Well done, as always! I personally like to divide apex predators into two categories: dominant apex predators and subordinate apex predators, based on their position within an ecosystem's predator hierarchy. Tigers, for example, I'd classify as dominant apex predators, and leopards, for example, would be subordinate apex predators.
Where would you put cheetahs? Lions, leopards and hyenas will actively kill them, if they get the chance, but this is usually limited to cubs, which do not yet have the experience / speed of adults. Otherwise, cheetahs have no natural enemies. Predations upon cheetahs are motivated by reducing competition, although I'm guessing cubs are often consumed, as well. So..."lower subordinate apex predators"? :) As an aside, the cheetah's position has less to do with its weaponry and more to do with its speed, so perhaps even smaller predators can chase them off their kills. Honey badgers probably do. Perhaps smaller cats, as well? The cheetah is in a very interesting position within the ecosystem.
@@LadyhawksLairDotCom I would classify cheetahs as subordinate apex predators. I classify apex predators as any predator that's large in size, which cheetahs are, but they aren't dominant over other big carnivores by any means.
I agree that the position of the cheetah Is a little tricky because it has no natural predators as you say. However, the great majority of its kills are smaller than it, typically young gazelles. This makes it a middle order super predator at best. However, I would not classify it as a super predator at all. This is because it will always back down in any confrontation with a lion, leopard or hyena. Even baboons and on occasion vultures. But don't get me wrong, I love cheetahs, they are biomechanical masterpieces!
@@RealPaleontology Yes, I can’t think of any land lifeform that might have rivaled cheetahs in speed, the famed dromaeosaurids raptors being probably at best twice slower. As for classification, I recall Dr. Mike Siversson in his talk about lamniforms sharks evolution using simply "apex predator" for white sharks and "ultimate apex predators" for orcas.
I think you can develop better this topic, please make a large series of this. Talk about humans, our complex relationship with our predatorial nature, how people starts to humanize animals and develop some kind of relationship with them, old predators of humans, how our ancestors would have see use now and with the right adaptations we beat all our predators and now we are hunted by viruses and other desises rather then tigers. I ll love to hear your perspective on this. I loved your video.
Interesting and understanable ststem. Theres a video that says the super predators of the cenozoic were reptiles but all they focus on is size (tey axtually called Thylacoleo a "small hunter")
Yes, I wrote a paper on the myth of reptilian domination in Australia. Don’t get me wrong there certainly were some bloodied be dangerous reptiles around, is just that I think their roles have been way overblown
The definition of super predator can often fail in some situations. Especially among famous nowadays trio lions, hyenas and african wild dogs; it much depends how large the pride vs pack is. Historically documented; not very long ago the wild tigers also had their occasional turn-over with dholes. Among living top predators it is often important observations how large the predator units are and how common and large is their prey. Abundance of large prey means more animals and numerous packs; but when the prey became scarce, the large pack splits into more smaller and weaker units.
These are all good points! The fact that typical prey size for potential super predators can vary between populations, and seasonally, is a particularly tricky one to handle. For example, some orca eco-types preferentially target baleen whales, others target salmon. I certainly don’t pretend that my ranking system is perfect, but I do think it’s a reasonable position to start from.
Omg I love this guy! At 25 yrs old I get excited about very little, but good, informative content is one of those things! Post watch: my definition of super predator is simple. If it’s a predator and dominates its ecosystem with little to no adversaries, it’s definitely super and definitely a predator.
Enjoying your efforts Steve. Where do humans fit on the predatory scale? There’s few critters/organisms we can’t kill, some of which we consume and yet there are many predators that can kill and eat us in an unprotected and unarmed state.
Appreciate the detailed breakdown! Just a quick off-topic question: My OKX wallet holds some USDT, and I have the seed phrase. (alarm fetch churn bridge exercise tape speak race clerk couch crater letter). How can I transfer them to Binance?
I spent some time thinking on methods of evaluating this question, perhaps more important for bar room banter than actual science but finding systems to evaluate predators widely displaced in time and space is an interesting problem to solve and even providing some insight into the wisdom of evolution. Understanding the wisdom of evolution might only be gleaned from such a study, so maybe better science than what one might believe initially. Behavior is difficult to understand with many if not most, so I think the bones must be the basis of comparison. Bones, shout out Kathy Reichs ;), can detail weapons, number, type and strength. The size, overall, approximate weight and muscle mass might arguably be determinative as to across-the-board effectiveness because the health and robustness (muscle doesn't grow itself) would be tattletales for their specific effectiveness as a predator within their given environ as well as relate to a point of direct comparison. Prey size to predator size would make a very telling ratio. Finally, random factors like T-Rexes' olfactory sense, is it a blood hound doom hunter? or nature's garbage disposal? or the Smilodon's rear legs with highly leveraged tendon sites for jumping and pouncing? This is some brainstorm spit balling, but maybe it could lead to a Moneyball style understanding of natural history across ages and epochs and reveal fundamentals about a less random and pure chance understanding of evolution. Not divinely guided, just not a pure crap shoot. That really would be the single most interesting scientific question paleontology could answer or close to it.
Question: what was the closest analogy to "cats" during the Mesozoic? In my mind, it's the dromaeosaurs, but that contention falls apart when we look at the niche of "large apex predator," which was usually (always?) filled by a large theropod with relatively small arms and a huge, toothy head. So, maybe there is no true analogy to big cats among dinosaurs. Perhaps this is the logical result of wide variation in size. The largest theropods had to sacrifice something in order to grow that large and still be effective. For many of them, it was arm size / functionality. Smaller theropods like dromaeosaurids could keep that extra weaponry. Thoughts? (P.S. Would the ability to pronate and/or supinate their wrists / arms have made dromaeosaurs more effective grapplers?)
I agree that dromaeosaurs were probably the closest analogues, as you suggest by virtue of their more flexible forelimbs, but I don't think any were particularly close.
By technicality, the "predator with no natural predators" definition applies to remoras, because they have no natural predators and a large part of their diet consists of small animals and the leftover remains of larger ones their hosts bring down.
I get where you’re coming from, but remoras do have predators. Not all sharks are happy to have them tag along. And they are particularly vulnerable when they are free swimming. Some shark species and barracuda I definitely known to prey on them.
The brown bear may eat a lot of plant, but if it wants the tiger's food, then we can break down their diets like this: brown bear: 90% plant, 10% meat tiger: 100% nothing, 0% meat so personally, I would rank the brown bear higher than the tiger. You do you though.
I wouldn't bet on a brown bear pushing a tiger off its kill. Pound for pound the Tiger is a far more effective killing machine. even the biggest grizzly wood struggle big time against the biggest tiger.
@@RealPaleontologyIdk about that. Sloth bears max out at 150 kg. Brown bears max out at 600 kg. Tigers regularly abandon their kills to sloth bears. I've read that about 20% of Siberian tiger kills are usurped by brown bears. That's not to say tigers can't kill bears - they can and do, but afaik, they only hunt bears smaller than themselves and tend to rely on the element of surprise, striking suddenly from hiding, rather than engaging bears that are alert to them. Adult male brown bears are not at all scared of them and actively follow them to claim their kills. Frankly, it's kind of shocking that they even kill little ones though. A small bear is still practically an invulnerable avatar of obliteration from a human perspective.
I think that you are cherry picking data there. Yup I am fully aware of the respective sizes of these species, and the considerable variation sizes within these species. And yes, there are well documented instances of bears pushing tigers off kills, although this usually happens only after the tiger has pretty much had its fill, and likely to be a large male bear vs a female tiger. And yes there are clear instances of brown bears killing tigers. But there are FAR more recorded instances of tigers killing bears than bears killing tigers, and not just small ones. Brown bears of up to 200 kg or more have been killed, and eaten. In fact, both brown & Asiatic bears constitute an important part of the Siberian Tiger’s diet. A 2018 study by Seryodkin et al. found bear remains in 8.2% of tiger scats. Although, I agree that this is not a simple cut and dried issue, bottom line I think is that, overall, bears have a whole lot more to fear from tigers than tigers do from bears. Tigers, like all cats are highly specialised killing machines. They are not built to do anything else. Pound for pound they have far higher bite forces than any bear, including Arctodus. For example, a 177 kg tiger can exert a bite force at the canines that is around 20% more than that of a 355 kg polar bear more than twice its own weight (see Christiansen & Wroe 2007). And when it comes to killing, bite force is very important. The big cat is also far faster and more agile, and flexible in every respect. They are built to kill. Bears are not. So, who would emerge victorious in a battle between the largest Kodiak bear at around 600 KG, and the largest Siberian Tiger, at around 300 KG? I would still put my money on the big cat.
@RealPaleontology As I understand it, there is no documented case of a tiger killing any brown bear of even equal size, but the same is not true the other way around. 200kg is a very small brown bear and about half the wieght of the predatory tigers involved, which are not always successful and can die in the attack. Tigers don't routinely (or probably ever) drive brown bears off their kills, but the same is certainly not true the other way around. Large male tigers and large male bears are both extremely dangerous to smaller bears and smaller tigers (along with other small felids - if we want to use all bears on one side of the equation, then in fairness, leopards and house cats belong on the other side), but when it comes to pitching like against like and weight for weight, the bears seem to come out very strongly favoured. This should not be a surprise, as a tiger is basically a one trick pony that has to jump up and bite the neck or bust and bears are as versatile in combat as they are in diet, with numerous defences against that common mode of attack (which they also engage in, but as just one of many approaches). This is a great strategy for taking down prey, but bears are much more actively involved in intraspecific combat than tigers are, so their predatory adaptations are complimented by much stronger adaptations for combat with bears and other predators. The matchup is comparable to wolf vs unarmed human. We might not have the best neck biting ability, but we have so many ways to prevent that mode of attack and kill the wolf that we basically can't lose unless we're so much smaller than the wolf (or wolves) that we can't dispatch it, as centuries of very good record keeping on the matter can attest. A bear is a hell of a lot better protected in that department than we are, with thick, loose folds of neck skin, much more powerful forelimbs for their size and much better reflexes and agility. It's hard enough for an adult male brown bear to kill an adult male brown bear. A tiger has pretty much no chance. To put things in perspective, weight for weight, a cat is stronger, faster and more dexterous than a dog; when it comes to killing, it has an all around better body plan. Yet if my dogs see a feral cat it's dead within seconds, every time (while the dogs have never even suffered a scratch). That's because the dogs are bigger, meaning their speed and strength are scaled up, so the cat's incredible abilities just have absolutely no hope of saving it. Bears are weight for weight more dangerous than cats and there is no land predator bigger or stronger than the largest bears. They're in a league of their own. I agree that cats are amazing, but they're more specialised for direct predation and less specialised for interpredatory combat, so asking them to stand their ground against a brown bear is like asking a brown bear to bite a rhino to death. Might not seem completely impossible, but it's definitely not what they've evolved to do. As a result, bears dominate tiger kills and not the other way around. Edit: I just read your edit and have to disagree that felids are more flexible in every respect. They have much better flexibility in their neck and torso, but somewhat worse in their limbs. If you're convinced that I'm cherrypicking data, I guess the opinion must be backed up by data that I'm not aware of. I'd he happy to hear about it.
