you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 6 points 2 days ago (5 children)

aren’t most obligate carnivores not directly eaten often?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 24 points 2 days ago (4 children)

    It depends a bit on your scope. If you think of obligate carnivores as typically very large, possibly apex predators, then they might not be preyed on much in the traditional sense. But carnivores also number insects, arachnids, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and lots of smaller mammals like weasels, bats or cats that are themselves prey to other animals.

    The point is that being 'predator' does not exclude an animal from also being prey. 'Predator' and 'prey' describe relationships, not mutually exclusive categories.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 2 days ago (2 children)

    i get the point you are making, and i concede it

    but i was specifically thinking mammal given the context and for which teeth would make it obvious

    even the smaller ones, cats in natural habitats come to mind are apex, and i remember learning the avoidance of eating them had to do with parasite avoidance when other food was available

    I did not realize weasels were obligate carnivores and bats were a great example as well

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 days ago (1 child)

    Parasite avoidance is a factor, but mostly in the inhibition of cannibalism.

    Cats are far from apex predators. They are prey to birds of prey, canids and even bigger mustellids like badgers and wolverines. But birds, like the eurasian eagle-owl and canids like coyotes are their main concern.

    And we can clearly see the prey behavior deeply ingrained in our very cautious, flighty friends.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment