What is the top predator in the ocean besides man?

[dilettante]

Beware the deadly SeaBieber.

[Witis]

Well you brought it up. I just found it amusing because I'm essentially a very juvenile man.

Also check out the barnacle which is said to have the largest phallus as a proportion of its overall body size.

I have no such attachment and I'm really not sure why you think I have.

As you seem to be very dismissive of any other result except old Bluey and she is a mammal.

Earlier I said that this was like a game of top trumps. Actually that was only half right. This is like a game of top trumps where you insist on choosing the attribute that will be played each time and insist on seeing your opponents card before you choose and insist on playing the Mako Shark card every time.

Note quite. I had to play all of the finalists against each other including all of their strengths and weaknesses. The Mako won which is why I wrote a summary of why it won. Too much detail and everyone's eyes would have glazed over.

It's self fulfilling because every time someone makes any suggestion for an alternative you simply dismiss it on the basis of whichever attribute the Mako Shark wins on.

It could be the orca... no, the mako shark can dive deeper
It could be the tuna... no, the mako shark can swim faster
It could be the billfish... no, its sword won't work on the mako shark
It could be a sea mammal... no, it's the mako's hide is too tough for it's teeth
It could be the blue whale... no, it's enormous phallus creates too much drag and slows it down

OK, I threw that last one in for a giggle (I did say I was juvenile).

That is the tip of the iceberg, the key points, the summary, you need to start looking at the details regarding each match up by doing a couple yourself. Then once you have worked out how to compare the candidates try and beat the Mako.

The most revealing part of all of this is your continued insistence that man is the top predator on the planet while maintaining that the one edge that put man in that position, namely his intelligence, is irrelevant as a predating strategy.

Almost, that was a mistake I also made at the start, to presume that as Man is dominant mainly due to his intelligence then by extension the top pelagic predator also has to be the most intelligent; however, it does not have to be the case. For example on land many of the monkeys have elevated levels of intelligence and are nonetheless still essentially regular prey for the tree borne Leopards. Thus an intellectual advantage does not always translate into a superior predator.

[Witis]

I have to agree with the others Witis.

Basically you are gaming the debate be deciding what feature you care about the most when comparing with each creature.

Also with no reference as to what in your opinion constitutes a top predator, how can you compare?

Without knowing what I was going to be comparing I was not able to predetermine any such criteria. So I obtained a list of all of the strengths and weaknesses of each of the top creatures and then started trying to compare them against each other. It is quite an involved process and I hid many of the details to avoid boring everyone with each match up, although I don't mind examining them if anyone is interested.

It a bit like saying who was the best athlete in the world at the recent Olympics?

Sort of. More like Spike TV's the Deadliest Warrior where different types of warriors are compared with each other and the winner determined eg samurai vs. viking or Spartan vs. Ninja etc. See here for more details: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadliest_Warrior

But just to put a spanner in the works what about the Colossal squid?
i bet the Mako shark wouldn't fancy a tussle with one of them!

Colossal Squid - animal with the largest eyes in the animal kingdom.
I didn't rate octopus or squid as they keel over after losing their virginity, which makes it pretty difficult to take them seriously. Also they are typically the prey of the Cachalot which instantly puts them down the food chain. Unless I missed something?

Also What about the Stone Fish?

both highly different from a Mako Shark but doesn't make them any less dangerous.

For instance lets see a Mako Shark try and Eat a stone fish

The stone fish, nasty fishy as swallowers always make it into the league of super evil. I immediately think poisonous and difficult to eat and that usually means it is prey for the Tiger shark which eats puffer fish and sea snakes without too many ill effects.

[Witis]

Beware the deadly SeaBieber.

Most potential of any candidate

[FunkyDexter]

As you seem to be very dismissive of any other result except old Bluey

I haven't dismissed a single candidate anywhere in this thread (except the collosal squid and I think it should have been pretty obvious I was joking). What I've dismissed is you premise and your methodology because you clearly have neither.

You, on the other hand, have dismissed anything that isn't your desired outcome. Look at your response to our tentacled freind: Nope, not having that, it dies after sex. I shall not consider it's high level intelligence. I shall not consider it's dextrous superioirty. I shall not consider it's massive strength. I shall give no consideration to the variety or volume of prey it consumes. I shall disregard it's ability to exist at massive depth. Nope, I shall immediately dismiss it out of hand on the basis that it only ever gets a woody once... and that it's not a mako shark.

Oh, and by the way, research doesn't indicate that it dies immediately after having sex. Research has indicated that it only reproduces one in it's lifetime. The two are not the same thing and there's no research, to my knowledge at least, that represent a causal link. And given that it births millions of eggs that would hardly seem to be a weakness to anyone that could be bothered to give it even the most cursory consideration.

Finally, the deadliest warrior, while an amusing show, is most certainly not science. It is a televisual representation of a game, just as this thread is a written forum representation of a game. It's not scientific in any way shape or form and the conclusions you draw have no more scientific merit than playing donkey kong and concluding that a plumber is superior to a barrel laden ape.

you were given your scientific response quite some time ago and, in case you missed it, I'll give it to you again. There is no top predator. It doesn't exist in the sea. It doesn't exist on land. It doesn't exist in the air or in space. There is merely the one that's currently in it's most favourable enviroment and/or get's lucky. Unless you count entropy. Entropy always wins.

[Witis]

I haven't dismissed a single candidate anywhere in this thread (except the collosal squid and I think it should have been pretty obvious I was joking). What I've dismissed is you premise and your methodology because you clearly have neither.

The goal is to determine the ultimate sea-bound predator.
The method involves gathering the primary contenders, so called apex predators, the regional champions, and then playing them against each other to see who is ultimate warrior, the most dominant form of life in the sea.
The precursor to each match up involves gathering the current scientific data about these finalists to determine their strengths and weaknesses
Then each match up is customised although it usually involves
Finding out what the primary weapons and attacks are
Finding the primary means of defense if any
Finding out if there is are any escape tactics that can be employed
Finding out if these attack, defense or escape strategies can be successfully employed in the particular match up
Finding out if there are any key strengths or weakness such as the mammal's tooth weakness which can effect the match up.

You, on the other hand, have dismissed anything that isn't your desired outcome. Look at your response to our tentacled freind: Nope, not having that, it dies after sex. I shall not consider it's high level intelligence. I shall not consider it's dextrous superioirty. I shall not consider it's massive strength. I shall give no consideration to the variety or volume of prey it consumes. I shall disregard it's ability to exist at massive depth. Nope, I shall immediately dismiss it out of hand on the basis that it only ever gets a woody once... and that it's not a mako shark.

Not just that it is also the primary prey for the Cachalot which means it is not an apex predator, not even a regional champion, so why would it make it to the finals?

Finally, the deadliest warrior, while an amusing show, is most certainly not science. It is a televisual representation of a game, just as this thread is a written forum representation of a game. It's not scientific in any way shape or form and the conclusions you draw have no more scientific merit than playing donkey kong and concluding that a plumber is superior to a barrel laden ape.

Hmmm not so sure, they try to get as many scientific measurements as they can sometimes at great expense prior to making their determinations meaning I am not so sure you can write it off so flippantly.

you were given your scientific response quite some time ago and, in case you missed it, I'll give it to you again. There is no top predator. It doesn't exist in the sea. It doesn't exist on land. It doesn't exist in the air or in space. There is merely the one that's currently in it's most favourable enviroment and/or get's lucky. Unless you count entropy. Entropy always wins.

Not sure that is the scientific answer. Most seem happy with the view that man is the top organic based life form on Earth, and popular culture imbues the wider public with the view that killer whales are the topmost oceanic predator just by the connotations such a name creates, yet you are entirely dismissive of any attempt to try and look to science to try to determine the underlying truth of the matter.

Do you mean entropy as a measure of disorder or chaos or something else?

[FunkyDexter]

The method involves gathering the primary contenders, so called apex predators, the regional champions, and then playing them against each other to see who is ultimate warrior, the most dominant form of life in the sea.
The precursor to each match up involves gathering the current scientific data about these finalists to determine their strengths and weaknesses
Then each match up is customised although it usually involves
Finding out what the primary weapons and attacks are
Finding the primary means of defense if any
Finding out if there is are any escape tactics that can be employed
Finding out if these attack, defense or escape strategies can be successfully employed in the particular match up
Finding out if there are any key strengths or weakness such as the mammal's tooth weakness which can effect the match up.

OK, this starts to look like a methodology but you still have some huge gaps to consider. What will be your methodology for OBJECTIVELY rating each of your contenders against these criteria? What will be you methodology for ranking these criteria against each other? How will you ensure riogour in the collection of your initial data? What represents an adequate sample size? What formulae will you be using in your simulation (given that you're basing this on Deadliest Warrior I assume you will be performing a simulation)to see which criterion score trumps which other criterion score? You should not even begin to collect data until you've answered all those points because, if you do, you run the risk of designing your experiment to produce the desired outcome... which is exactly what you did?

And even then you have to understand you will not be proving who is the top predator. You will merely be proving who is the top predator according to your simulation. Simulation is like masturbation. It's convenient and fun but it's no substitue for the real thing... and often has an alarmingly different outcome.

Hmmm not so sure, they try to get as many scientific measurements as they can sometimes at great expense prior to making their determinations meaning I am not so sure you can write it off so flippantly.

Really?! Really?!!! If you honestly look at that program and think it comes close to a scientific aproach then I also recommend you check out Brainiacs. You should probably steer clear of Mythbusters because it might be a bit heavy going. Sorry I'm being sarcastic (I'm allowed to, I'm British, it's what we do) but these programs really aren't science, anymore that the search for Bigfoot or GhostHunters are. They're entertainment. Quite good entertainment, certainly, and I do quite enjoy them, but entertainment and nothing more.

Do you mean entropy as a measure of disorder or chaos or something else?

Again I was really just being flippant there but I meant a measure of chaos, or rather the negative of order. Physics says that everything constantly moves from a state of low entropy to a state of high entropy whenever possible. If you think about it that pretty much describes the life span of our universe, moving from an ordered, high energy singularity to a the cold dead and utterly disordered emptiness of an empty universe of infinite volume. There's a school of thought that says the whole of time is really just our perception of the universe moving along the inevitable axis of increasing entropy. That's the over-simplified, potted version but if you're willing to accept the premise that entropy always increases and time is the product of that function then: "entropy always wins"

[Witis]

OK, this starts to look like a methodology but you still have some huge gaps to consider.

Finally

What will be your methodology for OBJECTIVELY rating each of your contenders against these criteria?

The objectivity is a function of the scientific data for example if the scientific data indicates that the Cachalot can dive for up to 90 minutes and reach a depth of 3kms then it has a potential escape strategy against the shallower diving whales such as the Orca. If I were to rate the contest in a subjective manner then I could easily discard the scientific data and pick the Orca because I liked the movie Free Willy or the name Killer Whale.

What will be you methodology for ranking these criteria against each other?