Sorry Meevius, but you are wrong, 200 kg is in fact a respectable size for a male brown bear. The average for male Ursus arctos, taken from a broad sample of 19 populations, is 217 kg (Pasitschniak-arts 1993 Mammalian Species). The huge 600 kg extreme that you refer to is for the Kodiak bear (Ursus arctos middendorffi). The North American Grizzly is the second-largest subspecies (Alaskan males, which are the largest, average about 235 kg (Blanchard 1987)). But of course, neither of these sub-species ever come into conflict with a tiger, so this is something of a moot point. The very largest reliable record for an Amur tiger is a little over 300 kg. There is a claim of 400 kg for a male shot decades ago, but no one in the field takes that seriously. Regardless, no cat even beginning to approach that size has been recorded for a very long time. The average weight of a male in extant populations of Siberian tiger is a little over 220 kg, so it’s unlikely that the tiger that killed the 200 kg bear (which was almost certainly a male) was much bigger than its prey. And, of course it’s rare for a tiger to drive a bear of its kill. That’s because bears are pretty crap at killing stuff and rarely have possession of a fresh kill for a tiger steal in the first place, whereas the opposite applies to tigers. Your suggestion that male tigers rarely fight each other is also wrong. A prime cause of death for male tigers, humans aside, is other male tigers and there are many recorded cases. Females can be killed by other tigers too. The suggestion that tigers are a one trick pony with respect to kill technique: wrong again. Tigers can kill with a throat bite, a crushing bite to the back of the skull, or separation of neck vertebra with a dorsal bite. And as I said previously, the tiger is undeniably a far more agile and generally athletic animal than the brown bear. There are many reasons for this, but one is that a far greater proportion of the body mass of a brown bear is adipose tissue (not fat-shaming bears here, but it’s a simple fact). And I’m sorry, but anecdotal evidence drawn from your observations of domestic cats and dogs in your backyard isn’t likely to cut much sway with the experts (incidentally, having researched mammalian carnivores for over 35 years in a professional capacity and published over 130 peer-previewed scientific articles, including various papers on bears and big cats, I think I can fairly claim to be among them). But then hey why not, so for what it’s worth: I had a cat called Oscar, who weighed in at about 3 kg. I vividly remember him attacking a male boxer (dog that is) who tried to enter our backyard some years back. The dog must’ve been 30 kg at least. Oscar raced toward the dog and then landed multiple blows on the luckless animal’s face, drawing blood. The dog fled, yelping in terror. It was 10 times larger than my cat. I’m happy to supply peer reviewed references for my arguments here, if you want to give me your email address? Except of course my story about Oscar, although my mum will vouch for this, as she also bore witness to this savage cat-on-dog attack, and she is a very honest woman I promise. Tigers eat bears, bears don’t eat tigers.
Hello Dr. Wroe, interesting criteria to use. Bull Physeter are not recorded to being preyed on by orcas, only cows and immatures, and are the largest toothed carnivores on Earth so they may fit as superpredators pretty well but where would you rank them between low order and middle order as they prey on squids less than 1% their own body mass ? Isn't the propency to kill prey larger than themselves rather specific to land ecosystems where grapplling ability is required and pack-hunting more common ? Beside the pack hunting orcas and occasionally pseudorcas, aren't all the solo hunting marine predators in the oceanic environments actually smaller game hunters ? But white sharks are suspected of predation on beaked whales and potentially pseudorcas and one has been observed killing a dying much larger humpback whale. Pods of tigers and black tips have also been recorded performing similar feats. But overall, marine predators, including orcas when solo, target smaller game. In his recent book about the evolution of sharks, Dr. John Long also defines a superpredator as an animal capable of preying on animals larger than itself, citing indeed orcas, tigers and wolves and considering megalodon the greatest superpredator ever as it clearly had this ability (even though there were hardly any whales larger than this fish in the Mio-Pliocene). Your rankings are very interesting to test but I'm unsure where I'd place T. rex as kills on the potential 10 t + Triceratops or Edmontosaurus or 20 t + Alamosaurus are unconfirmed (albeit quite possible given the firepower of a large T. rex). Or should we then place the sauropods-hunting allosauroids above the non sauropod-hunting tyrannosaurids ?
Thanks for the well considered commentary. As you probably know there are quite a few well documented cases of killer whales preying on sperm whales. The most recent that I know of was published earlier this year. I’m not sure whether there are any documented cases of killer whales preying on bull sperm whales. But frankly I’d be surprised if it never happened. Regardless, Orca prey on sperm whales. The fact that they preferentially select smaller females, or juveniles is standard MO for any predator. So to me the firm well cannot be considered super predator. But if we disregard predation on them by killer whales, then I would rank them as middle order super predators. I take your point regarding potential bias against marine super predators, and it is something that I have considered. And yes there are some fundamental constraints faced by marine predators that aren’t faced by terrestrial ones, as you suggest, particularly a lack of forelimbs with which to secure prey. But there are a good many examples of terrestrial predators without effective forelimbs, or forelimbs that play a minimal role in the kill, that likely did or in fact do prey on animals larger than themselves. And as you say, even for solo present-day marine predators it does happen and is clearly possible. Regarding Megalodon, I agree that it probably could have taken prey larger than itself, the one thing is for sure, it did not evolve to do so. The reality is that very few predators, marine or terrestrial regularly prey on animals larger than themselves. Re T. rex, I think I address this in a previous episode. You’re right, there is no unequivocal evidence that it regularly preyed on Triceratops. But in my view and almost certainly did, for reasons I outlined in the previous video. All that said, again I appreciate your well-informed commentary! And certainly my ranking system isn’t flawless. I doubt that any could be. As with any ranking system there will be cases that don’t seamlessly fit into one category or another. But that doesn’t mean that it’s not useful.
@RealPaleontology Thank you for the feedback Dr. Wroe. Joe McClure recently reviewed orca predation. callmejoe3.wordpress.com/2022/05/08/the-toughest-in-the-ocean-a-review-of-killer-whale-predation-of-large-whales/ Apparently both bull Physeter and adults humpbacks have never been recorded being killed by KW and one population of pilot whales in the Atlantic seems to harass the local orcas. I essentially agree with you, killing a larger and very dangerous prey is rare among very large predatory wildlife, but I guess we can still estimate the potential of killing apparatus to subdue a larger game ? Thinking of it, I recall one of the describers of Livyatan surrounding its discovery casually saying it could not have solo killed a 30 m balaenopterid. On the other hand, I recall Compagno (1990) stating megalodon predatory apparatus to have been large enough to inflict mortal wounds to even a fin or blue whale. Even though, no whales were as big as Livyatan or meg back then (though 15-18 m balaenopterids are reported from the Miocene of Peru). It is notable how the definitions of superpredator, macropredator etc. are unclear, the authors of the Guizhouichthyosaurus eating thalatosaur paper proposed 'megapredator'.
