; it sounds like it should be elsewhere, and lk'd from this article: i don't think it casts as much light on the topic of predation and predators as it does on various effects of your phenomeon. But if you also can't be clear where, edit BOLDly and our colleagues will figure out where to move it.
  --Jerzy•t 21:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
  

  Not so much that as when Peregrine Falcons do well in cities because of high rises for roosting and preying on pigeons. Here is a link that may be of service: http://www.werc.usgs.gov/pubbriefs/boarmanpbjan2004.html If there were to be a section on subsidized predation maybe it could be under a section on human impacts on predatory species? Ratattuta (talk) 22:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

[[File: a bee is harmful

      File:A hawk  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.109.126.232 (talk) 23:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC) 

Use of "hunting"

The first sentence defines a predator as the organism which is hunting, but hunting suggests a rather deliberate, active form of predation. Why about sit and wait predators that don't even move? I don't think that I like this modification. Richard001 (talk) 02:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Blank Space!

I'm a Wikipedia editing noob, so I'm not sure what has happened here, and whether it is related to the last edit, but the article currently has multiple blank lines after the introductory section - I noticed this by chance. Perhaps someone more clued-up can figure out what has happened and fix it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:23, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Predation would be useful for nature as a whole as it is said : "Predators may increase the biodiversity of communities by preventing a single species from becoming dominant." But couldn't the same goal be attained by other means, such as the limitation of reproduction among animals, thus preventing them to become too numerous ? but if the same result can be attained by other means than predation, there's no reason to consider it as a necessity. Therefore "predation" has no real utility and I think the part of man when they witness it, can be something else than mere passivity : it could be clear and active interaction, helping the prey to escape, affording the predator with food obtained with the least posssible pain, and limiting the reproduction rates of both prey and predator so that neither may become too numerous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.212.35.245 (talk) 11:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

pronouns

"However, humans are not solitary creatures; they are social animals with highly developed social behaviors."

Should it really be third person? Most of those who read this are humans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Idleyoshi (talk • contribs) 21:19, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Most? Lol. I think encyclopedias in general, not just Wikipedia, are guided by a fantasy that somewhere out in the universe, maybe planet Imama-Hamapaa in the Teppalan solar system, exists a species of aliens that has mastered the ability to read human languages and is so absolutely fascinated by our society that they want to learn everything they can about us. And that is why there are no first person pronouns in an encyclopedia. —Soap— 14:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I noticed the same thing. I guess the logic could come under NPOV!::And I suppose if extraterrestrials were to visit someday, we'd want our encyclopediae to be written for them as well as for us.

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 15:32, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

History?

I came to this page via a link on Cambrian substrate revolution hoping to find information about the history of predation as life evolved. Kevink707 (talk) 17:34, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Insects

I was going to say that large animals that eat fruit and insects are not considered predators, but apparently they are. Even baleen whales are predators because they eat tiny microscopic animals in the ocean. —Soap— 12:16, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

They all are, even grazers are. Editor abcdef (talk) 11:17, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Types of Predation?

I see a section on ambush predators, but I'm given to understand that humans and dogs (and perhaps others; I don't know) are considered "pursuit predators," in that they simply follow a prey animal until the animal drops its guard or slows enough from exhaustion that the predator can catch up and kill it. Besides "ambush" and "pursuit" predation, what other types are there? Perhaps someone with more expertise than I could put in a small section about different types of predation?

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 15:42, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Added citation

I added in a citation from a peer-reviewed article to the true predation section.Kyradsimms (talk) 01:16, 26 January 2018 (UTC)