Do killer whales eat sharks?
106543
Q: Do killer whales kill and eat sharks?\nA: Sometimes, but they probably don't do it very often. Killer whales usually eat fish, and sometimes seals, sea lions or even whales or dolphins. You may be surprised to learn that even thought they are the top predator in the sea, ill, injured, or very young killer whales may be prey for some large species of shark.
1042893
The ones that actually adhere to the sharks are remoras. They're fishes belonging to order Perciformes, family Echeneidae, and they have a dorsal sucking disk with which they attach to sharks , but also to other bony fishes, turtles or marine mammals. These fish clean their "host" and feed on their leftovers.\nThis is what a remora looks like:\nhttp://www.amonline.net.au/fishes/fishfacts/images/enaucsh2.jpg\n\nThe other, more typical-looking fish with dark and light vertical stripes, are pilotfish. These also belong to order Perciformes, but to a different family, the Carangidae. Their scientific name is Naucrates ductor. They were called "pilotfish" because of the belief that they "guided" sharks. Actually, they're semi-obligate commensals of sharks, rays, other bony fishes and turtles, which means that they depend very much on them to feed on their leftovers.\nThis is what a pilotfish looks like:\nhttp://www.horta.uac.pt/imagdop/Servicos/Naucrates_ductor/035_s410_31.jpg
1109284
The living species Physeter catadon, also known as the sperm whale can reach 20 m in length and 55 tons in weight or more, and is likely the largest marine predator ever known.   They have been known to prey on the giant squid (Architeuthis dux), often bearing the scars of the toothed tentacle suckers on their heads, and many beaks of the giant squid have been found in their stomachs.\n\nThe giant squid itself, along with the recently described mega squid (Megateuthis) is the largest invertebrate ever known, and is a predator itself, making it the largest invertebrate predator.\n\nBoth of those species are still alive, and so are usually not considered 'prehistoric'.\n\nCarcharadon megalodon was a gigantic prehistoric shark that lived between 25 and 1.6 million years ago.  It was up to 12 m long (40 feet), or about twice the length of the great white shark.  The size of some of the teeth found have led some to speculate that they may have reached a maximum size of 20 meters in length or more, meaning they would rival the sperm whale in size, but these results are not widely accepted.\n\nAbout 110 million years ago, a pliosaur called Kronosaurus terrorized the Cretaceous seas.  Up to 8 m in length, and with a powerful, tooth filled head that was up to 2.4 m in length itself it could have fed on almost anything in the sea at the time.  \n\nShonisaurus sikanniensis was a gigantic 21 m long ichthyosaur from Canada, from about 220 million years ago, but it appears to have fed primarily on tiny marine invertebrates through suction feeding.  Thus it may not really count as a predator (otherwise the baleen whales, like the blue whale would definitely be the largest predators).\n\nDunkleosteus was a giant predatory fish from the Devonian period (about 370-360 million years ago), that was probably up to 10 m in length.  With a giant armoured head and blade-like shearing teeth it would have been the largest predator of the early seas.
246558
That depends on the size of the shark and its scales. Shark scales are actually denticles embedded in the skin, with their point directed posteriorly. The morphology of these denticles is particular to each shark species, and in most cases, these denticles keep getting bigger as the animal grows (these skin denticles are shed and replaced just like sharks' teeth). \nSo, if you happen to rub with your naked skin against the shark, in the direction opposite that of the orientation of the denticle tips, you could get seriously grazed and chafed. \nAlthough many aboriginal cultures in different parts of the world have used shark teeth as knives, I've never heard of their skin used in this way. But the dry skin of some dogfish sharks was indeed commercialized as sandpaper, before the advent of artificial versions.
351606
Manta rays (Manta birostris) feed on plankton by filter feeding:  water coursing through their open mouths as they swim is strained for the various little critters floating in the water.  Filter feeding is quite common in marine environments, sustaining creatures as large as whale-sharks and basking sharks, and as small as barnacles and tube worms.\n\nBecause they are so large (average 'wingspan' of about 12 feet), not much preys on Manta Rays.  Large predators such as Tiger Sharks might take a few, but by far the largest predator on Manta Rays are humans.  They were virtually wiped out in many areas during the 90s by over-fishing, as their meat is apparently quite tasty, and their rough sandpapery skin is also useable for leather.\n\nVery little is known of the life of Manta Rays in the wild, and no one has successfully kept any alive in captivity for more than about a month (although they keep trying).
674318
I've seen a killer whale attack a juvenile grey whale in the Monterey Bay.  But I don't  think it was because they were Hungy\n\nIn Argentina I saw them beach them selve's going after sea lions.  But I think its mostly for sport.  they would take about 2000 ft from the shoreline and toss them like Volley balls in the air.  They are really cool creatures.
1015470
first, the idea that they don't "like how we taste" is just a theory. that is, it explains some observations but hasn't been empirically tested (for obvious reasons!). it's basically a hypothesis to cover why so many "bite-and-spit" attacks take place, where a shark briefly attacks a person and then swims away and leaves them there.\n\nnotably, however, there are other theories that cover this--for example, that plenty of bite-and-spit events are territorial warnings, or that this is a common feeding habit for some species where they bite, wait for the prey to weaken and die, and then return when there's not so much risk of retaliation and possible injury to the shark.\n\nif the "taste" theory is true, one major theory out there is that sharks have chemosensory capabilities to gauge how much fat is in prey. and let me tell you, we are a hell of a lot less fatty than a seal or sea lion. (obese though many of us may be, we don't need an insulating layer for constant coldwater diving.) so according to that theory, the shark would bite, realize the person isn't worth the effort, and go away.\n\nthis theory has really come in based on great white shark attacks, where bite-and-spit patterns seem fairly common in both human and natural prey (e.g. seal) situations. if they do this, and tiger or bull sharks don't, then there's probably an ecological reason for it, like where a white shark bites and backs off from a seal, whereas say a reef shark might bite as a territoriality or perceived threat thing.\n\nbut, bottom line, nobody knows, and any "expert theory"you hear is still a theory, even if it's from an expert.