@RealPaleontology Thank you for the feedback Dr. Wroe. Joe McClure recently reviewed orca predation. Tip 'Cetology Hub orca' on Google, excellent work from him. Apparently both bull Physeter and adults humpbacks have never been recorded being killed by KW and one population of pilot whales in the Atlantic seems to harass the local orcas. I essentially agree with you, killing a larger and very dangerous prey is rare among very large predatory wildlife, but I guess we can still estimate the potential of killing apparatus to subdue a larger game ? Thinking of it, I recall one of the describers of Livyatan surrounding its discovery casually saying it could not have solo killed a 30 m balaenopterid. On the other hand, I recall Compagno (1990) stating megalodon predatory apparatus to have been large enough to inflict mortal wounds to even a fin or blue whale. Even though, no whales were as big as Livyatan or meg back then (though 15-18 m balaenopterids are reported from the Miocene of Peru). It is notable how the definitions of superpredator, macropredator etc. are unclear, the authors of the Guizhouichthyosaurus eating thalatosaur paper proposed 'megapredator'.
@RealPaleontology Thank you for the feedback Dr. Wroe. Joe McClure recently reviewed orca predation. Tip 'Cetology Hub orca' on Google, excellent work from him. Apparently both bull Physeter and adults humpbacks have never been recorded being killed by KW and one population of pilot whales in the Atlantic seems to harass the local orcas. I essentially agree with you, killing a larger and very dangerous prey is rare among very large predatory wildlife, but I guess we can still estimate the potential of killing apparatus to subdue a larger game ? Thinking of it, I recall one of the describers of Livyatan surrounding its discovery casually saying it could not have solo killed a 30 m balaenopterid. On the other hand, I recall Compagno (1990) stating megalodon predatory apparatus to have been large enough to inflict mortal wounds to even a fin or blue whale. Even though, no whales were as big as Livyatan or meg back then (though 15-18 m balaenopterids are reported from the Miocene of Peru). It is notable how the definitions of superpredator, macropredator etc. are unclear, the authors of the Guizhouichthyosaurus eating thalatosaur paper proposed 'megapredator'.
Hey, thanks for the thoughtful commentary. However, I’m not really sure what your point is here? I know that there are no recorded sightings of killer whales taking down bull sperm whales. It’s just that I’d be very surprised if it has never happened. But, either way the fact remains that orcas predating sperm whales is not a one-off occurrence. At least some orca ecotypes commonly pray on sperm whales, it doesn’t happen the other way around. Regarding killer whales being harassed by pilot whales, sure, and there are instances of them being harassed by false killer whales too. Lions can be chased off by hyenas as well, provided that the numbers are on their side as well…….. Regarding subjective, qualitative interpretations of whether Livyatan or Megalodon, that are not supported by either sound quantitative biomechanical analysis, or direct fossil or taphonomic evidence, such as tooth marks et cetera. These are pretty much throwaway lines to me. I assume you’ve read my papers on biomechanical analyses of various shark species? Were Megalodon’s jaws wide enough to inflict fatal injury on a hypothetical contemporary? Quite possibly, but without direct evidence or thorough biomechanical analysis this remains pure speculation. And again, the fact remains, that Megalodon had not evolved to regularly prey on animals larger than itself. Even if we could unequivocally demonstrate through computer simulation that it was mechanically feasible, this doesn’t mean that they would have, even, if the opportunity presented itself. If we dropped a 30 m blue whale into Pliocene Megalodon habitat, maybe the first giant shark to encounter it would have torn to shreds. On the other hand it may have fled in complete fear! All that said, I’m the 1st to admit that my attempt to categorise super predators is not imperfect! And as in any attempt to categorise pretty much anything, there will be problematic outlier taxa. I can think of quite a few others myself. But frankly, in all lack of modesty, I think my own attempt is better than others I’ve seen. Still, there is always room for improvement!
It may have been roughly comparable in size to T. rex. Which one would have won the fight assuming they were of comparable size. Well it was in the water I put my money on the big croc, if it was on land I'd bet on the T. rex.
Dinosaur question were dinosaurs muscular ripped or muscular bulky body which Dinosaur are totally ripped or bulky or both and was Triceratops muscular ripped or muscular bulky body or both.
They definitely have been known to kill trapped beluga whales, but this is an extremely rare event. By far their most common prey are juvenile seals. But hey, I'm just giving you my call on this, you are absolutely free to make your own.
I really enjoy your system! I just have some reservations when the predator in questjon is the biggest animal in its ecosystem. I know this rarely ever happens in nature, but when it does, you have to call megalodon or a hatzeg island pterosaur or ichthyotitan a middle order predator, when its really jus t the biggest thing around. These examples were p hard to think of lol, for extant stuff maybe like a wels catfish counts, or green anaconda/caiman
Thank you. Yes I did think about this. But I figure that if species is the largest in its system can never be sure that it was able to take relatively large prey. We can be sure that it was not specifically adapted to do so. But I do take your point.
Well done, as always! I personally like to divide apex predators into two categories: dominant apex predators and subordinate apex predators, based on their position within an ecosystem's predator hierarchy. Tigers, for example, I'd classify as dominant apex predators, and leopards, for example, would be subordinate apex predators.
Thank you very much. Yes I see the logic in your system.
Where would you put cheetahs? Lions, leopards and hyenas will actively kill them, if they get the chance, but this is usually limited to cubs, which do not yet have the experience / speed of adults. Otherwise, cheetahs have no natural enemies. Predations upon cheetahs are motivated by reducing competition, although I'm guessing cubs are often consumed, as well. So..."lower subordinate apex predators"? :) As an aside, the cheetah's position has less to do with its weaponry and more to do with its speed, so perhaps even smaller predators can chase them off their kills. Honey badgers probably do. Perhaps smaller cats, as well? The cheetah is in a very interesting position within the ecosystem.
