are there different types of predators like how we have different color people??

[samoht]

you know what the picture makes me think of the black pred? is that he might have another mask on his face!?

Lol, that's just a bad production photo, it looked pretty good in the movie I thought.

In regards to the differences between all the predators, yes they obviously have individual characteristics, but there are also obviously races within their species as well. We have seen several different predators that shared features with the original, some that had a similar appearance to Predator 2, & many at the end of AvP looked a lot alike.

The 'super' predators in the most recent film are most likely just another race with their own physical traits.

Yeah. The way I take it is that the classics and Supers are a different species to each other but come from the same family (Canine for example). And within each species there would be different breeds. (like dogs)

[Ghostface]

Its not just the head thats different on the BSPs. Their bodys are covered in scales, especially the chest, triceps and thighs and back.

[Stalker]

All predators have scales, but the ones on the 'super' preds did seem to be larger & more pronounced. Although we've seen that in each movie the skin always has a different texture, markings & colouring.

[WolfPredator89]

Anyway is not what we think is what as established in the movie... there are two types of predators the big ones(super preds) and the smaller ones(classic ones) and for what we can tell in the classic  ones there must be different breeds cause pussyface and anytime are very different.... but in the movie have been established that falconer tracker and berserker are different from the rest of the predators

[Stalker]

Anyway is not what we think is what as established in the movie... there are two types of predators the big ones(super preds) and the smaller ones(classic ones) and for what we can tell in the classic  ones there must be different breeds cause pussyface and anytime are very different.... but in the movie have been established that falconer tracker and berserker are different from the rest of the predators

They were also different from each other. All 3 had unique skin textures & colouring, for all we know under the mask they may have looked nothing alike.

[WolfPredator89]

Anyway is not what we think is what as established in the movie... there are two types of predators the big ones(super preds) and the smaller ones(classic ones) and for what we can tell in the classic  ones there must be different breeds cause pussyface and anytime are very different.... but in the movie have been established that falconer tracker and berserker are different from the rest of the predators

They were also different from each other. All 3 had unique skin textures & colouring, for all we know under the mask they may have looked nothing alike.

yeah cause in the super predators type there must be different breeds too!

[samoht]

Anyway is not what we think is what as established in the movie... there are two types of predators the big ones(super preds) and the smaller ones(classic ones) and for what we can tell in the classic  ones there must be different breeds cause pussyface and anytime are very different.... but in the movie have been established that falconer tracker and berserker are different from the rest of the predators

They were also different from each other. All 3 had unique skin textures & colouring, for all we know under the mask they may have looked nothing alike.

The Super Preds would probably have differences in their facial features too. But despite that, the super preds would all have a universal look that sets them apart from the classic pred look.

[mythology]

1st i'm tired of saying SBP, black preds, super preds and super black preds. someone said bad bloods and i think the name fits so from now on i'll call them bad bloods. if you remember the predator comic bad blood series about that insane predator who was crazy and tough as these new preds, that's why i think the name fits.

you can compare the predator's head from the 1st movie with the predator's head from the 2nd movie and think they are different species because of how radically different their heads are. in predator 2 he's got jagged forehead ridges, his texture is radically colored and patterned, and he's got horns on his mandibles. and the crazy thing is his predator 2 elder looks almost nothing like him at all. the elder looks like an old version of 1st movie but get this, he's got lizard patterned small horns on his cheeks and above his brow.

in avpr movie, wolf is a combination of the 1st 2 movie predators. so i think there are different types of predators like how we have different color people.

to the bad bloods

the bad bloods have scale skin which the regular predators haven't been seen with yet. but it makes me think if reg preds can have lizard horns maybe they can have scale skin too. tracker has tusks but since reg predators can have horns on their mandibles why can't they have tusks too? if you look tracker and falconer have the same skin type but berserker scale skin is different, more extreme, more colorful. it makes me think if we had seen tracker or falconer's face it wouldn't look as extreme as berserker's.

which makes me think, is berserker genetically altered? or is he a different race of bad blood? dogs didn't start off as dogs. our species tamed the wolf into dogs, so you could see noland's statement as maybe the bad bloods genetically altered themselves to be better hunters?

to me if the reg preds can't have scale skin like bad bloods, then they are a different species like the different species of humans that once existed. and if they are reg preds who genetically altered themselves, they are a different species.

[samoht]

1st i'm tired of saying SBP, black preds, super preds and super black preds. someone said bad bloods and i think the name fits so from now on i'll call them bad bloods. if you remember the predator comic bad blood series about that insane predator who was crazy and tough as these new preds, that's why i think the name fits.

you can compare the predator's head from the 1st movie with the predator's head from the 2nd movie and think they are different species because of how radically different their heads are. in predator 2 he's got jagged forehead ridges, his texture is radically colored and patterned, and he's got horns on his mandibles. and the crazy thing is his predator 2 elder looks almost nothing like him at all. the elder looks like an old version of 1st movie but get this, he's got lizard patterned small horns on his cheeks and above his brow.

in avpr movie, wolf is a combination of the 1st 2 movie predators. so i think there are different types of predators like how we have different color people.

to the bad bloods

the bad bloods have scale skin which the regular predators haven't been seen with yet. but it makes me think if reg preds can have lizard horns maybe they can have scale skin too. tracker has tusks but since reg predators can have horns on their mandibles why can't they have tusks too? if you look tracker and falconer have the same skin type but berserker scale skin is different, more extreme, more colorful. it makes me think if we had seen tracker or falconer's face it wouldn't look as extreme as berserker's.

which makes me think, is berserker genetically altered? or is he a different race of bad blood? dogs didn't start off as dogs. our species tamed the wolf into dogs, so you could see noland's statement as maybe the bad bloods genetically altered themselves to be better hunters?

to me if the reg preds can't have scale skin like bad bloods, then they are a different species like the different species of humans that once existed. and if they are reg preds who genetically altered themselves, they are a different species.