It is not usually very difficult to spot the winner once the weapons and attacks, defenses, speed, and escape potential have all been identified.
I have to caution you against trying to make a black box to analyse each match up as it won't always work, instead I recommend a custom match up focused on the scientific facts to make the final determination.
For example in the case of the billfish versus the Mako it was not instantly apparent which species would be dominant as some billfish are said to swim faster than the Mako and may therefore not be regular prey for the Mako, while the billfish has no means of predating on the Mako as its bill is only designed to herd and consume small to medium sized prey. Moreover even though there is data indicating the Mako consumes billfish, and not the other way around, I gave the benefit of the doubt to the faster billfish. Thus it looked like they were inseparable. However, I realised that there was something amiss with the billfishes' ability to attack anything larger than medium sized prey, and this translated into an inability to capitalise on its speed advantage in relation to the Mako and put it out of contention for the top spot. As a result I don't think you can write a black box that will be able to cope with all of the individual peculiarities in each case; instead I have to defer to the underlying quality of scientific data on which the match up is based.

How will you ensure riogour in the collection of your initial data? What represents an adequate sample size?

That I leave to the marine scientists, and focus on using good references as a data source.

What formulae will you be using in your simulation (given that you're basing this on Deadliest Warrior I assume you will be performing a simulation)to see which criterion score trumps which other criterion score?

I did the match ups manually as I have described and then realised, once I had finished, that it was similar to the Deadliest Warrior meaning it was not directly based on the Deadliest Warrior.

You should not even begin to collect data until you've answered all those points because, if you do, you run the risk of designing your experiment to produce the desired outcome... which is exactly what you did?

Not true, there is an ample amount of data from reliable sources to attempt the determination. There was no predetermined outcome just a desire to put the Killer Whale to the test to see if its name really matches it actual performance and to explore any other overlooked sea-borne predators. To me its looks like the sharks make good whalers with the Mako being more gold than bronze whaler.

And even then you have to understand you will not be proving who is the top predator. You will merely be proving who is the top predator according to your simulation. Simulation is like masturbation. It's convenient and fun but it's no substitue for the real thing... and often has an alarmingly different outcome.

The idea was to get enough data to determine the actual topmost aquatic predator, I would be disappointed if the Mako does not in time turn out to be viewed as the actual topmost pelagic predator. If I was wrong it is most likely a data quality issue or that I missed a key piece of information. Also it is good to examine these creatures in order to put man into context with the rest of the animal kingdom. I recommend that you try to work out what you think is the topmost aquatic predator yourself. Once you are comfortable with the match ups, it then makes theoretical match ups possible, which in turn can possibly reveal even greater insights.

Really?! Really?!!! If you honestly look at that program and think it comes close to a scientific aproach then I also recommend you check out Brainiacs.

Not convinced. The Deadliest Warrior strives to get quite a large amount of real data prior to each match up, and to do this they pay world experts in history, weaponry and fighting techniques which means that they are making a serious attempt at determining the correct outcome. By contrast Brianiacs is an overt spoof.

You should probably steer clear of Mythbusters because it might be a bit heavy going.

Just because the Deadliest Warrior creates match ups between theoretical opponents that would never happen in reality does not automatically make the show worthless from a scientific perspective, I am sure all the theoretical scientists would stand their ground on this point.

Sorry I'm being sarcastic (I'm allowed to, I'm British, it's what we do) but these programs really aren't science, anymore that the search for Bigfoot or GhostHunters are. They're entertainment. Quite good entertainment, certainly, and I do quite enjoy them, but entertainment and nothing more.

While I agree that it is important to be able to differentiate between science and Hollywood I am not so sure you have correctly classified the Deadliest Warrior by viewing it as pure entertainment. If it turns out that after going to all the trouble of obtaining a substantial amount of scientific data, they then actually discard it in favour of a subjective approach similar to wrestling and then cover it all up with expensive graphics in a process which is hidden from the viewer then I would be extremely surprised.

Again I was really just being flippant there but I meant a measure of chaos, or rather the negative of order. Physics says that everything constantly moves from a state of low entropy to a state of high entropy whenever possible. If you think about it that pretty much describes the life span of our universe, moving from an ordered, high energy singularity to a the cold dead and utterly disordered emptiness of an empty universe of infinite volume. There's a school of thought that says the whole of time is really just our perception of the universe moving along the inevitable axis of increasing entropy. That's the over-simplified, potted version but if you're willing to accept the premise that entropy always increases and time is the product of that function then: "entropy always wins"

What I read was that you think the universe is moving towards ever increasing levels of entropy(chaos) until all that is left is an empty lifeless husk, which is quite a nihilistic and depressing perspective. Surely there has to be some light at the end of the darkness of the tunnel you are describing?

[Niya]

Reading this thread it seems you're overly fond of the Mako shark, almost to a fault in this debate. I've said it before, intelligence is the ultimate adaptation. Excluding micro-organisms, Orcas will dominate in a tussle with the most powerful marine predators.

[Shaggy Hiker]

First off: You are delusional. Fortunately, you are the third in a recent string of such types to start lengthy threads in CC, and I eagerly await the e-book, as the other two have provided most excellent reading.

For example Great White sharks prey on humans and yet humans are higher up the food chain than Great Whites.

Really? Based on what?

What I needed to see was evidence that Orcas are designed to regularly predate on Mako sharks and I did not find any. Instead I found that the design of the Mako shark means that it is the perfect Orca killing machine not the other way around.

This statement, coupled with the previous one, made me re-evaluate your whole position. Are you a creationist? You seem to be suggesting something that goes against anything that has been taught in Biology within the lifetime of anybody alive today. Therefore, it occurred to me that perhaps you were taught that God created all animals with a specific purpose, and you are just trying to discern the pattern.

If you are a creationist, then I kind of understand your position. I totally disagree with it, since it seems unfounded even upon the evidence you have agreed to in this thread, but I do kind of understand why you are so doggedly persistent with your positions.

Can a pack of Orcas kill a single Mako, either too young or disabled to evade the pod, sure, although that does not by itself make Orcas an authentic shark predator.

Actually, a single Orca can kill a single Mako, regardless of the age, and if you think about it a bit, you will know that it is the case. People often misunderstand how animals will use certain body parts. For instance, you focus on the teeth of the Orca, yet the video showed that it will use its tail as the primary weapon against a Mako. There are similar examples all throughout the animal kingdom. One interesting example would be moose: You would be unwise to fear the antlers, obvious though they may be.

I explicated that as the sea is essentially full of predators, it is only natural to try and determine which is the top pelagic predator.

Not natural, human. Nature doesn't work that way, only we do. Furthermore, our drive to classify, categorize, and rank, everything that we encounter serves us only to a certain extent. It also misleads us. For instance, the whole concept of species was created by a creationist (as everybody was in that day), and it has proven fairly useful in that we can put names on organisms. Unfortunately, the species name given by humans isn't a characteristic of the animal, and any number of 'species' are violating the rules we have tried to impose on them. Some people try to address this by tweaking the definition of what is a species, but all such attempts tend to fail. The truth is that the whole concept of species is a human construct that is useful in some cases, but we should always remember that it is flawed. You are making the same mistake with the concept of a 'top predator'. There is no such thing. Only humans would try to impose such a categorization on the world around them. The categorization is only useful as long as you remember that it is also false.

A keystone predator is a different thing, as it can be measured in an absolute sense....though it may be impossible to do so in practice. A keystone predator is one such that its removal causes whole communities of species to disappear. The presence of the predator enables other species to exist, generally by keeping some otherwise dominant species in check. Of course, the only way to prove that something is a keystone predator is to remove it and measure the change, which isn't something you can do on a whole ocean level.

In this case I was lucky that there was enough scientific information available for me to feel comfortable with my conclusion.

Despite the fact that everybody else on this thread believes you are practicing self-deception?

I am not creating a new theoretical species, I am merely looking at the science to determine what the facts are.

Actually, you are filtering the facts to support your theories.

The very fact that Makos could be preying on Makos is a huge revelation compared to popular culture which presents them as fish finger to Orcas.

I assume that one of those words is wrong, though I'm not sure which one. Cannibalism isn't anything all that unusual, but that wouldn't have anything to do with Orcas, so I assume you meant Orca where you wrote one of the Makos, though I can't say which. Your attempt to use popular culture as being some kind of authoritative reference is not going to get you far around here. We all know that popular culture is largely misinformed.

That's strange, most see Man as the top organic based predator on land.

Hardly surprising when you consider that half the human race has below median intelligence.

We really like to award ourselves trophies, and who is out there to say otherwise?

[Shaggy Hiker]

I missed the whole third page with that last post. It doesn't seem to matter, except that on the third page you listed the criteria. That's useful, as it is clear that you missed some critical points.

Consider that your criteria would rank a moose ahead of a wolf unless you put considerable emphasis on the ability of a wolf to outlast a moose in an endurance race (which may or may not be true). In all other ways, according to your criteria, a moose would thrash a wolf, yet we know that wolves eat moose. In otherwords, your criteria are flawed because they would create absurd outcomes. They are only true if you endow all contestants with human intelligence for the duration of the match. Since that premise is fanciful, the results are equally so. Your contestants need to know the objective of the match for them to be able to win. Without that knowledge, they may lose without ever realizing that they are in a contest.

As an example, consider the Mayan cichlid that I mentioned in an earlier thread. The Mayan cichlid is a small, colorful, fish found largely in central America (and introduced into other sub-tropical waters). They are incredibly aggressive. Put one into a fish tank, and it will kill off anything else it identifies as living, if it can do so. We only got three other animals to survive in a tank with it: Two sedentary fish that it didn't recognize as being living, and a turtle, which it attacked relentlessly and futily. Was the Mayan cichlid superior or inferior to the three animals it didn't kill? Was it really superior to the animals that it DID kill (which included other Mayan cichlids, which would make it superior to itself)? The cichlid has no teeth, isn't very fast, isn't camouflaged, has no poison, is pretty small, and has no other remarkable attributes other than raw aggression. The gar that was in the tank with it has real teeth, terrific speed (in short bursts), and a natural camouflage. It was only the latter that kept it alive, since the cichlid didn't attack it. The armored catfish, which was the other surviving fish, has no teeth, modest protection, and is virtually immobile. Once again, it was the latter that protected it, because the cichlid never attacked it. The turtle would be superior in your heirarchy, as would the gar, yet all four species co-existed in close proximity for a considerable length of time.

This is the flaw of your design: The animals have to know that there is a competition for it to even work. Since that doesn't happen, reality is not going to match your model. Fortunately, you do have one great advantage: Only a human would be foolish enough to believe their model is a superior representation of reality than reality is itself. Therefore, none of the other animals outside of the human race will ever snicker at your conclusions.

[Witis]

Reading this thread it seems you're overly fond of the Mako shark, almost to a fault in this debate. I've said it before, intelligence is the ultimate adaptation. Excluding micro-organisms, Orcas will dominate in a tussle with the most powerful marine predators.

I am not overly fond of Mako sharks at all, in fact after doing this analysis I loathe them and now seek to catch and consume one if at all possible. Unfortunately an intellectual advantage does not by itself make a superior predator and this is apparent in the case of most species of monkeys (including apes) who are regular prey to the tree borne Leopards despite having such an advantage.

Moreover if you want to focus on intelligence then you need to take a look at the Cachalot which has the largest brain, Orcas only have the second largest brain, while the Sea Otter is the most intelligent sea creature due to its hand like paws and use of tools.

[Witis]

First off: You are delusional.