@@LadyhawksLairDotCom I would classify cheetahs as subordinate apex predators. I classify apex predators as any predator that's large in size, which cheetahs are, but they aren't dominant over other big carnivores by any means.
I agree that the position of the cheetah Is a little tricky because it has no natural predators as you say. However, the great majority of its kills are smaller than it, typically young gazelles. This makes it a middle order super predator at best. However, I would not classify it as a super predator at all. This is because it will always back down in any confrontation with a lion, leopard or hyena. Even baboons and on occasion vultures. But don't get me wrong, I love cheetahs, they are biomechanical masterpieces!
@@RealPaleontology Yes, I can’t think of any land lifeform that might have rivaled cheetahs in speed, the famed dromaeosaurids raptors being probably at best twice slower.
As for classification, I recall Dr. Mike Siversson in his talk about lamniforms sharks evolution using simply "apex predator" for white sharks and "ultimate apex predators" for orcas.
I think you can develop better this topic, please make a large series of this. Talk about humans, our complex relationship with our predatorial nature, how people starts to humanize animals and develop some kind of relationship with them, old predators of humans, how our ancestors would have see use now and with the right adaptations we beat all our predators and now we are hunted by viruses and other desises rather then tigers. I ll love to hear your perspective on this. I loved your video.
They think so much. And yes, I will do more on this topic. Human evolution is an area of particular interest to me.
Just subscribed! I love animals and plants from the past eras long before humans arrived. Hope to learn alot from you
Great! Feel free to ask questions.
Hi Professor Wroe! I'm 26, Autistic and Love Biology and paleontology, my favorite prehistoric animal is megalania because I like monitor lizards.
I did and earlier episode on Megalania. Take a look I think you like it.
Interesting and understanable ststem. Theres a video that says the super predators of the cenozoic were reptiles but all they focus on is size (tey axtually called Thylacoleo a "small hunter")
Yes, I wrote a paper on the myth of reptilian domination in Australia. Don’t get me wrong there certainly were some bloodied be dangerous reptiles around, is just that I think their roles have been way overblown
The definition of super predator can often fail in some situations.
Especially among famous nowadays trio lions, hyenas and african wild dogs; it much depends how large the pride vs pack is. Historically documented; not very long ago the wild tigers also had their occasional turn-over with dholes.
Among living top predators it is often important observations how large the predator units are and how common and large is their prey. Abundance of large prey means more animals and numerous packs; but when the prey became scarce, the large pack splits into more smaller and weaker units.
These are all good points! The fact that typical prey size for potential super predators can vary between populations, and seasonally, is a particularly tricky one to handle. For example, some orca eco-types preferentially target baleen whales, others target salmon. I certainly don’t pretend that my ranking system is perfect, but I do think it’s a reasonable position to start from.
Omg I love this guy! At 25 yrs old I get excited about very little, but good, informative content is one of those things! Post watch: my definition of super predator is simple. If it’s a predator and dominates its ecosystem with little to no adversaries, it’s definitely super and definitely a predator.
Hey thanks so much! I'll do my best to keep them coming.
Enjoying your efforts Steve. Where do humans fit on the predatory scale? There’s few critters/organisms we can’t kill, some of which we consume and yet there are many predators that can kill and eat us in an unprotected and unarmed state.
@@lostarrow861 Thanks! I covered the position of humans in an earlier episode. Take a look and let me know what you think.
Appreciate the detailed breakdown! Just a quick off-topic question: My OKX wallet holds some USDT, and I have the seed phrase. (alarm fetch churn bridge exercise tape speak race clerk couch crater letter). How can I transfer them to Binance?
Thanks! And interesting word salad!
I spent some time thinking on methods of evaluating this question, perhaps more important for bar room banter than actual science but finding systems to evaluate predators widely displaced in time and space is an interesting problem to solve and even providing some insight into the wisdom of evolution. Understanding the wisdom of evolution might only be gleaned from such a study, so maybe better science than what one might believe initially. Behavior is difficult to understand with many if not most, so I think the bones must be the basis of comparison. Bones, shout out Kathy Reichs ;), can detail weapons, number, type and strength. The size, overall, approximate weight and muscle mass might arguably be determinative as to across-the-board effectiveness because the health and robustness (muscle doesn't grow itself) would be tattletales for their specific effectiveness as a predator within their given environ as well as relate to a point of direct comparison. Prey size to predator size would make a very telling ratio. Finally, random factors like T-Rexes' olfactory sense, is it a blood hound doom hunter? or nature's garbage disposal? or the Smilodon's rear legs with highly leveraged tendon sites for jumping and pouncing? This is some brainstorm spit balling, but maybe it could lead to a Moneyball style understanding of natural history across ages and epochs and reveal fundamentals about a less random and pure chance understanding of evolution. Not divinely guided, just not a pure crap shoot. That really would be the single most interesting scientific question paleontology could answer or close to it.
Totally agree that the more information we can get the better informed our classification will be! Of course, we can only work with what we’ve got.
Question: what was the closest analogy to "cats" during the Mesozoic? In my mind, it's the dromaeosaurs, but that contention falls apart when we look at the niche of "large apex predator," which was usually (always?) filled by a large theropod with relatively small arms and a huge, toothy head. So, maybe there is no true analogy to big cats among dinosaurs. Perhaps this is the logical result of wide variation in size. The largest theropods had to sacrifice something in order to grow that large and still be effective. For many of them, it was arm size / functionality. Smaller theropods like dromaeosaurids could keep that extra weaponry. Thoughts? (P.S. Would the ability to pronate and/or supinate their wrists / arms have made dromaeosaurs more effective grapplers?)
I agree that dromaeosaurs were probably the closest analogues, as you suggest by virtue of their more flexible forelimbs, but I don't think any were particularly close.
By technicality, the "predator with no natural predators" definition applies to remoras, because they have no natural predators and a large part of their diet consists of small animals and the leftover remains of larger ones their hosts bring down.
I get where you’re coming from, but remoras do have predators. Not all sharks are happy to have them tag along. And they are particularly vulnerable when they are free swimming. Some shark species and barracuda I definitely known to prey on them.
The brown bear may eat a lot of plant, but if it wants the tiger's food, then we can break down their diets like this:
brown bear: 90% plant, 10% meat
tiger: 100% nothing, 0% meat
so personally, I would rank the brown bear higher than the tiger.
You do you though.
I wouldn't bet on a brown bear pushing a tiger off its kill. Pound for pound the Tiger is a far more effective killing machine. even the biggest grizzly wood struggle big time against the biggest tiger.
@@RealPaleontologyIdk about that. Sloth bears max out at 150 kg. Brown bears max out at 600 kg. Tigers regularly abandon their kills to sloth bears.
I've read that about 20% of Siberian tiger kills are usurped by brown bears.
That's not to say tigers can't kill bears - they can and do, but afaik, they only hunt bears smaller than themselves and tend to rely on the element of surprise, striking suddenly from hiding, rather than engaging bears that are alert to them. Adult male brown bears are not at all scared of them and actively follow them to claim their kills.
Frankly, it's kind of shocking that they even kill little ones though. A small bear is still practically an invulnerable avatar of obliteration from a human perspective.
I think that you are cherry picking data there. Yup I am fully aware of the respective sizes of these species, and the considerable variation sizes within these species. And yes, there are well documented instances of bears pushing tigers off kills, although this usually happens only after the tiger has pretty much had its fill, and likely to be a large male bear vs a female tiger. And yes there are clear instances of brown bears killing tigers. But there are FAR more recorded instances of tigers killing bears than bears killing tigers, and not just small ones. Brown bears of up to 200 kg or more have been killed, and eaten. In fact, both brown & Asiatic bears constitute an important part of the Siberian Tiger’s diet. A 2018 study by Seryodkin et al. found bear remains in 8.2% of tiger scats. Although, I agree that this is not a simple cut and dried issue, bottom line I think is that, overall, bears have a whole lot more to fear from tigers than tigers do from bears. Tigers, like all cats are highly specialised killing machines. They are not built to do anything else. Pound for pound they have far higher bite forces than any bear, including Arctodus. For example, a 177 kg tiger can exert a bite force at the canines that is around 20% more than that of a 355 kg polar bear more than twice its own weight (see Christiansen & Wroe 2007). And when it comes to killing, bite force is very important. The big cat is also far faster and more agile, and flexible in every respect. They are built to kill. Bears are not. So, who would emerge victorious in a battle between the largest Kodiak bear at around 600 KG, and the largest Siberian Tiger, at around 300 KG? I would still put my money on the big cat.
@RealPaleontology As I understand it, there is no documented case of a tiger killing any brown bear of even equal size, but the same is not true the other way around. 200kg is a very small brown bear and about half the wieght of the predatory tigers involved, which are not always successful and can die in the attack.
Tigers don't routinely (or probably ever) drive brown bears off their kills, but the same is certainly not true the other way around.
Large male tigers and large male bears are both extremely dangerous to smaller bears and smaller tigers (along with other small felids - if we want to use all bears on one side of the equation, then in fairness, leopards and house cats belong on the other side), but when it comes to pitching like against like and weight for weight, the bears seem to come out very strongly favoured.
This should not be a surprise, as a tiger is basically a one trick pony that has to jump up and bite the neck or bust and bears are as versatile in combat as they are in diet, with numerous defences against that common mode of attack (which they also engage in, but as just one of many approaches).
This is a great strategy for taking down prey, but bears are much more actively involved in intraspecific combat than tigers are, so their predatory adaptations are complimented by much stronger adaptations for combat with bears and other predators.
The matchup is comparable to wolf vs unarmed human. We might not have the best neck biting ability, but we have so many ways to prevent that mode of attack and kill the wolf that we basically can't lose unless we're so much smaller than the wolf (or wolves) that we can't dispatch it, as centuries of very good record keeping on the matter can attest. A bear is a hell of a lot better protected in that department than we are, with thick, loose folds of neck skin, much more powerful forelimbs for their size and much better reflexes and agility.
It's hard enough for an adult male brown bear to kill an adult male brown bear. A tiger has pretty much no chance.
To put things in perspective, weight for weight, a cat is stronger, faster and more dexterous than a dog; when it comes to killing, it has an all around better body plan. Yet if my dogs see a feral cat it's dead within seconds, every time (while the dogs have never even suffered a scratch).
That's because the dogs are bigger, meaning their speed and strength are scaled up, so the cat's incredible abilities just have absolutely no hope of saving it. Bears are weight for weight more dangerous than cats and there is no land predator bigger or stronger than the largest bears. They're in a league of their own.
I agree that cats are amazing, but they're more specialised for direct predation and less specialised for interpredatory combat, so asking them to stand their ground against a brown bear is like asking a brown bear to bite a rhino to death. Might not seem completely impossible, but it's definitely not what they've evolved to do. As a result, bears dominate tiger kills and not the other way around.
Edit: I just read your edit and have to disagree that felids are more flexible in every respect. They have much better flexibility in their neck and torso, but somewhat worse in their limbs.
If you're convinced that I'm cherrypicking data, I guess the opinion must be backed up by data that I'm not aware of. I'd he happy to hear about it.
Sorry Meevius, but you are wrong, 200 kg is in fact a respectable size for a male brown bear. The average for male Ursus arctos, taken from a broad sample of 19 populations, is 217 kg (Pasitschniak-arts 1993 Mammalian Species). The huge 600 kg extreme that you refer to is for the Kodiak bear (Ursus arctos middendorffi). The North American Grizzly is the second-largest subspecies (Alaskan males, which are the largest, average about 235 kg (Blanchard 1987)). But of course, neither of these sub-species ever come into conflict with a tiger, so this is something of a moot point. The very largest reliable record for an Amur tiger is a little over 300 kg. There is a claim of 400 kg for a male shot decades ago, but no one in the field takes that seriously. Regardless, no cat even beginning to approach that size has been recorded for a very long time.
The average weight of a male in extant populations of Siberian tiger is a little over 220 kg, so it’s unlikely that the tiger that killed the 200 kg bear (which was almost certainly a male) was much bigger than its prey.
