Predation

Once a predator has captured a prey, it has to handle it: very carefully if the prey is dangerous to eat, such(a) as if it possesses sharp or poisonous spines, as in numerous prey fish. Some catfish such(a) as the Ictaluridae defecate spines on the back dorsal & belly pectoral which lock in the erect position; as the catfish thrashes approximately when captured, these could pierce the predator's mouth, possibly fatally. Some fish-eating birds like the osprey avoid the danger of spines by tearing up their prey before eating it.

Coevolution

Predators & prey are natural enemies, and numerous of their adaptations seem intentional to counter used to refer to every one of two or more people or things other. For example, bats have innovative echolocation systems to detect insects and other prey, and insects make-up developed a variety of defences including the ability to hear the echolocation calls. Many pursuit predators that run on land, such as wolves, have evolved long limbs in response to the increased speed of their prey. Their adaptations have been characterized as an evolutionary arms race, an example of the coevolution of two species. In a gene centered picture of evolution, the genes of predator and prey can be thought of as competing for the prey's body. However, the "life-dinner" principle of Dawkins and Krebs predicts that this arms vintage is asymmetric: if a predator fails to catch its prey, it loses its dinner, while if it succeeds, the prey loses its life.

The metaphor of an arms race implies ever-escalating advances in attack and defence. However, these adaptations come with a cost; for instance, longer legs have an increased risk of breaking, while the specialized tongue of the chameleon, with its ability to act like a projectile, is useless for lapping water, so the chameleon must drink dew off vegetation.

The "life-dinner" principle has been criticized on multiple grounds. The extent of the asymmetry in natural pick depends in factor on the heritability of the adaptive traits. Also, if a predator loses enough dinners, it too will lose its life. On the other hand, the fitness cost of a assumption lost dinner is unpredictable, as the predator may quickly find better prey. In addition, nearly predators are generalists, which reduces the affect of a condition prey adaption on a predator. Since specialization is caused by predator-prey coevolution, the rarity of specialists may imply that predator-prey arms races are rare.

It is unmanageable to defining whether given adaptations are truly the a object that is said of coevolution, where a prey adaptation ensures rise to a predator adaptation that is countered by further adaptation in the prey. An choice explanation is escalation, where predators are adapting to competitors, their own predators or dangerous prey. apparent adaptations to predation may also have arisen for other reasons and then been co-opted for attack or defence. In some of the insects preyed on by bats, hearing evolved previously bats appeared and was used to hear signals used for territorial defence and mating. Their hearing evolved in response to bat predation, but the only clear example of reciprocal adaptation in bats is stealth echolocation.

A more symmetric arms race may arise when the prey are dangerous, having spines, quills, toxins or venom that can harm the predator. The predator canwith avoidance, which in become different drives the evolution of mimicry. Avoidance is not necessarily an evolutionary response as it is generally learned from bad experiences with prey. However, when the prey is capable of killing the predator as can a coral snake with its venom, there is no opportunity for learning and avoidance must be inherited. Predators can alsoto dangerous prey with counter-adaptations. In western North America, the common garter snake has developed a resistance to the toxin in the skin of the rough-skinned newt.