I bet you don't even know what delusional means; moreover, resorting to insults is an indication that you are losing it like John McEnroe throwing a bratty tanty. In the future please maintain at least some degree of civility by restricting yourself to discussing the issue at hand and avoiding personal insults.

Really? Based on what?

If you are arguing that great white sharks are further up the food chain than humans I think that most scientists would view you as either extremely eccentric or psychotic.

This statement, coupled with the previous one, made me re-evaluate your whole position. Are you a creationist?

There is nothing in this thread that focuses on anything other than science which means you are seeing things that are not there, alternatively stated you are showing signs of suffering from illusionary symptoms. If you are in any further doubt please read my signature which stipulates that objective science (non fiction) > faith based religions (fiction).

Actually, a single Orca can kill a single Mako, regardless of the age, and if you think about it a bit, you will know that it is the case.

Please elaborate on exactly how an Orca can kill a Mako one on one.

People often misunderstand how animals will use certain body parts. For instance, you focus on the teeth of the Orca, yet the video showed that it will use its tail as the primary weapon against a Mako. There are similar examples all throughout the animal kingdom.

The reason for focusing on teeth is that they are often critical in determining the true nature of a creature. For example although the T.Rex used to be regarded as the top of the food chain on land, a prehistoric king, it has since been revealed that their teeth may actually provide crucial evidence for repositioning them as more scavenger than predator, the debate is ongoing see here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12gWL6y3Uw4 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valley_of_the_T-Rex. Likewise the teeth of the Orca mean that it cannot eat sharks regularly or it wears its teeth down to the gums meaning it is not a natural shark predator.

Not natural, human.

No natural, the sea is predominantly filled with predatory species, unlike on land, therefore determining the topmost aquatic predator is a function of their natural environment.

Furthermore, our drive to classify, categorize, and rank, everything that we encounter serves us only to a certain extent. It also misleads us. For instance, the whole concept of species was created by a creationist (as everybody was in that day)

Species is by default a scientific term which has a different ecclesiastical meaning altogether.

Unfortunately, the species name given by humans isn't a characteristic of the animal, and any number of 'species' are violating the rules we have tried to impose on them.

What species name isn't a characteristic of the animal, and what rules are being violated?

Some people try to address this by tweaking the definition of what is a species, but all such attempts tend to fail. The truth is that the whole concept of species is a human construct that is useful in some cases, but we should always remember that it is flawed.

I disagree, the construct of species has been successfully implemented and is constantly revised.

You are making the same mistake with the concept of a 'top predator'. There is no such thing. Only humans would try to impose such a categorization on the world around them. The categorization is only useful as long as you remember that it is also false.

By saying that there is no such thing as a top predator, when it is obvious that Man is the top organic predator on Earth, makes you appear overtly delusional.

A keystone predator is a different thing, as it can be measured in an absolute sense....though it may be impossible to do so in practice. A keystone predator is one such that its removal causes whole communities of species to disappear. The presence of the predator enables other species to exist, generally by keeping some otherwise dominant species in check. Of course, the only way to prove that something is a keystone predator is to remove it and measure the change, which isn't something you can do on a whole ocean level.

In other words you don't have a keystone predator for me to look at that could beat the Mako either directly or indirectly.

Despite the fact that everybody else on this thread believes you are practicing self-deception?

I am only looking at the scientific facts specifically to avoid any self deception or subjective conclusions.

Actually, you are filtering the facts to support your theories.

The primary widely held view or theory is that the Orca is the topmost oceanic predator, I have presented facts that contradict this theory.

I assume that one of those words is wrong, though I'm not sure which one. Cannibalism isn't anything all that unusual, but that wouldn't have anything to do with Orcas, so I assume you meant Orca where you wrote one of the Makos, though I can't say which.

You really can't work it out? That's a worry.

Your attempt to use popular culture as being some kind of authoritative reference is not going to get you far around here. We all know that popular culture is largely misinformed.

I still think your theory is grounded in popular culture rather than fact.

Hardly surprising when you consider that half the human race has below median intelligence.

What has that got to do with the top land based predator?

We really like to award ourselves trophies, and who is out there to say otherwise?

You seem to be arguing against it.

[Witis]

Consider that your criteria would rank a moose ahead of a wolf unless you put considerable emphasis on the ability of a wolf to outlast a moose in an endurance race (which may or may not be true). In all other ways, according to your criteria, a moose would thrash a wolf, yet we know that wolves eat moose. In otherwords, your criteria are flawed because they would create absurd outcomes. They are only true if you endow all contestants with human intelligence for the duration of the match. Since that premise is fanciful, the results are equally so. Your contestants need to know the objective of the match for them to be able to win. Without that knowledge, they may lose without ever realizing that they are in a contest.

Don't agree, why would the moose rank ahead of a wolf? Please provide the scientific facts which indicate this to be the case.

As an example, consider the Mayan cichlid that I mentioned in an earlier thread. The Mayan cichlid is a small, colorful, fish found largely in central America (and introduced into other sub-tropical waters). They are incredibly aggressive. Put one into a fish tank, and it will kill off anything else it identifies as living, if it can do so. We only got three other animals to survive in a tank with it: Two sedentary fish that it didn't recognize as being living, and a turtle, which it attacked relentlessly and futily. Was the Mayan cichlid superior or inferior to the three animals it didn't kill? Was it really superior to the animals that it DID kill (which included other Mayan cichlids, which would make it superior to itself)? The cichlid has no teeth, isn't very fast, isn't camouflaged, has no poison, is pretty small, and has no other remarkable attributes other than raw aggression. The gar that was in the tank with it has real teeth, terrific speed (in short bursts), and a natural camouflage. It was only the latter that kept it alive, since the cichlid didn't attack it. The armored catfish, which was the other surviving fish, has no teeth, modest protection, and is virtually immobile. Once again, it was the latter that protected it, because the cichlid never attacked it. The turtle would be superior in your heirarchy, as would the gar, yet all four species co-existed in close proximity for a considerable length of time.

Raw aggression is not going to help much against a superior predator, don't overestimate your cichlid despite its head count.

This is the flaw of your design: The animals have to know that there is a competition for it to even work. Since that doesn't happen, reality is not going to match your model.

Don't agree, as soon as involuntary carnivores become hungry they will use all of their strengths to try and catch their dinner which exactly matches my method for determining the top predator.

Fortunately, you do have one great advantage: Only a human would be foolish enough to believe their model is a superior representation of reality than reality is itself.

It is an attempt to determine the actual (real) topmost pelagic predator and I stand by my results.

Therefore, none of the other animals outside of the human race will ever snicker at your conclusions.

I very much doubt that any reasonably intelligent life forms would ever snicker at any attempt to use science to try to determine the real answer to quite a difficult issue.

[Shaggy Hiker]

I bet you don't even know what delusional means; moreover, resorting to insults is an indication that you are losing it like John McEnroe throwing a bratty tanty.

Read the responses people have given. To date, everybody who has responded has stated that you are deluding yourself in some way or another.

If you are arguing that great white sharks are further up the food chain than humans I think that most scientists would view you as either extremely eccentric or psychotic.

Actually, they would not. Being a biologist, I work in the field with dozens of other biologists every working day, and my point of view on this is not unusual or remarkable. It is routine to point out that we are not at the top of the food chain, despite a willingness to eat nearly anything else.

There is nothing in this thread that focuses on anything other than science which means you are seeing things that are not there, alternatively stated you are showing signs of suffering from illusionary symptoms. If you are in any further doubt please read my signature which stipulates that objective science (non fiction) > faith based religions (fiction).

If you aren't a creationist, that's fine. You never explicitly stated that you were or were not, but those statements made it appear possible, so I thought I should ask. If you were coming from that point of view, it would cast your statements in a different light. As it appears that you are not, then we might as well leave it.

Please elaborate on exactly how an Orca can kill a Mako one on one.

You saw a video on it in an earlier post, so the means is: Stun it with its tail, then flip it onto its back. Since they do this, it is clearly possible. You may be saying that it takes a pod to do this, or you may say that the mako is either weak or young. Either may well be the case. In fact, the latter is likely, as that is typical predation behavior for larger predators, but so what? Do you have evidence of a mako ever eating a healthy orca?

The reason for focusing on teeth is that they are often critical in determining the true nature of a creature. For example although the T.Rex used to be regarded as the top of the food chain on land, a prehistoric king, it has since been revealed that their teeth may actually provide crucial evidence for repositioning them as more scavenger than predator, the debate is ongoing see here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12gWL6y3Uw4 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valley_of_the_T-Rex. Likewise the teeth of the Orca mean that it cannot eat sharks regularly or it wears its teeth down to the gums meaning it is not a natural shark predator.

I'm well aware of that. I'm also well aware that it has limits. You probably note that some human populations are almost exclusively carnivorous, while there are plenty that are vegetarians, yet our teeth are as diverse as our diet. Additionally, you may well be aware that such nominal herbivores as deer have been known to eat meat. To say that Orcas don't exclusively eat sharks is kind of trivial, since everybody agrees with that. They are opportunistic foragers, as are most predators. You have agreed that they DO eat makos, and have yet to show that makos eat orcas.

No natural, the sea is predominantly filled with predatory species, unlike on land, therefore determining the topmost aquatic predator is a function of their natural environment.

That isn't even possible.

What species name isn't a characteristic of the animal, and what rules are being violated?

The classic definition of a species is that it can't produce viable offspring with any other species. That is violated routinely in fish.

I disagree, the construct of species has been successfully implemented and is constantly revised.

Good luck with that.

By saying that there is no such thing as a top predator, when it is obvious that Man is the top organic predator on Earth, makes you appear overtly delusional.

Wow, that must have really stung you. How about if we let you tell us: Why do you believe that there is a single top predator?

In other words you don't have a keystone predator for me to look at that could beat the Mako either directly or indirectly.

I certainly have no idea what keystone predators might exist, though sharks, in general, are often thought to fill that role. A keystone predator doesn't have to be a top predator by any measure, it just has to be critical to the ecosystem as it currently stands.

I am only looking at the scientific facts specifically to avoid any self deception or subjective conclusions.

You are failing at that. Has anybody who has responded here more than once said anything other than that you are being entirely subjective?

The primary widely held view or theory is that the Orca is the topmost oceanic predator, I have presented facts that contradict this theory.

Ok, so you have an alternative theory. Now you can test the theory, and there is no better time to be living to perform that test. It won't be all that easy, most likely. Since you are unlikely to be able to measure directly (in any human lifetime) the number of makos eaten by orcas vs. the number of orcas eaten by makos, but you may be able to find some papers on the subject in Google Docs (or possibly a good research library, if you have access to one). I would guess that orcas eat more makos than makos eat orcas, but I would be surprised if it was entirely one sided.

What has that got to do with the top land based predator?

It's called sarcasm.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Don't agree, why would the moose rank ahead of a wolf? Please provide the scientific facts which indicate this to be the case.

Moose are better armed, heavier, and quicker. They can kill a wolf with a single blow, whereas a wolf has no such ability. A moose can also outrun a wolf over some distances, though it can't corner as well.

Raw aggression is not going to help much against a superior predator, don't overestimate your cichlid despite its head count.