And, of course it’s rare for a tiger to drive a bear of its kill. That’s because bears are pretty crap at killing stuff and rarely have possession of a fresh kill for a tiger steal in the first place, whereas the opposite applies to tigers.
Your suggestion that male tigers rarely fight each other is also wrong. A prime cause of death for male tigers, humans aside, is other male tigers and there are many recorded cases. Females can be killed by other tigers too. The suggestion that tigers are a one trick pony with respect to kill technique: wrong again. Tigers can kill with a throat bite, a crushing bite to the back of the skull, or separation of neck vertebra with a dorsal bite. And as I said previously, the tiger is undeniably a far more agile and generally athletic animal than the brown bear. There are many reasons for this, but one is that a far greater proportion of the body mass of a brown bear is adipose tissue (not fat-shaming bears here, but it’s a simple fact).
And I’m sorry, but anecdotal evidence drawn from your observations of domestic cats and dogs in your backyard isn’t likely to cut much sway with the experts (incidentally, having researched mammalian carnivores for over 35 years in a professional capacity and published over 130 peer-previewed scientific articles, including various papers on bears and big cats, I think I can fairly claim to be among them). But then hey why not, so for what it’s worth: I had a cat called Oscar, who weighed in at about 3 kg. I vividly remember him attacking a male boxer (dog that is) who tried to enter our backyard some years back. The dog must’ve been 30 kg at least. Oscar raced toward the dog and then landed multiple blows on the luckless animal’s face, drawing blood. The dog fled, yelping in terror. It was 10 times larger than my cat.
I’m happy to supply peer reviewed references for my arguments here, if you want to give me your email address? Except of course my story about Oscar, although my mum will vouch for this, as she also bore witness to this savage cat-on-dog attack, and she is a very honest woman I promise.
Tigers eat bears, bears don’t eat tigers.
Hello Dr. Wroe, interesting criteria to use.
Bull Physeter are not recorded to being preyed on by orcas, only cows and immatures, and are the largest toothed carnivores on Earth so they may fit as superpredators pretty well but where would you rank them between low order and middle order as they prey on squids less than 1% their own body mass ?
Isn't the propency to kill prey larger than themselves rather specific to land ecosystems where grapplling ability is required and pack-hunting more common ?
Beside the pack hunting orcas and occasionally pseudorcas, aren't all the solo hunting marine predators in the oceanic environments actually smaller game hunters ?
But white sharks are suspected of predation on beaked whales and potentially pseudorcas and one has been observed killing a dying much larger humpback whale. Pods of tigers and black tips have also been recorded performing similar feats. But overall, marine predators, including orcas when solo, target smaller game.
In his recent book about the evolution of sharks, Dr. John Long also defines a superpredator as an animal capable of preying on animals larger than itself, citing indeed orcas, tigers and wolves and considering megalodon the greatest superpredator ever as it clearly had this ability (even though there were hardly any whales larger than this fish in the Mio-Pliocene).
Your rankings are very interesting to test but I'm unsure where I'd place T. rex as kills on the potential 10 t + Triceratops or Edmontosaurus or 20 t + Alamosaurus are unconfirmed (albeit quite possible given the firepower of a large T. rex).
Or should we then place the sauropods-hunting allosauroids above the non sauropod-hunting tyrannosaurids ?
Thanks for the well considered commentary. As you probably know there are quite a few well documented cases of killer whales preying on sperm whales. The most recent that I know of was published earlier this year. I’m not sure whether there are any documented cases of killer whales preying on bull sperm whales. But frankly I’d be surprised if it never happened. Regardless, Orca prey on sperm whales. The fact that they preferentially select smaller females, or juveniles is standard MO for any predator. So to me the firm well cannot be considered super predator. But if we disregard predation on them by killer whales, then I would rank them as middle order super predators.
I take your point regarding potential bias against marine super predators, and it is something that I have considered. And yes there are some fundamental constraints faced by marine predators that aren’t faced by terrestrial ones, as you suggest, particularly a lack of forelimbs with which to secure prey. But there are a good many examples of terrestrial predators without effective forelimbs, or forelimbs that play a minimal role in the kill, that likely did or in fact do prey on animals larger than themselves. And as you say, even for solo present-day marine predators it does happen and is clearly possible. Regarding Megalodon, I agree that it probably could have taken prey larger than itself, the one thing is for sure, it did not evolve to do so. The reality is that very few predators, marine or terrestrial regularly prey on animals larger than themselves.
Re T. rex, I think I address this in a previous episode. You’re right, there is no unequivocal evidence that it regularly preyed on Triceratops. But in my view and almost certainly did, for reasons I outlined in the previous video.
All that said, again I appreciate your well-informed commentary! And certainly my ranking system isn’t flawless. I doubt that any could be. As with any ranking system there will be cases that don’t seamlessly fit into one category or another. But that doesn’t mean that it’s not useful.
@RealPaleontology Thank you for the feedback Dr. Wroe.
Joe McClure recently reviewed orca predation. callmejoe3.wordpress.com/2022/05/08/the-toughest-in-the-ocean-a-review-of-killer-whale-predation-of-large-whales/
Apparently both bull Physeter and adults humpbacks have never been recorded being killed by KW and one population of pilot whales in the Atlantic seems to harass the local orcas.
I essentially agree with you, killing a larger and very dangerous prey is rare among very large predatory wildlife, but I guess we can still estimate the potential of killing apparatus to subdue a larger game ?
Thinking of it, I recall one of the describers of Livyatan surrounding its discovery casually saying it could not have solo killed a 30 m balaenopterid. On the other hand, I recall Compagno (1990) stating megalodon predatory apparatus to have been large enough to inflict mortal wounds to even a fin or blue whale. Even though, no whales were as big as Livyatan or meg back then (though 15-18 m balaenopterids are reported from the Miocene of Peru).
It is notable how the definitions of superpredator, macropredator etc. are unclear, the authors of the Guizhouichthyosaurus eating thalatosaur paper proposed 'megapredator'.