687301
It seems to be the result of either the shark mistaking the human for food or from the shark smelling blood around a human such as from an injury.  One of the favorite foods of a shark is the seal.  A human on a surf board looks very much like a seal when viewed from below as he or she might be by a shark.  In about 96% of all shark attacks, the shark will bite the victim only once and then release them.  This would seem to indicate that once the shark realized that the victim was not one of his normal foods he would break off the attack.  Maybe human meat is not to their liking.  Even so, a single bite from a shark is sometimes sufficient to cause massive hemorrhaging and death.
74215
I agree with big brain, they are some of the most efficent and dangerous killers in the animal kingdom. \n\nAlthough they do have communication patterns. Male crocodiles let out a low grunt when they are searching for a mate. And baby crocodiles let out a high pitch grunt when they are in danger. Not too sure about the sharks though.\n\nMost of the time though as big brain said they are solitary animals.
1058497
Being eaten by a shark!
1156180
no sharks are saltwater fish however sturgeon kinda look like sharks grow very large too
103860
Killer whale.\nEverytime.\nThey're not called 'killer whales' because they kill humans.\nI saw footage a couple years ago showing an orca ripping up a shark.  Orcas are very intelligent and can overpower sharks.\nThey regularly stalk and kill grey whales as well.
486053
WHALE SHARK:\n\nbiggest shark and biggest fish \n\nit isn't a whale (whales are mammals, not fish) \n\ngrow to 45 feet long and 30,000 pounds, but average about 25 feet long \n\nfilters plankton from the water using "gill rakers" \n\nBASKING SHARK:\n\nsecond largest shark (about 30 feet long and 8,000 pounds) \n\nfilters plankton from the water using "gill rakers"\n\n\nGREAT WHITE SHARK:  \nThird largest shark on average\n\nmore attacks on people than any other type. \n\naverages 12 feet long and 3,000 pounds. \n\nunlike most sharks, it can lift its head out of the water.
810038
The Megalodon, a giant shark essentially very similar to the modern Great White Shark, but up to 16 m long, was a major predator in the warm, tropical seas between about 25 million years ago and 2 million years ago.\n\nIn near shore, continental shelf deposits of those ages, the teeth of Megalodon are relatively common.  After 2 million years ago though, they pretty much vanish.  There are a few isolated teeth that appear to be much younger, but they may have been reworked (eroded out of older sediments, and re-deposited as fossils in younger sediments).  The fact that their fossils almost completely disappear and the fact that no one has reliably seen or captured one is a fairly good indication that they are indeed extinct.\n\nAs to why it went extinct, there are several hypotheses, but little hard evidence.  One idea is that Megalodon was primarily a predator on whales, and with the increasing frequency and extent of ice ages in the Pleistocene, the colder polar seas that the whales could move into provided a major barrier to the cold-blooded shark, and without this food source they went extinct.  Another, related theory is that shallow, warm coastal areas with stable and constant whale populations became less common as whales became migratory during glaciations.\n\nThere is also the evolution of the Orca, or killer whale, about 5 million years ago, that may have provided a major source of competition to the Megalodon.  The intelligent, pack-hunting orca may have been much more successful whale hunters than the shark, and driven them out of the evolutionary race.  The orca may have even fed on the Megalodon, or killed them to protect their young.\n\nIt's probably a combination of several major factors; loss of habitat, changes in climate, increased competition, predation from new predators, decreased amounts of safe pupping grounds, etc. that eventually did the Megalodon in.
712588
The sharks may avoid these fish because their ancestors learned that those fish species are poisonous or just taste awful. Predators don't eat everything, just certain species. Take birds and butterflies. There are certain butterflies that have distinct patterns that birds recognize and the birds leave them alone because they are poisonous. Other butterfly species have similar patterns because they will get left alone if they look poisonous. The shark probably looks at the fish swimming in the tank and goes "I'm not eating that, you can't make me" and they wait for feeding time.
889201
Well, no, people have not been eaten by giant squid. This behemoth prefers very, very deep and cold waters where no humans can survive. There are no scuba divers down this deep. We're talking mesopelagic layer, maybe 1,000 meters or even more. Not without a submarine. Though dead ones sometimes wash ashore.\n\nHumboldt squid have been filmed near fishing boats where the squid were in terrible pain and being killed and the photographers needed cages or they would be attacked. The locals called them Red Devils and claimed they were more dangerous than sharks. They even cannibalized each other. However, when filmed far, far away from the carnage the Humboldt squid were peaceful and inquisitive and did not attack photographers who did not need a shark cage and were not in one.\n\nI believe whether it is Humboldt squid or common squid or the giant squid that their behavior will be more similar than different. They probably would not attack human unprovoked with a blood lust, even if they did live closer to the surface than they do.
999898
only when it happens in the western hemisphere...during el nino while a hurrican blows in the month of july....wait of course they can they just say man-eating is because the women are smart to stay out of the water when there are sharks around...men say oooh...a shark let's go pet it. usually alchohol is involved with tha last part.