The head count was 1. The cichlid is not a predator, as it was killing, but not eating, all the other fish in the tank. While the cichlid is largely carnivorous, it lacks teeth, and tends to eat small things. I found some that were stuffed full of algae, but they didn't appear to be digesting it, just eating it, probably for epiphyton, or something else. Nonetheless, it killed everything else it identified as being alive, despite lacking the weapons to do so. You might wonder how that happened, but the answer is simple: Fish are wimps. Stress kills fish pretty readily, so the cichlid would simply harass the other fish to death. The result was the same, it just wasn't as quick.

Don't agree, as soon as involuntary carnivores become hungry they will use all of their strengths to try and catch their dinner which exactly matches my method for determining the top predator.

Good theory, now prove it. I can't think of any evidence one way or the other. At best, I would say that involuntary carnivores never really become hungry in the sense that humans do. Instead, they appear to be opportunistic. If they have the opportunity to eat, they do so. When they don't have the opportunity, they starve.

It is an attempt to determine the actual (real) topmost pelagic predator and I stand by my results.

I don't believe there is one. I'd like to see a determination that there IS a (real) topmost pelagic predator.

[QIOTE]
I very much doubt that any reasonably intelligent life forms would ever snicker at any attempt to use science to try to determine the real answer to quite a difficult issue.[/QUOTE]

That misses the point. What I was saying is that only humans would try what you are trying, and only humans will judge it. For all other animals that we know of, the attempt, and any conclusions whether right or wrong, are irrelevant.

[Witis]

Read the responses people have given. To date, everybody who has responded has stated that you are deluding yourself in some way or another.

Not one other person has stated anything of the sort, and you look like this going on about it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koE_e...eature=related

Actually, they would not. Being a biologist, I work in the field with dozens of other biologists every working day, and my point of view on this is not unusual or remarkable. It is routine to point out that we are not at the top of the food chain, despite a willingness to eat nearly anything else.

You seriously believe that humans are not the top organic predator on planet Earth? My bet is on psychotic rather than eccentric.

If you aren't a creationist, that's fine. You never explicitly stated that you were or were not, but those statements made it appear possible, so I thought I should ask. If you were coming from that point of view, it would cast your statements in a different light. As it appears that you are not, then we might as well leave it.

Probably for the best.

You saw a video on it in an earlier post, so the means is: Stun it with its tail, then flip it onto its back. Since they do this, it is clearly possible. You may be saying that it takes a pod to do this, or you may say that the mako is either weak or young. Either may well be the case.

I am not convinced that an Orca could do this to a Mako one on one. As you saw in the video in the first post the Mako shark is able to swim much faster than tuna and by extension faster than Orcas, so it is going to be near impossible for the Orca to catch up with the Mako let alone get close enough to it to get it to the surface and then try to slap it with its tail. Getting the help of an entire pod seems more likely. One on one it would be much easier for the shark to use its speed advantage and much more serious gnashers to harass, intimidate and eventually bring down the Orca like an arctic wolf on an Elk.

In fact, the latter is likely, as that is typical predation behavior for larger predators, but so what? Do you have evidence of a mako ever eating a healthy orca?

I have no doubt that there is evidence of sharks eating whales just like there is evidence of Orcas eating sharks. As a result the focus for me was working on the more difficult issue: which of the two is actually designed to predate on the other.

To say that Orcas don't exclusively eat sharks is kind of trivial, since everybody agrees with that.

It is clear that evolution has not designed Orcas as shark predators, and merely showing that they can kill and eat a young or disabled shark is trivial.

They are opportunistic foragers, as are most predators. You have agreed that they DO eat makos, and have yet to show that makos eat orcas.

I have done better than that, I have provided enough evidence to determine which species is actually designed to predate on the other. By revealing that Orcas are not designed as shark predators due to their inferior teeth and speed it put Orcas out of contention for the title of top sea-borne predator. Although Orcas might also be prey for the fastest regularly toothed fish such as the Wahoo or tuna, and the Cachalot. This means that the Orca might not even be the top toothed whale for example the Catachalot has a bigger brain, a bigger set of teeth, can dive much deeper than the Orca and it has a weight advantage. Sharks have rows and rows of self replenishing razor sharp teeth that continue to grow throughout their lifetime which means they would have no problems consuming Orcas for breakfast, lunch and dinner for their entire lives, which when combined with a speed advantage and an ability to ambush sea mammals from below when they are forced to the surface to breath makes them natural born Orca killers, the death from below. If you want to believe your own delusions in relation to Orcas after viewing the evidence then that is up to you.

That isn't even possible.

Of course it is, determining the topmost pelagic predator is simply a function of having enough information to make the correct determination.

The classic definition of a species is that it can't produce viable offspring with any other species. That is violated routinely in fish.

Discussing the finer points of the definition of the term species is probably better left for another thread.

Good luck with that.

Thank you.

Wow, that must have really stung you. How about if we let you tell us: Why do you believe that there is a single top predator?

Who is this "we" you mention, it sounds like in additional to being delusional regarding the construct of top predator you could also be hearing voices.

I certainly have no idea what keystone predators might exist, though sharks, in general, are often thought to fill that role. A keystone predator doesn't have to be a top predator by any measure, it just has to be critical to the ecosystem as it currently stands.

What was the point of bringing it up?

You are failing at that. Has anybody who has responded here more than once said anything other than that you are being entirely subjective?

Don't agree, instead I have noticed that you and some others are valiantly trying to adhere to your own subjective views, which seem to be derived from popular culture or a belief that mammals always dominate on planet Earth, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Ok, so you have an alternative theory. Now you can test the theory, and there is no better time to be living to perform that test. It won't be all that easy, most likely. Since you are unlikely to be able to measure directly (in any human lifetime) the number of makos eaten by orcas vs. the number of orcas eaten by makos, but you may be able to find some papers on the subject in Google Docs (or possibly a good research library, if you have access to one). I would guess that orcas eat more makos than makos eat orcas, but I would be surprised if it was entirely one sided.

There was no alternative theory, the topic was to determine what the top sea-borne predator actually is and in doing test the popular culture theory that it is the Orca. Moreover I have already done the work to determine which of the two species, Mako or Orca, is designed to predate on the other.

It's called sarcasm.

You're a worry.

[Witis]

Moose are better armed, heavier, and quicker. They can kill a wolf with a single blow, whereas a wolf has no such ability. A moose can also outrun a wolf over some distances, though it can't corner as well.

The moose is a prey species and therefore would not even make a predatory shortlist.

The head count was 1. The cichlid is not a predator, as it was killing, but not eating, all the other fish in the tank. While the cichlid is largely carnivorous, it lacks teeth, and tends to eat small things. I found some that were stuffed full of algae, but they didn't appear to be digesting it, just eating it, probably for epiphyton, or something else. Nonetheless, it killed everything else it identified as being alive, despite lacking the weapons to do so. You might wonder how that happened, but the answer is simple: Fish are wimps. Stress kills fish pretty readily, so the cichlid would simply harass the other fish to death. The result was the same, it just wasn't as quick.

Harassed to death by a tiny fish, what a way to go.

Good theory, now prove it. I can't think of any evidence one way or the other. At best, I would say that involuntary carnivores never really become hungry in the sense that humans do. Instead, they appear to be opportunistic. If they have the opportunity to eat, they do so. When they don't have the opportunity, they starve.

There is nothing to evidence, sadly uncivilised life in the animal kingdom is what it is, a life and death match between predator and prey, and that is how I played each predator against the others. You seriously don't think that that involuntary carnivores get hungry?

I don't believe there is one.

You also don't believe that Man is the topmost predator on the planet.

I'd like to see a determination that there IS a (real) topmost pelagic predator.

You seem like you are caught in a loop.

That misses the point.

I don't believe that it does.

What I was saying is that only humans would try what you are trying, and only humans will judge it. For all other animals that we know of, the attempt, and any conclusions whether right or wrong, are irrelevant.

That is a different point.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Just to be clear: In twenty five years as a biologist and six years getting various degrees in biology, I have never engaged in a discussion of what was THE top predator, or even A top predator in any system anywhere, nor have I ever heard any biologist say that there was one. The reason for this is that it is recognized that there isn't such a thing as a top predator. The concept top predator is used to cover a variety of species in any system, whether a large system like the ocean or a micro system like an individual coral reef. The members of that group are never clearly identified, as it is well understood that there is no such thing. Every animal (with one partial exception) ends up passing through the digestive tract of a different animal. The partial exception is that some humans are cremated such that the bulk of their body mass at the time of death is liberated as a gas and is not eaten by anything.

The reason I talk about Orcas in this thread is only to show the fallacy of your attempt to find a single pelagic predator that can be considered a top predator. However, you reject every bit of evidence presented that is counter to your views, and you present no sound evidence to support your conclusion. You have started with the assumption that animals are designed for a purpose, and consistently attribute human characteristics and motivations to various other species, yet you provide no evidence to support those attributions. As an armchair exercise, figuring out which animal is tougher than which other animal, is entertaining. The danger is that you will actually believe your conclusions have any validity. This failure results in phyisicst who long asserted that bumblebees couldn't possible fly and that rising fast balls were impossible. They had models that showed these things were impossible, and they asserted that their models were correct, sometimes even past the point where video evidence proved that they were wrong. In your case, even video evidence won't convince you.

However, I did some of the work for you. Here are some papers on orca predation on mako sharks (and other things). As the first paper notes, there is little direct evidence of orcas preying on makos. However, there are dozens of papers on orca predation on Google Scholar, alone. Naturally, the citation list, and a study of papers that cite these papers, might lead you to better data. Interestingly, while there are dozens of papers on orca predation, including some that list predation on makos, there are relatively few papers on mako predation, and I was unable to find any that showed even a single instance of makos eating orcas. My investigation was trivial, as I have little interest in it, but the results are still suggestive.

This one is pretty awesome, if you read it, because a diver entered the water to get a better look at the orca attacking the mako. That takes balls of brass.
http://aquaticmammalsjournal.org/sha...03_Berghan.pdf

Not makos, but still interesting:
http://www.sharkmans-world.eu/research/killer_whale.pdf

Note Table 1, which lists makos as a documented prey species. One point about this paper is that it directly refutes your claim that the teeth of an orca are not adequate for eating sharks:
http://www.orcaresearch.org/wp-conte...rhead-orca.pdf

While not conclusive, this suggests that your makos rarely eat other sharks, let alone anything larger:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/utm52r0g4416v954/

This ones pretty cool to a biologist, since it considers both the trophic cascade and trophic fountain, which most people ignore in favor of simpler theories. It's pretty much a constant annoyance to me, but leave that aside. Once again, it has nothing to do with mako predation on orcas, but I haven't found any evidence that that happens....EVER! A couple points that you might take from this paper: Makos eat lots of squid, and there is yet another micro-refuge that you didn't consider. You evaluated whether a species could out dive another to get away from it, but you didn't consider whether they differ in their hypoxia tolerance. This paper suggests that you should consider that, as well:
http://fishocean.info/jumbo_squid_mako.pdf

In summary: Makos don't eat orcas, but orcas eat makos. Therefore, the mako is lower in the food chain than the orca, despite your models that suggest otherwise. Interestingly, in the first paper, the mako clearly is not attempting to use its superior speed to avoid the orca. Instead, it attempts to hide under a structure (the diver, at first, then the boat) rather than simply run away. So, at leat in one case, the mako is not using the strategy that you expected them to use.