@RealPaleontology Thank you for the feedback Dr. Wroe.
Joe McClure recently reviewed orca predation. Tip 'Cetology Hub orca' on Google, excellent work from him.
Apparently both bull Physeter and adults humpbacks have never been recorded being killed by KW and one population of pilot whales in the Atlantic seems to harass the local orcas.
I essentially agree with you, killing a larger and very dangerous prey is rare among very large predatory wildlife, but I guess we can still estimate the potential of killing apparatus to subdue a larger game ?
Thinking of it, I recall one of the describers of Livyatan surrounding its discovery casually saying it could not have solo killed a 30 m balaenopterid. On the other hand, I recall Compagno (1990) stating megalodon predatory apparatus to have been large enough to inflict mortal wounds to even a fin or blue whale. Even though, no whales were as big as Livyatan or meg back then (though 15-18 m balaenopterids are reported from the Miocene of Peru).
It is notable how the definitions of superpredator, macropredator etc. are unclear, the authors of the Guizhouichthyosaurus eating thalatosaur paper proposed 'megapredator'.
@RealPaleontology Thank you for the feedback Dr. Wroe.
Joe McClure recently reviewed orca predation. Tip 'Cetology Hub orca' on Google, excellent work from him.
Apparently both bull Physeter and adults humpbacks have never been recorded being killed by KW and one population of pilot whales in the Atlantic seems to harass the local orcas.
I essentially agree with you, killing a larger and very dangerous prey is rare among very large predatory wildlife, but I guess we can still estimate the potential of killing apparatus to subdue a larger game ?
Thinking of it, I recall one of the describers of Livyatan surrounding its discovery casually saying it could not have solo killed a 30 m balaenopterid. On the other hand, I recall Compagno (1990) stating megalodon predatory apparatus to have been large enough to inflict mortal wounds to even a fin or blue whale. Even though, no whales were as big as Livyatan or meg back then (though 15-18 m balaenopterids are reported from the Miocene of Peru).
It is notable how the definitions of superpredator, macropredator etc. are unclear, the authors of the Guizhouichthyosaurus eating thalatosaur paper proposed 'megapredator'.
Hey, thanks for the thoughtful commentary. However, I’m not really sure what your point is here? I know that there are no recorded sightings of killer whales taking down bull sperm whales. It’s just that I’d be very surprised if it has never happened. But, either way the fact remains that orcas predating sperm whales is not a one-off occurrence. At least some orca ecotypes commonly pray on sperm whales, it doesn’t happen the other way around. Regarding killer whales being harassed by pilot whales, sure, and there are instances of them being harassed by false killer whales too. Lions can be chased off by hyenas as well, provided that the numbers are on their side as well……..
Regarding subjective, qualitative interpretations of whether Livyatan or Megalodon, that are not supported by either sound quantitative biomechanical analysis, or direct fossil or taphonomic evidence, such as tooth marks et cetera. These are pretty much throwaway lines to me. I assume you’ve read my papers on biomechanical analyses of various shark species?
Were Megalodon’s jaws wide enough to inflict fatal injury on a hypothetical contemporary? Quite possibly, but without direct evidence or thorough biomechanical analysis this remains pure speculation. And again, the fact remains, that Megalodon had not evolved to regularly prey on animals larger than itself. Even if we could unequivocally demonstrate through computer simulation that it was mechanically feasible, this doesn’t mean that they would have, even, if the opportunity presented itself. If we dropped a 30 m blue whale into Pliocene Megalodon habitat, maybe the first giant shark to encounter it would have torn to shreds. On the other hand it may have fled in complete fear!
All that said, I’m the 1st to admit that my attempt to categorise super predators is not imperfect! And as in any attempt to categorise pretty much anything, there will be problematic outlier taxa. I can think of quite a few others myself. But frankly, in all lack of modesty, I think my own attempt is better than others I’ve seen. Still, there is always room for improvement!
I'm loving this channel !
Thank you very much.
To me, the greatest super-predators are the big cats. Amongst them, the machairodonts are at the top.
No, it's probably weinstein or epstein. Maybe even cosby, Something like that.
I've got to say that I find the cats awesome too. In many ways they are the perfect predators or closest thing to it.
Mic sounds much better
Thanks, I upgraded! Glad that it makes a difference.
uploaded just in time for my stolen bowl of 3 AM zaza
Awesome. Enjoy! PS, I would have thought you could get zaza pretty much anywhere for free?
Is their dinosaur that can beat a Deinosuchus in a fight and can Triceratops beat it I know they never met but what if they did.
It may have been roughly comparable in size to T. rex. Which one would have won the fight assuming they were of comparable size. Well it was in the water I put my money on the big croc, if it was on land I'd bet on the T. rex.
@ Thank you
@@RealPaleontology what about Triceratops
Dinosaur question were dinosaurs muscular ripped or muscular bulky body which Dinosaur are totally ripped or bulky or both and was Triceratops muscular ripped or muscular bulky body or both.
No one can be sure of this but I do suspect both as you suggest.
How would a polar bear not be in the highest order I thought they could take down beluga whales in the right circumstances ? Or am I misinformation?
They definitely have been known to kill trapped beluga whales, but this is an extremely rare event. By far their most common prey are juvenile seals. But hey, I'm just giving you my call on this, you are absolutely free to make your own.
I really enjoy your system! I just have some reservations when the predator in questjon is the biggest animal in its ecosystem. I know this rarely ever happens in nature, but when it does, you have to call megalodon or a hatzeg island pterosaur or ichthyotitan a middle order predator, when its really jus t the biggest thing around. These examples were p hard to think of lol, for extant stuff maybe like a wels catfish counts, or green anaconda/caiman
Thank you. Yes I did think about this. But I figure that if species is the largest in its system can never be sure that it was able to take relatively large prey. We can be sure that it was not specifically adapted to do so. But I do take your point.
Do you have anything on hyeenadon?I think it wasn't actually a hyeena but I like to see stuff you done you explained it better than other people
Hey thanks for that. And yes I will do this critter soon.