This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Animals High‑importance Cannibalism is within the scope of WikiProject Animals, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to animals and zoology. For more information, visit the project page.AnimalsWikipedia:WikiProject AnimalsTemplate:WikiProject Animalsanimal High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Animals To-do: Here are some Open Tasks : Copyedit: Merge: GLAM/ARKive donated texts into articles about endangered species. Improve: Photoperiodism, Tool use by non-human animals, Omnivore, Animal suicide, Sphaerium beckmani (a species in family Sphaeriidae), Requests: Mammals: Invertebrates: Campocraspedon Fishes: Zaniolepis frenata Merge: GLAM/ARKive donated texts into articles about endangered species. Expand: Junqueira cow, Atka mackerel Nominate and vote: Science collaboration of the month, Article Improvement Drive, WikiProject Animals Collaboration Death Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

If 90 % of all aquatic animals engage in canbialism the 1500 spieces number is obviously bogus

It is a dated estimate, though. Richard001 11:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Estimates say there are over 1,000,000 species of insects, so how could 1500 species engaging in cannibalism be "common" ? Estimates say 95% of species are insects, leaving a guesstimate of non insect animal species at 52,631. That would mean that if all 1500 cannibal species were non-insects, the percentage of cannibal species would be less than 3%. Again, how is this "common"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.68.126.163 (talk) 16:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are few problems with the lists here. Firstly, 'mammals' is listed, which is vague and imprecise. Secondly, no reference is given for many of these. And thirdly, infanticide does not imply cannibalism, so listing such animals as the bottlenose dolphin, when the source clearly says the animal doesn't attempt to eat the young, it misleading. Lastly, domestic ungulates will probably only engage in cannibalism with human intervention (introducing meat into the feedstocks), and so listing them here is also misleading.--60.240.240.254 00:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

agreed, calling sheep cannibals, for example, seems slightly absurd --Mccron 18:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not providing citations just encourages people to add absurd items to the list. I've removed it completely from the size structured cannibalism section - not a single one was backed up with a reference. Richard001 05:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article doesn't demonstrate the need for a separate entry. I propose it be redirected here - I've already merged all the content in the section and as you can see it is hardly oversized.

Been bold and merged it - it can be recreated if there is need. Richard001 00:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good, but "intrauterine" in the section title is too narrow. Arthropods such as some mites and beetles chow down on vulnerable siblings anywhere they find them: in the egg sac or all around the neighbourhood; though they may prefer to munch on strangers. The hazard is so chronic that some moms lay trophic eggs to keep the kids off each other.--Egmonster (talk) 03:49, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The picture of the Stagmomantis carolina states that it is a female eating her mate. However, in the Stagmomantis carolina article, the same picture has a footer which identifies the devoured mantis as another female. Which is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkruijff (talk • contribs) 23:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not even grammatically correct. Perhaps "Contrary to previous belief," would be an adequate alternative. In any case, previous to when? Better would be something like "Before <date> it was believed that ..., but it has since been shown ..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.210.2.191 (talk) 08:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me there ought to be a category for those who hunt conspecifics for food -- not out of extreme hunger, but as a lifestyle. So far, I only see three: Scorpions, chimps, and humans. But I have only begun looking. V.B. (talk) 21:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why are most of the examples for vertebrates? This is a big misrepresentation of cannibalism.--FUNKAMATIC ~talk 10:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

how can herbivores be cannibal. the term herbivor mean a specie that consume plants not meat ?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sghaier mohamed (talk • contribs) 17:51, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The picture shows dragonflies of different species, according to its own caption. This contradicts the very first line and definition in the article. Should we choose another picture? Harsimaja (talk) 20:52, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Entirely true and I have changed the photo. RN1970 (talk) 03:25, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On 31 October 2017, this page was manually moved, i.e. copy-pasted ("Cannibalism (zoology)" --> "Cannibalism"). As far as I can see this happened without any discussion. A history merge was then requested and performed. Disregarding the problem of just moving pages without discussion (in anything but obvious cases), this means that incoming links have been completely messed up. "Cannibalism" formerly was a redirect to "Human cannibalism". I've just checked a handful of links and every single one of them was supposed to lead to the human article. I have neither the time nor will to check the thousands of "what links here", but should someone else feel like doing it, please go ahead. RN1970 (talk) 03:25, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Would it perhaps be appropriate here to include a 'Cannibalism among humans' section, with a link to the main 'Human cannibalism' article?Heavenlyblue (talk) 18:38, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

agreed^ I came here specifically looking for human cannibalism and was surprised it wasn't a more prevelant part of the article. I'd even go so far as to say that most people probably assume 'human' when they discuss 'cannibal' or 'cannibalism', but that's academic. Anyway, it's part of this article's scope so should probably be a subsection and not left entirely up to the seperate article. 2600:8800:2382:E200:D07E:2C97:EFE4:849A (talk) 19:37, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Cannibal. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 28#Cannibal until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Rublov (talk) 17:07, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"More recently, cannibalism has been featured in a positive light, with video games like Ark: Survival Evolved incentivizing players' virtual characters to eat each other."

This sentence is somewhat inappropriate for this article. --Sorry sir, that's classified information (talk) 07:15, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's also somwhat misconstrued, isn't it? Just because it is "possible" to engage in eating flesh of another player it is neither "displaying it in a positive light" or is it "incentivizing" the action. It's just nature that a dead human being leaves his flesh remains behind and eating these flesh remains is possible and satiating. I wasn't aware that displaying "nature facts" is "making it out positivly". It may incentivice killing another to gain food, but that probably comes with its own problems that themselves deter cannibalism as well. I think if one wants to argue "positive light" and "incentivizing" they would need more to show than a link that actually shows these traits as just a list of games that contain cannibalism beyond the natural side of things. Like getting positive effects from engaging in it beyond food satiation. 2003:C9:673D:5607:14E6:847C:2E7B:3CAF (talk) 21:35, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Change consuming to eating, it is a more succinct and accurate word to use. 47.203.195.146 (talk) 18:21, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. SpinningCeres 19:15, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

change "long incubation rate" to "long incubation period". 178.84.194.206 (talk) 21:39, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 21:51, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the sentence "Therefore, in order to survive, tadpoles within the same clutch are forced to consume each other and exploit their conspecitics as the only available source of nutrition," "conspecitics" should be changed to "conspecifics." Lalwiker (talk) 23:44, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the fourth sentence of the "Benefits" section, conspecifics is misspelled as "conspecitics". I hope that this helps out. Heretofixthisonetypobaby (talk) 18:12, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:19, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Change any copies of {male species} to {males of certain species} 166.181.87.52 (talk) 16:50, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Tollens (talk) 18:09, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the 'Cannibalism within media' section, I've completely removed the mentions of Planet Dinosaur and ARK as their presence is unnecessary and unfit. It seems like someone just threw in their favourite pieces of dinosaur media for seemingly no reason at all. Instead, I've mentioned the topic's relevance in documentaries and survival games, without directly referring specific media. FishyGuy77 (talk) 22:09, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]