[Niya]

That should settle this debate once and for all.

[FunkyDexter]

I disagree.

Stress kills fish pretty readily, so the cichlid would simply harass the other fish to death.

I know how they feel. My cats are still harassing me. The battery ran out on the laser pen and with it went my dreams of feline domination.


Witis, something that has struck me during this thread and might serve to take some of the heat out of it: Why do you keep saying that pop culture depicts the orca as top predator? I'm not sure if this is a genarational thing but I'd have said the shark gets that treatment more often. I don't know if that's a generational thing because I grew up with Jaws rather than Free Willy but I generally see sharks of various varieties in movies being portrayed as hard nuts. In fact, Free Willy is about the only film I can think of where an orca gets to be the main man while shark films are pretty common place.



Also, Orca's have better dress sense. They dress in black and white like James Bond in a casino while sharks settle for the drab grey of an estate agent.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Got you covered. This should occupy your cats for days:

http://www.hammacher.com/Product/77943?promo=search

I suggested this for my sister. The idea is brilliant.

[FunkyDexter]

Shaggy, I just read your links and I've decided I don't like orcas anymore. They're just big bullies who go around picking on other fish. I mean, honestly, what did sharks ever do to them, eh? and just look at what they do to Rays. My mum's name's Ray so I took this particularly personally. Although I'm not aware she's ever hidden under a rock.

I'm therefore changing my mind and declaring sharks the top predator on the basis that orcas are just big meanies.

also I'm not convinced that cat toy would work. I bought them one of those interactive feeders where you put dry food in the top and they're supposed to stick their paws in the sides and maneuver the food towards the exit at the bottom. It took them aproximately two seconds to figure out it was quicker to just push the thing over and they gave me a look that basically said "Screw you, monkey boy, we're cats!". I reckon that toy would last about as long. I apreciate the suggestion but I think you've failed to apreciate the evil genii I'm having to deal with here.

I suggested this for my sister.

Your sister must be easily amused then. I've found girls generally prefer shoes and handbags.

[Witis]

Just to be clear: In twenty five years as a biologist and six years getting various degrees in biology, I have never engaged in a discussion of what was THE top predator, or even A top predator in any system anywhere, nor have I ever heard any biologist say that there was one. The reason for this is that it is recognized that there isn't such a thing as a top predator.

Constantly repeating that there is no such thing as a top predator when it is obvious that Man is the topmost organic predator on Earth makes you look a bit demented; you really should get checked for early onset Parkinson's.

The concept top predator is used to cover a variety of species in any system, whether a large system like the ocean or a micro system like an individual coral reef.

One second there is no such thing as top predator, the very next it magically reappears.

The members of that group are never clearly identified, as it is well understood that there is no such thing.

Then a poof and it is gone again.

Every animal (with one partial exception) ends up passing through the digestive tract of a different animal. The partial exception is that some humans are cremated such that the bulk of their body mass at the time of death is liberated as a gas and is not eaten by anything.

Nice focus on the digestive tract. Can you tell me: are you going to be cremated?

The reason I talk about Orcas in this thread is only to show the fallacy of your attempt to find a single pelagic predator that can be considered a top predator.

It's because you love the movie Free Willy so much.

However, you reject every bit of evidence presented that is counter to your views, and you present no sound evidence to support your conclusion.

No sound evidence, take a Shaggy slap Scientific American (one of my sources). "Scientific American (informally abbreviated SciAm) is a popular science magazine." "Many famous scientists, including Albert Einstein, have contributed articles in the past 167 years. It is the oldest continuously published monthly magazine in America." - wiki

You have started with the assumption that animals are designed for a purpose, and consistently attribute human characteristics and motivations to various other species, yet you provide no evidence to support those attributions.

I think he really does believe that carnivores don't get hungry like humans.

As an armchair exercise, figuring out which animal is tougher than which other animal, is entertaining.

I am pleased that it was not boring.

The danger is that you will actually believe your conclusions have any validity.

After doing the work and checking the conclusion myself, absolutely, although I would not call it exhaustive research.

This failure results in phyisicst who long asserted that bumblebees couldn't possible fly and that rising fast balls were impossible. They had models that showed these things were impossible, and they asserted that their models were correct, sometimes even past the point where video evidence proved that they were wrong. In your case, even video evidence won't convince you.

Your logic is flawed, for example by extension a video of a Great White attacking a human is evidence of the Great White's superiority. By the way there was no video evidence of the Orcas attacking a Mako just a couple of photos, I think you must have had another moment.

However, I did some of the work for you.

How nice of you.

Here are some papers on orca predation on mako sharks (and other things). As the first paper notes, there is little direct evidence of orcas preying on makos. However, there are dozens of papers on orca predation on Google Scholar, alone. Naturally, the citation list, and a study of papers that cite these papers, might lead you to better data. Interestingly, while there are dozens of papers on orca predation, including some that list predation on makos, there are relatively few papers on mako predation, and I was unable to find any that showed even a single instance of makos eating orcas. My investigation was trivial, as I have little interest in it, but the results are still suggestive.

I have no doubt that sharks eat Orcas and the other way around as they are both near the top of the predatory hierarchy, the issue is determining which is higher up the food chain.

This one is pretty awesome, if you read it, because a diver entered the water to get a better look at the orca attacking the mako. That takes balls of brass.[urlhttp://aquaticmammalsjournal.org/share/AquaticMammalsIssueArchives/2000/AquaticMammals_26-03/26-03_Berghan.pdf[/url]

That is essentially the same report that Niya cited already, and it includes the same picture although it looks like they edited one of the Orcas out in Niya's article, and it also makes it clear that it was a pod versus a single shark and not a one on one encounter.

Not makos, but still interesting:http://www.sharkmans-world.eu/research/killer_whale.pdf

That source indicates that Orca "predation on sharks rarely has been reported worldwide", which was a shock, I would have expected there to be lots of evidence of Orcas preying on sharks especially smaller weaker sharks.

Note Table 1, which lists makos as a documented prey species.

Actually Table 1 indicates that in 108 encounters over almost 10 years the Orcas studied predominantly ate lots of rays, hundreds and hundreds of them, and a few sharks, 4 of which were Makos.

One point about this paper is that it directly refutes your claim that the teeth of an orca are not adequate for eating sharks:
http://www.orcaresearch.org/wp-conte...rhead-orca.pdf

It doesn't mention anything about the Orca's teeth which means you are seeing things that aren't there again Shaggadelic. The paper also says "killer whales are large, fast predators, which should be able to easily outswim sharks", which made me laugh.

While not conclusive, this suggests that your makos rarely eat other sharks, let alone anything larger:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/utm52r0g4416v954/

You must be going batty, as the article stipulates "No clear trend of prey size selectivity was found". Your conclusion is a bit childish like saying that on the basis of the study above Orcas primarily eat rays and never eat anything larger than themselves.

This ones pretty cool to a biologist, since it considers both the trophic cascade and trophic fountain, which most people ignore in favor of simpler theories. It's pretty much a constant annoyance to me, but leave that aside. Once again, it has nothing to do with mako predation on orcas

So why bring it up?

You evaluated whether a species could out dive another to get away from it, but you didn't consider whether they differ in their hypoxia tolerance.

He seriously thinks Orcas can outdive sharks.

In summary: Makos don't eat orcas, but orcas eat makos. Therefore, the mako is lower in the food chain than the orca, despite your models that suggest otherwise.

4 recorded incidents of Orcas eating Makos over a 10 year period is hardly what I would call overwhelming evidence especially when one of your sources indicated that "predation on sharks rarely has been reported worldwide". In fact if that is all you can find then you have actually provided evidence that Orcas are not the shark killers that pop culture makes them out to be. Instead it is more likely that there is a shark species that prefers or specialises in filleting Orcas, it could be the Mako, Great White, Tiger, Bull, Oceanic whitetip (also known to be fast enough to eat Marlin and tuna), or another species.

[Witis]

Witis, something that has struck me during this thread and might serve to take some of the heat out of it: Why do you keep saying that pop culture depicts the orca as top predator?

For example watch Jaws I where the boat they use to kill the Great White shark is called Orca.

I'm not sure if this is a genarational thing but I'd have said the shark gets that treatment more often.

I didn't think it was a shark prior to doing any research, I though it was a Killer Whale due to its name.

I don't know if that's a generational thing because I grew up with Jaws rather than Free Willy but I generally see sharks of various varieties in movies being portrayed as hard nuts. In fact, Free Willy is about the only film I can think of where an orca gets to be the main man while shark films are pretty common place.

The reason is that Hollywood is portraying sharks as evil and Orcas as shark killing heroes even if that isn't the truth of the matter.

Also, Orca's have better dress sense. They dress in black and white like James Bond in a casino while sharks settle for the drab grey of an estate agent.

I don't really care which monster has the better dress sense.

[Niya]

Good lord Witis You're abusing straw man fallacies to the extreme here man. I'm starting to think this is a troll thread.

[FunkyDexter]

The reason is that Hollywood is portraying sharks as evil and Orcas as shark killing heroes

This illustrates the problem right here. You're conflating a bunch of disparate factors that have no real connection to each other and extrapolating from them to form your idea of a top predator. What does being evil have to do with anything? Putting aside the fact that heroism and evil are human constructs that really should have no place in this discussion, ALL predators conform to our concept of evil. They are all murderous bastards if you happen to be lower than them in food chain.

And you still haven't given any indication of what you mean by top predator. I know you don't want to but without doing this discussion is absolutely meaningless. I could argue that my pocket calculator is the top predator because it can spell out boobies. That argument is every bit as valid as your assertion that the mako wins due to its speed because you haven't provided a defnition that excludes boobies as a key criteria.

You've repeatedly asserted that man is the top predator on the planet but, by the criteria you've applied to your own "experiment" we would be losing outright. We're not fast. We don't have big teeth. Our senses are pretty rubbish compared to other predators. In fact, what has allowed us to become the most important keystone species on our planet (which is what I think you're confusing with "top predator" when you're aplying it to humans) was our ability to hunt in packs, adapt our enviroment to suit our needs rather than adapting ourselves to suit the enviroment, and apply intelligence when resolving problems. The scientific papers that Shaggy has provided you with demonstrate these same traits in orcas but there you discount them. Mainly, I think, because your interpretation of "top predator" when applied to fish is actually "most able solitary hunter". Your applying an utterly different definition in both cases because it suits your argument to do so.

You've dismissed scientific papers in favour of TV entertainment.

You've argued that orcas are not higher up the food chain than sharks on the basis that the predate them "rarely" but placed makos higher even though there is not a single documented case of them predating an orca but that you think it's likely.

I personally reckon Shaggy's good at two things. One's facial hair and the other's fish. You are arguing with a fish biologist. An actual scientist. You are in his area of scientific expertise and you're trying to tell him that he doesn't understand the science. Next you'll be telling him that a bushy beard doesn't become him... mind you, you'll be right on that one.

You care more about the size of a predators schlong than you do about it's dress sense. (OK, this one's not really an argument but I demand my right to be stupidly off topic). Actually, that's really bad because I bet you haven't even considered the disco stylings of an octopus or cuttlefish. Those bad boys can really get down.

You have clearly miss-understood the concept of simulation modelling, the pitflls therein and the techniques you should be applying to avoid the.

You can't understand the difference between a food web and a food chain.

You think that someone pointing out that the CONCEPT of a food chain is occasionally applied ERRONEOUSLY to small groups of animals to mean that a top predator both does and doesn't exist. (It meant that it doesn't, by the way).

You think that the fact Lucas decided to call the boat in jaws the Orca has some underlying sub text that reveals a universal hatred of sharks in hollywood. While missing the possibility that it might have just sounded like a snappy name. Particularly given the fact that Jaws was made before scientists started documenting Orca predation upon sharks. Are you really saying that you watched Jaws and came away thinking "pfft, that great white was a wimp, orcas are much harder?" That was the message you took away from that film? Really?!

You think that a quotation from a scientifcic journal that says Mako are a bit nippy around the ocean is a valid scientific basis for drawing the conclusion that they're likely to prey on orcas and think that citing it provides validation for you whole argument.

You seem to have missed the fact that everyone who has commented on your aproach has said it's flawed or "gamed". Even when we've pointed out to you that they've said it. You still can't see them saying it.

I'm left with only one conclusion I could possbibly draw. Shaggy's right, you are delusional. What have you taken and where can I get some?

Constantly repeating that there is no such thing as a top predator when it is obvious that Man is the topmost organic predator on Earth makes you look a bit demented

No. Constantly disregarding this somewhoat obvious truth makes you look a bit demented. We're not the top predator unless you define top predator as keystone organism.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Your sister must be easily amused then. I've found girls generally prefer shoes and handbags.

Good answer, but my sister prefers full plate armor and horses, and I'm not joust kidding.

[Shaggy Hiker]

One second there is no such thing as top predator, the very next it magically reappears.

I was going to go into that a bit more, but I tend to be wordy, and I didn't think it was all that relevant to spell it out in detail. However, since my brief treatment of it appears to have caused confusion, I guess I will have to try a bit harder. It isn't all that easy, though, because the concept in biological circles is kind of like catching the wind.

Nobody talks in terms of a single top predator, because there isn't one. However, there are lots of terms that we use because they are convenient, even when they don't really exist. For instance, most biologists would know what Lamarckian Evolution is, despite the fact that it is a term for a process that was discredited before Darwin. The concept is still around because it is convenient to keep it around, despite the fact that the concept has no relevance in the real world. Similarly, the concept "top predator" is kept around as a name for that vague category of animals that eat other animals and are generally not eaten by others. The problem is with that "generally" part, because I don't know of a single species that is not eaten by others, and there probably isn't such an animal. Worse, most large animals spend at least a part of their lives in a category where they are not eaten by others, so if you use some strict definition of top predator, then LOTS of improbable animals would fit into that category. Rather than do that, we don't use a strict definition, and nobody ever tries to make an exhaustive list of all top predators in any given ecosystem, or tries to identify THE top predator in any given ecosystem. The concept is vague, fluid, and in lots of cases, situational. You even acknowledge that point, tangentially. Your self-awarded top predator does get eaten, you just dismiss that as being only in certain specific situations, such as when it is ganged up on. That's as far as biologists go. We recognize that predation is generally situational and don't bother trying to award a crown.

That's all I was trying to get at. The concept of top predator is convenient for discussion, but it is recognized in biological circles that the set of top predators is rarely well defined for any ecosystem (and never for one as large as the ocean). The problem with using vague terms like that is that it requires the same understanding of the term by both the speaker and the audience, or it communicates the wrong idea. If you have the understanding that there must be one top predator, then that is a different understanding of the term.

Nice focus on the digestive tract. Can you tell me: are you going to be cremated?

Yes. The cemetary plot is too small to hold a whole body, unless I were planted upright.

It's because you love the movie Free Willy so much.

I've never seen it. Frankly, I have no particular interest in charismatic megafauna (the charismatic might be off, it feels wrong, but conveys the right impression). On the other hand, that type of biology does tend to attract women, though the most interesting women are attracted to the more unusual animals.

No sound evidence, take a Shaggy slap Scientific American (one of my sources). "Scientific American (informally abbreviated SciAm) is a popular science magazine." "Many famous scientists, including Albert Einstein, have contributed articles in the past 167 years. It is the oldest continuously published monthly magazine in America." - wiki

I've been a subscriber for quite some time. However, it isn't even considered grey literature. By now, I don't remember where you referenced any article from that publication, or what it was on. However, anything published in there will also have been published in the primary literature, and it is most likely reliable.

I think he really does believe that carnivores don't get hungry like humans.

I've been ignoring your comments on this, as I doubt I could convey what I mean about this correctly. In general, I think your statement is correct: Carnivores in the wild don't get hungry 'like humans'. I would say that the pattern is considerably different, but it is maddeningly hard to ask them. The best we can do is examine their feeding behavior, which appears different from ours, and not consistent between species, either. Some predators eat only periodically, but generally oportunistically, such as some snakes, which can go a very long time between eating...or not. They certainly don't get hungry the way humans do, but how DO they get hungry? Some fish display what sure looks like hunger, while others take a very casual approach to eating. Furthermore, for some fish, their stomachs seem to be nearly constantly in a state of semi-full. If you feed the heck out of them, there is often a point where they stop eating (satiation), though there are others that will eat themselves to death, but in the wild, it seems to be constant eating with very slow digestion. They can't feel hunger the way we do, since we generally feel hunger based on a combination of gut emptiness, learning, and schedule. They don't have the emptiness and they don't have the schedule, so they are unlikely to feel hunger the way we do, but how do they feel it?

I am pleased that it was not boring.

It certainly hasn't been that. CC gets dull, at times.

After doing the work and checking the conclusion myself, absolutely, although I would not call it exhaustive research.

How did you check the conclusion? What did you check it against?

Your logic is flawed, for example by extension a video of a Great White attacking a human is evidence of the Great White's superiority. By the way there was no video evidence of the Orcas attacking a Mako just a couple of photos, I think you must have had another moment.

That isn't a valid extension. In fact, there wasn't any logic involved in that statement, so it can't be flawed. All I was doing was citing a pair of well publicized cases of scientists making a prediction based on a model and sticking to their assertion past the point where it had been demonstrated to be false (in both cases, the model left out critical parameters that rendered the conclusions incorrect). Both of those cases could be easily disproven through video evidence. In your case, you won't accept video evidence (the picture of the orca about to slap a shark is pretty clearly a still from a video), because you freely acknowledge that orcas eat makos, occasionally, so a video doesn't make any difference.

I have no doubt that sharks eat Orcas and the other way around as they are both near the top of the predatory hierarchy, the issue is determining which is higher up the food chain.

It's "the other way around" part that is problematic. I did perform a search for orcas eating sharks, and posted links to a few of the top half dozen links. I also performed a search on sharks eating orcas, but found nothing. I then searched on shark predation, and found posted a few links from the top half dozen returns on that.

Google Scholar has been a great benefit to researchers. The primary literature journals are a MAJOR scam. People submit papers to them for free, those papers are reviewed for free by other independent scientists, and those reviewers make roughly a thumbs up or thumbs down review based on the quality of the study presented. The journal then publishes those that it wants, and charges so much for the journals that only a few individuals maintain a subscription to even a single journal, and even then it is mostly a conceit. In general, it is only research institutions that can maintain subscriptions to multiple primary literature journals. Google Scholar is breaking that model down. Even though lots of papers on there show only the abstract, it's enough. Using the information in there, even if you can't get the whole paper (and lots of papers are included entirely on Google Scholar), you have enough to find the citations for that paper, and perform a forward view to find papers that cited the one you have. From each paper, a web of other papers emanate, both forwards and backwards in time. There are services that will perform those searches for you, but Google Scholar has begun to open the door, and is changing the way scientists work.

That is essentially the same report that Niya cited already, and it includes the same picture although it looks like they edited one of the Orcas out in Niya's article, and it also makes it clear that it was a pod versus a single shark and not a one on one encounter.

Orcas hunt, and live, in pods. That's probably the only way you are going to find much about them. That doesn't concern me any. Wolves become mouse predators, and food for mountain lions, if they are individuals, but when they work in a pack, they can take down a moose or elk, and will drive off mountain lions. You might say that the mountain lion is the superior predator, since it will win 90% of one on one encounters with a wolf, yet the presence of wolves will reduce the population of mountain lions because the lions become much less able to eat. Therefore, one on one would suggest that lion > wolf, yet in reality, wolf > lion, as when the two coexist, it is the lion that is driven out.

That source indicates that Orca "predation on sharks rarely has been reported worldwide", which was a shock, I would have expected there to be lots of evidence of Orcas preying on sharks especially smaller weaker sharks.

It was a shock to me, too. The cost of conducting any kind of ecosystem wide research on whales is so prohibitive that I didn't think there would be all that much of it. There's quite a bit more than I expected. Of course, when you compare it to something easy to study, such as bass, the amount is trivial.

Actually Table 1 indicates that in 108 encounters over almost 10 years the Orcas studied predominantly ate lots of rays, hundreds and hundreds of them, and a few sharks, 4 of which were Makos.

That doesn't bother me. There are few high level predators that have only one prey species. Most are wildly opportunistic. Consider that the grizzly bear, that formidable carnivore, depends largely on pine nuts to fatten up for winter. As a percentage of its diet, meat isn't all that high for grizzlies, and any one single type of meat may not be represented at all. An opportunistic predator will eat things based largely on availability. For mako sharks, or any other species of shark, to be a large part of the diet of ANY other animal, either that predator would have to be obligate predators on sharks, or else the shark would have to be encountered frequently, and be easier to catch, than any other food choice. You have already shown that orcas aren't obligate shark predators, so that one isn't an option. Therefore, for any type of shark to make up a significant portion of the diet of orcas, they'd have to encounter them frequently, and find them easier and more palatable than other food choices. I wouldn't eat one of those nasty, hyper-osmotic, ammonia-sequestering, sharks, either. Furthermore, the incidence of encounter can't be all that high, and certainly not higher than other, easier to catch, prey. So a low incidence of consumption would be predicted a priori.

It doesn't mention anything about the Orca's teeth which means you are seeing things that aren't there again Shaggadelic. The paper also says "killer whales are large, fast predators, which should be able to easily outswim sharks", which made me laugh.

Actually, it does. Certain populations of orcas appear to prey heavily on elasmobranchs. If that wore their teeth away, due to the tough, leathery, skin, or anything else, then the orcas would have to shift to other prey or end up starving as their teeth failed. The fact that populations eat a fair amount from this group shows that their teeth are up to it.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Doggone post limit. The rest of that was lost, and I'm not interested in re-writing it. It all comes down to this, though:

Your assertion is that mako > orca. What evidence would you accept to show that your assertion is wrong? Basically, you can go to Google Scholar, or whatever other primary literature search you want, and find plenty of evidence of orcas preying on sharks. You can also try to find some evidence that sharks prety on orcas, but it doesn't exist, yet you assert that it must happen. The absence of evidence doesn't mean that it doesn't happen, but at some point, you have to realize that what predation there is is going in only one direction. Since I feel that the idea of a single top predator is crap, I have no problem with mako - orca, and I'd be fine with orca > mako, since that is the only direction any predation appears to happen, but you insist on mako > orca being the truth despite the lack of any supporting evidence. So, what evidence would cause you to change your mind? If you are setting the bar so high that it wouldn't be possible to get over it, as it appears to be, then you aren't being scientific about this at all.

The only evidence you say you have is a comparison of some set of physiological traits. That set of traits is not the complete set for the animals in question. For instance, you neglected the fact that makos won't travel into areas of hypoxia, so animals that live in that hypoxic area can easily evade makos, and evasion is a suffient criteria in your model. Additionally, you mention top speeds. Are you comparing apples to apples with that? Are you talking about sprint speed (anaerobic) for both? If so, what is the sustainability of that speed? After all, being really fast is of little benefit if you can only keep it up for 100 meters. You'd still be easy prey for a slower predator that had greater endurance. After all, most pursuit predators aren't faster than the top speed of their prey, they just have greater endurance. So, what were you measuring for all of these animals? Top speed would tend to be burst speed, but I'm not sure that you told us.

[Witis]

I'm left with only one conclusion I could possbibly draw. Shaggy's right, you are delusional.

I have presented facts which you have both simply ignored in favour of preserving your original viewpoint, which means that the term delusional more accurately represents your perspectives.

Constantly disregarding this somewhoat obvious truth makes you look a bit demented. We're not the top predator unless you define top predator as keystone organism.

Are you seriously asserting that humans are not the top organic predator on the planet? Two loons in one thread what are the odds? I should have guessed after the entropy comment.

[Witis]

As a precursor I have to say I was looking forward to another Shaggy post as he is proving to be highly entertaining. Thanks Shaggy.

I was going to go into that a bit more, but I tend to be wordy, and I didn't think it was all that relevant to spell it out in detail. However, since my brief treatment of it appears to have caused confusion, I guess I will have to try a bit harder.

Try Shaggy, I am listening.

It isn't all that easy, though, because the concept in biological circles is kind of like catching the wind.

I am sure you will cope.

Nobody talks in terms of a single top predator, because there isn't one.

There is no topmost predator.

However, there are lots of terms that we use because they are convenient, even when they don't really exist.

Like top predator no doubt.

Similarly, the concept "top predator" is kept around as a name for that vague category of animals that eat other animals and are generally not eaten by others.

Now it does exist after all.

The problem is with that "generally" part,

However there is something wrong with the general just mentioned,

because I don't know of a single species that is not eaten by others, and there probably isn't such an animal.

Massive interspecies consumption all round.

Worse, most large animals spend at least a part of their lives in a category where they are not eaten by others,

Now where has the consumption gone?

so if you use some strict definition of top predator, then LOTS of improbable animals would fit into that category.

How strict should it be Shaggy?

Rather than do that, we don't use a strict definition,

Not too strict it seems.

and nobody ever tries to make an exhaustive list of all top predators in any given ecosystem, or tries to identify THE top predator in any given ecosystem.

Nobody ever thinks about the topmost predator.

The concept is vague, fluid, and in lots of cases, situational.

Watch out it sounds like it is getting away from you Shaggy.

You even acknowledge that point, tangentially. Your self-awarded top predator does get eaten, you just dismiss that as being only in certain specific situations, such as when it is ganged up on.

More interspecies consumption involving gangs and the Mako, now where's the top predator gone?

That's as far as biologists go. We recognize that predation is generally situational and don't bother trying to award a crown.

No diadems this year, please try again next year.

That's all I was trying to get at. The concept of top predator is convenient for discussion, but it is recognized in biological circles that the set of top predators is rarely well defined for any ecosystem (and never for one as large as the ocean).

Too much interspecies consumption no doubt.

The problem with using vague terms like that is that it requires the same understanding of the term by both the speaker and the audience, or it communicates the wrong idea. If you have the understanding that there must be one top predator, then that is a different understanding of the term.

Overall the term top predator can be very confusing.

Yes. The cemetary plot is too small to hold a whole body, unless I were planted upright.

Are you sure, being planted could have its advantages?

I've never seen it. Frankly, I have no particular interest in charismatic megafauna

Impressive turn of phrase, so you do think the Orcas have some mojo going on?

On the other hand, that type of biology does tend to attract women, though the most interesting women are attracted to the more unusual animals.

I am not sure that bestiality is legal Shaggy.

I've been a subscriber for quite some time. However, it isn't even considered grey literature. By now, I don't remember where you referenced any article from that publication, or what it was on. However, anything published in there will also have been published in the primary literature, and it is most likely reliable.

Is that a retraction regarding my source?

Carnivores in the wild don't get hungry 'like humans'. I would say that the pattern is considerably different, but it is maddeningly hard to ask them. The best we can do is examine their feeding behavior, which appears different from ours, and not consistent between species, either. Some predators eat only periodically, but generally oportunistically, such as some snakes, which can go a very long time between eating...or not. They certainly don't get hungry the way humans do,

See he does believe it.

but how DO they get hungry?

Tell us Shaggy.

Some fish display what sure looks like hunger, while others take a very casual approach to eating.

Do you think they are faking their hunger?

Furthermore, for some fish, their stomachs seem to be nearly constantly in a state of semi-full. If you feed the heck out of them, there is often a point where they stop eating (satiation), though there are others that will eat themselves to death,

I bet the fish that died from gluttony didn't get hungry.

but in the wild, it seems to be constant eating with very slow digestion. They can't feel hunger the way we do, since we generally feel hunger based on a combination of gut emptiness, learning, and schedule. They don't have the emptiness and they don't have the schedule, so they are unlikely to feel hunger the way we do, but how do they feel it?

So that explains it, carnivores don't have gut emptiness, which is why they don't feel hungry.

It certainly hasn't been that. CC gets dull, at times.

Good to hear.

How did you check the conclusion? What did you check it against?

I checked my data and for errors in logic.

That isn't a valid extension.

Didn't like it?

In fact, there wasn't any logic involved in that statement, so it can't be flawed.

Ha ha, remove the logic, now you have me.

In your case, you won't accept video evidence (the picture of the orca about to slap a shark is pretty clearly a still from a video), because you freely acknowledge that orcas eat makos, occasionally, so a video doesn't make any difference.

Can you post a link to the video?

It's "the other way around" part that is problematic. I did perform a search for orcas eating sharks, and posted links to a few of the top half dozen links. I also performed a search on sharks eating orcas, but found nothing. I then searched on shark predation, and found posted a few links from the top half dozen returns on that.

Are you are saying that sharks don't ever eat Orcas?

Google Scholar has been a great benefit to researchers.

Yes it is good.

Orcas hunt, and live, in pods. That's probably the only way you are going to find much about them. That doesn't concern me any. Wolves become mouse predators, and food for mountain lions, if they are individuals, but when they work in a pack, they can take down a moose or elk, and will drive off mountain lions. You might say that the mountain lion is the superior predator, since it will win 90% of one on one encounters with a wolf, yet the presence of wolves will reduce the population of mountain lions because the lions become much less able to eat. Therefore, one on one would suggest that lion > wolf, yet in reality, wolf > lion, as when the two coexist, it is the lion that is driven out.

Although we all know lions can also hunt in prides, it could be that the wolf is forced into a pack due to the superiority of the mountain lion.

It was a shock to me, too. The cost of conducting any kind of ecosystem wide research on whales is so prohibitive that I didn't think there would be all that much of it. There's quite a bit more than I expected. Of course, when you compare it to something easy to study, such as bass, the amount is trivial.

It is either because they are both near the top of the food chain and don't compete over food, for example the Mako eats the faster fish which the Orcas can't catch, or there is more shars eating Orcas than I first thought.

That doesn't bother me. There are few high level predators that have only one prey species. Furthermore, the incidence of encounter can't be all that high, and certainly not higher than other, easier to catch, prey. So a low incidence of consumption would be predicted a priori.

4 Makos in 10 years is such a low count that it likely only represents young or disabled sharks.

Actually, it does. Certain populations of orcas appear to prey heavily on elasmobranchs. If that wore their teeth away, due to the tough, leathery, skin, or anything else, then the orcas would have to shift to other prey or end up starving as their teeth failed. The fact that populations eat a fair amount from this group shows that their teeth are up to it.

No, the problem is that the study didn't examine the Orca's teeth to see what effect it was having on them, so there is no way you can conclude that Orcas' teeth are designed to eat sharks from reading it.

[Justa Lol]

Are you seriously asserting that humans are not the top organic predator on the planet? Two loons in one thread what are the odds? I should have guessed after the entropy comment.

I actually agree that humans aren't top of the food chain, because whenever you take away the tools/weapons we wouldn't even be able to kill a wolf without having lethal injuries that could kill us afterwards.

basically, I think that we're only considered to be apex predators because of our intellect, if we were less intelligent like most other animals on the planet, I bet we'd be close to extinction if not extinct already.

[Witis]

Doggone post limit. The rest of that was lost, and I'm not interested in re-writing it. It all comes down to this, though:

Your assertion is that mako > orca. What evidence would you accept to show that your assertion is wrong?

I think I might extend it to shark > orca, I have a good feeling that there might just be a species of shark with a penchant for Orca lurking somewhere.

Basically, you can go to Google Scholar, or whatever other primary literature search you want, and find plenty of evidence of orcas preying on sharks.

Now now watch yourself Shaggy, 4 Makos in 10 years is not that much evidence.

You can also try to find some evidence that sharks prety on orcas, but it doesn't exist, yet you assert that it must happen.

Have you seen what sharks are like?

The absence of evidence doesn't mean that it doesn't happen, but at some point, you have to realize that what predation there is is going in only one direction.

Which direction is that Shaggy?

Since I feel that the idea of a single top predator is crap,

Don't want to play that game?

I have no problem with mako - orca, and I'd be fine with orca > mako, since that is the only direction any predation appears to happen,

That's 4 zip to the Orcas at this stage.

but you insist on mako > orca being the truth despite the lack of any supporting evidence.

There goes my evidence again.

So, what evidence would cause you to change your mind? If you are setting the bar so high that it wouldn't be possible to get over it, as it appears to be, then you aren't being scientific about this at all.

As the sharks have the speed and the teeth and the territorial advantage, a headcount of 4 isn't that reassuring Shaggy.

The only evidence you say you have is a comparison of some set of physiological traits. That set of traits is not the complete set for the animals in question. For instance, you neglected the fact that makos won't travel into areas of hypoxia, so animals that live in that hypoxic area can easily evade makos, and evasion is a suffient criteria in your model.

If only the Orcas had hypoxia meters they would be set.

Additionally, you mention top speeds. Are you comparing apples to apples with that? Are you talking about sprint speed (anaerobic) for both? If so, what is the sustainability of that speed? After all, being really fast is of little benefit if you can only keep it up for 100 meters. You'd still be easy prey for a slower predator that had greater endurance. After all, most pursuit predators aren't faster than the top speed of their prey, they just have greater endurance. So, what were you measuring for all of these animals? Top speed would tend to be burst speed, but I'm not sure that you told us.

You saw the video, the Mako sharks are designed to be fast enough to catch tuna which makes them faster than Orcas. There was no endurance data for either species.

[Witis]

I think that we're only considered to be apex predators because of our intellect, if we were less intelligent like most other animals on the planet, I bet we'd be close to extinction if not extinct already.

That's the point, that is precisely what makes humans top of the organic food chain and what makes humans > sharks.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Went searching for info on Orca predators, and found nothing all that useful. I did find something from wiki answers that stated that Great Whites are the only Orca predators. There is no citation along with it, just a single line. Similarly, the same site has an equally verbose statement that orcas are the only Great White predator. Taken together, and without any information as to who wrote that, the information is useless.

One thing that I did find was this:

http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/sharks/sharks.htm

If you go into the biological profiles tab, you can find a considerable summation of all aspects of a whole variety of fish in addition to sharks. Oddly, they even have a page on Largemouth Bass, which seems totally out of place with the rest of the site. If you read the section on Mako predators, you will find that it states that there are no known predators on Makos, which is overly generous considering that it is so easy to find papers reporting orcas eating makos. However, I also took a look at several other sharks on that page. The Great Hammerhead has roughly the same list of predators (except that they note cannabilism). I also looked at the MegaMouth shark, which said largely the same thing (they're planktivores, and live deep), except that it noted a report of a sperm whale attacking a MegaMouth. The Basking Shark is also listed as having no known predators without any further comment.

I then tried to confirm what the wiki answers stated by trying to find some evidence of Great Whites preying on orcas. Once again, I only found papers about orcas preying on Great Whites. However, I did come across some other papers that might interest you:

This one is a pain in the ass, as you may have a hard time obtaining it, and it doesn't talk about makos at all, but the concept is right. You have a model that you need to find some real world support for, and that's what this paper is about.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...omisedMessage=

This is a more interesting account of a single orca (there were two in the pod, but it was clearly a single animal making the attack) killing a white shark. Note the proposed cause of death. It's one of the issues with fish: They are pretty wimpy. Stress is one of the leading fish killers that we deal with in research. You can't easily ask a fish if it is stressed, yet many of them will flat out die from it.
http://www.prbo.org/cms/docs/marine/MMS.pdf

If you did present your evidence, could you point out which post it was? I remember you stating that you wouldn't post your data because you felt it would bore us, but perhaps you did.

The problem I have with your approach is that you have come up with a model of which is THE top predator in the ocean based on a set of parameters. The parameters you chose are the ones that you feel are relevant. All of the ones you chose do seem relevant to your objective, but the set certainly isn't complete. For instance, you chose diving depth, but ignored hypoxia, which is potentially even more relevant in the ocean. You also chose teeth, but appear to have ignored jaw structure. The mako has a severely sub-terminal mouth, and appears to be gape limitted. That observation is supported by the prey species reported for makos, since all the species are those that a relatively small, underslung, jaw would be able to bite effectively. Does the mako even have the means to bite something as large as an orca with a mouth of that shape? It could certainly bite a fluke, but that would be an extremely dangerous way to attack a whale, as you would be a relatively small animal attacking the focal point of the most powerful muscles in the whale (unless you went after pectoral or dorsal fins).

You've caused me to spend more time researching shark and orca predation than I have ever had cause to. At this point, it seems pretty clear that your model is incorrect. Not only do makos not prey on orcas, there are also several other species of sharks that appear at least equal in level to the mako, and none of these species appear to competitively interact in any way. Frankly, the result of all the papers I have now read on the subject shows exactly what I stated from the start: There isn't a single top predator. There are several that simply don't compete against each other on any kind of regular basis (and most don't compete on an irregular basis).

At this point, I would suggest that you get in contact with that first place I linked to. I thought I had a name of a specific shark researcher down there who I interacted with indirectly, but apparently I have gotten my names mixed up over the last 15 years. I'm about to go dark for a few weeks for my typical summer reason, so I don't want to try to contact anybody down there until after I return, but at that time I could get you some contact information for some of the leading shark researchers in the US, and possibly an introduction to them. If they couldn't specifically answer your questions, they should at least be able to refer you to somebody who could.

[Shaggy Hiker]

I hope that they get this new forum software figured out. Double posts can happen even if you do everything right these days.

[Witis]

The problem I have with your approach is that you have come up with a model of which is THE top predator in the ocean based on a set of parameters. The parameters you chose are the ones that you feel are relevant.

I have explicated a means of comparing some of the top sea-borne predators founded on factors such as weapons, defenses and means of escape, although I indicated it was not a black box as each match up has to be customized to ensure that all of the individual factors that come into play are examined in each case.

All of the ones you chose do seem relevant to your objective, but the set certainly isn't complete. For instance, you chose diving depth, but ignored hypoxia, which is potentially even more relevant in the ocean.

Are you seriously trying to tell me that the amount of dissolved oxygen is too low for sharks to survive in a large percentage of the world's seas?

You also chose teeth, but appear to have ignored jaw structure. The mako has a severely sub-terminal mouth, and appears to be gape limitted. That observation is supported by the prey species reported for makos, since all the species are those that a relatively small, underslung, jaw would be able to bite effectively. Does the mako even have the means to bite something as large as an orca with a mouth of that shape?

I am not convinced the jaw design is limited as you suggest eg http://www.drunkonblue.com/2009/11/t...he-open-ocean/

You've caused me to spend more time researching shark and orca predation than I have ever had cause to.

Terribly sorry old boy.

At this point, it seems pretty clear that your model is correct.

Thank you Shaggy.

[Shaggy Hiker]

I have explicated a means of comparing some of the top sea-borne predators founded on factors such as weapons, defenses and means of escape, although I indicated it was not a black box as each match up has to be customized to ensure that all of the individual factors that come into play are examined in each case.

Explicated? It's a bit late to ask this, but how about actually explicating it. You did say that you had such a thing, but you also stated that we would find it too boring, and left it out for that reason. By now, you probably realize that it wouldn't be found all tha boring. Controversial, perhaps, but not boring. How about sharing it? At least that way we'd all be talking about the same thing.

Are you seriously trying to tell me that the amount of dissolved oxygen is too low for sharks to survive in a large percentage of the world's seas?

Did you read that paper I linked to? It wasn't me saying that. They pointed out that makos won't go below a certain oxygen concentration, and water with lower concentrations are common at relatively shallow depths, certainly depths more shallow than makos would tolerate. I would expect that such hypoxia zones are dependent heavily on local currents and conditions, and I would expect that they are more common in the tropical areas and less so towards the arctic, but I seem to remember also reading that makos don't go into the arctic zones. As a percentage of surface area, this would mean that there are no hypoxia refuges, but as a percentage of volume, it would be a VERY large percentage. Once again, though, that wasn't me stating that. The oxygen tolerance of sharks is well demonstrated, so figuring out the hypoxic exlusion percentage would be just a mathematical exercise....though not a particularly easy one.

I am not convinced the jaw design is limited as you suggest eg http://www.drunkonblue.com/2009/11/t...he-open-ocean/

Interesting link, but I don't see how it is relevant to the jaw question. Once again it talks about the mako preying on relatively small fish. My point is that a sub terminal mouth would have a hard time biting into a flat surface, but would be fine with biting into a sharply curved surface. Most fish would present a sharply curved surface, so it would be fine for a mako mouth. Once you get to the size of an adult whale, the animal, while still technically cylindrical, would be so large that it would approximate a flat surface to the jaws of a mako. Frankly, it seems like the nose of the mako would prevent it from being able to bite a large whate unless it approached from a very peculiar angle. That may be wrong, though, depending on how effective the mako is at projecting its jaw. However, I haven't found any source that even speaks to that, and the link you provided doesn't change that. It's just a matter of geometry, and we might as well disagree about it, but it would be nice to know one way or another, wouldn't it? After all, if it was physically impossible for a mako to bite the side of a much larger fish/whale (and it would have to be MUCH larger, not just a little bit larger), it would pretty much demonstrate that they don't eat orcas.

Terribly sorry old boy.

I have never been unhappy about learning something new in this fashion. It always leads in different directions. Until you started this thread, I had no opinion as to whether sharks ate whales or vice versa. Now, while I still feel that several sharks and a few whales are top predators in the ocean, I'm pretty well convinced that predation between orcas and mako sharks is entirely in one direction, with orcas being about the only animal that eats adult makos (the young of every species is prey to lots of other species).

Thank you Shaggy.

Nothing wrong with you chaning my statement, as long as you recognize that I believe the model to be incorrect, and since that statement is still there, the change doesn't make any difference.

By the way, are you interested in getting in contact with shark researchers to confirm/refute your model, or do you just want to leave it in the realm of armchair determination? It's probably a bit much to pursue it into the academic realm unless you intend to either make a career out of it (I have no idea what you do, or even how old you are), or intend to try to make money from it. On the other hand, I would guess that most shark researchers would be happy to talk about it.

[Witis]

Explicated? It's a bit late to ask this,

Unfortunately it is.

Did you read that paper I linked to? It wasn't me saying that. They pointed out that makos won't go below a certain oxygen concentration

A study of 2 sharks, 114 cm (baby) and 191cm (adolescent) is hardly enough evidence to make that conclusion; moreover, they even presented data that the sharks did swim in very low oxygenated waters where levels were less than 1.5 ml O2/L for 20 minutes meaning that the study actually indicated that sharks can tolerate low oxygenated waters. Moreover the paper goes on to say that while it used to be thought that highly aerobic fish such as billfish and tuna had a lower tolerance of 3.5 ml O2/L "recent information from archival tagging indicates that many highly aerobic tuna and billfish species, such as bigeye tuna (Thunnus obesus), yellowfin tuna, and swordfish, are capable of occasional deep vertical excursions that can expose them to oxygen concentrations below 1.5 ml/L." As a result I am not even convinced that low oxygen concentrations are a problem for highly aerobic fish and sharks.

Interesting link, but I don't see how it is relevant to the jaw question.

Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words. Structurally it is almost identical to the jaw of a Great White Shark meaning there should be no problems biting anything larger than itself.

Frankly, it seems like the nose of the mako would prevent it from being able to bite a large whate unless it approached from a very peculiar angle.

Not sure what you mean, see the dead Makos at the bottom of the link I posted to see that the nose is not very large and would not obstruct feeding in any way meaning they should be able to feast on whales of any size.

I have never been unhappy about learning something new in this fashion. It always leads in different directions. Until you started this thread, I had no opinion as to whether sharks ate whales or vice versa. Now, while I still feel that several sharks and a few whales are top predators in the ocean, I'm pretty well convinced that predation between orcas and mako sharks is entirely in one direction, with orcas being about the only animal that eats adult makos (the young of every species is prey to lots of other species).

Don't forget fish such as Wahoo and tuna or other similarly fast fish with teeth strong enough to cut through mammal flesh capable of cooperating to devour Orcas and even Blue whales if found in large enough concentrations. Then you have to go up the food chain to get to the sharks and then to the apex shark which is almost certainly the Mako. Also the Catchalot is another potential Orca predator theoretically capable of using the largest teeth in the animal kingdom, a weight advantage, and great deep diving abilities to ambush the Orcas from below.

Nothing wrong with you chaning my statement, as I believe the model to be correct

I can't disagree with you there Shaggy.

By the way, are you interested in getting in contact with shark researchers to confirm/refute your model, or do you just want to leave it in the realm of armchair determination? It's probably a bit much to pursue it into the academic realm unless you intend to either make a career out of it (I have no idea what you do, or even how old you are), or intend to try to make money from it. On the other hand, I would guess that most shark researchers would be happy to talk about it.

At this point I am happy with it as is thank you Shaggy.