The genetically altered idea sounds like fanboy fap to me. Not trying to sound insulting.

It is interesting that the tracker and falconer have very different skin colouration to Mr Black. It would seem that the Superpreds have the same situation going on as the classics.

For example, Mr Black could be an anytime version of the Superpreds and the falconer could be the Pussyface version of the Superpreds.
Now thats a loose example. What I'm getting at is that The Superpreds probs have different breeds within their own species like the Classic preds have. Makes sense.

[Ghostface]

Rodriguez originally had them being "super" preds because they were genetically enhanced to be better hunters. This idea was replaced by the dog/wolf theory. There is nothing super about the new preds, that was just their original title and it stuck.

[samoht]

Fair enough.

[Meathead320]

Hang on a second.

Wolves and dogs can inter-breed so they are not different species.

If the BSPs are different species.  Then they aren't predators.  They are a different type of lifeform.

Only reason I am pointing it out is that there is a very pervasive myth that ability to interbreed makes two things the same species, or the same sub-species.

Many people think genetics goes all comes down to genes, when actually it goes all the way down to alleles on the genes.

The alleles effect the expression of the genes, and it is the patterns of gene expression that makes a species unique.

Sometimes you can take genes from another and switch them out, and due to genetic compatibility you still get a living and even fertile offspring, but the pattern of gene expression has been so radically changed that the physical and behavioral characteristics make it no longer fitting into either group properly.

Genetic relatedness does not necessarily mean the same species, nor does ability to have fertile offspring.

Some hybrids have hetero sterility, while some mixtures are very fertile.

Wolves (Canis lupus) and dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) are a different species (lupus) than coyotes (Canis latrans),

Wolves can also inter-breed with Coyotes, and produce fertile offspring, but are regarded as two separate species.

There are NO separate genes between a Chiwawa and a Rottweiler, all that difference is controlled by the alleles.

They are even closer related than the various races of humans, whom all also have the same genes, yet the difference in alleles accounts for a difference of less than 1%.

Depending on which two human groups you compare, you will get a difference of anywhere from 0.08% to 0.23%, and that is only when the alleles on ALL the genes have been counted. Some groups have the exact same alleles on some individual genes as well.

So using this data, how does this relate to the Super-Predatorss, and Regular Predators? Are they simply racial differences? Are they sub-species within the same Species? Are they different Species within the same Genus?

Its hard to say. Even on OUR on world our taxonomy system has contradictions.

If we base it on physical differences then how could anybody put a pomeranian in the same species as a Rottweiler? They are regarded as the same species.

If we use genetics as our razor, then why aren't the highland and lowland Gorillas regarded as the same species? The genetic distance between the two species of gorilla, Gorilla gorilla and G. beringei, 0.04%. No accredited zoo would ever put them together. They are treated as two seperate speices all together.
(Guillen, 2005; Jensen-Seaman, 2000).

The genetic distance between the two chimpanzee species is 0.103%. (cooper 1997)

Now get this, the genetic distance between Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis  is <0.08%.
(Nov. 17, 2006. Sequencing and analysis of Neanderthal genomic DNA. Science, 314(5802):1113-1118)

See how complex this is? There is no one prefect way to go about it, as genetic relatedness can still have vast physical and behavior differences.

Humans share 67% of our DNA with a fruit fly, and 98% with a Chimpanzee.

How would we go about accurately categorizing Extra-terrestrials, who look similar, and behave similar? There is no way to know what the genetic difference is, if they have the same genes and only alleles separate them or not.

Even if they have the same genes, and can interbreed, they may avoid doing so due to a behavior that they have become very unique in physical characteristics.

Heck, for all we know they could be two different genders of the exact same group! Offhand I find that unlikely, but really they are so alien to us it is impossible to say for, let alone weather they are a different race, or in fact different species all together.

[Orionjp]

Maybe I'm just not seeing the big picture here, but I think everyone is looking at this in totally the wrong way.  Maybe this has nothing to do with (dog/wolf), baybe its based on society.  It could be as simple as casts.  There could be leader casts, warrior casts, noble casts, worker casts, each cast looking deferent.  They fit into deferent rolls in the society.  This isn't a huge stretch really.  Look at ants, the worker ants look deferent than the warrior ants, who look deferent from the scouting ants, who look deferent from the queen.  Each cast is bread deferently, allowing for whatever they are specialised in.  In doing this their features will change.  Through generations of breeding, certain things will become dominant, such as horns on mandibles, or scales, or even the exagerated desines on the bad blood "berserker".  I understand they are all hunters and warriors, I'm not arguing that.  But it could be that the new preds are a higher cast, maybe a kind of nobility in the Predator society.  Just my thoughts anyway.

[Master]

This is skull of P1 pred P2 pred and BSP:





I can`t find AvP predator skull.

Here you have Black, White and Asian human skull:





Diferences are very noticable, but it gets better. Try to tell to which standard race those skulls belong:

Spoiler

aborigen, black

[close]

Spoiler

north american indian, asian

[close]

Spoiler

polinesian, asian

[close]

Spoiler

south america indian, asian with skull post-natal manipulation

[close]

My point is that we just can`t say if those different races or sub-races or sub-species of thesame race, judgeing on skull shape only.

Also all of those humans presented above can have fertile offspring with one another. But Neanderthals couldn`t have one with Homo sapiens even though their bone structure and behavioral characteristics weren`t so different.

[Meathead320]

Also all of those humans presented above can have fertile offspring with one another. But Neanderthals couldn`t have one with Homo sapiens even though their bone structure and behavioral characteristics weren`t so different.

Even that has come into Question, as far as the Neanderthals. There has been some data now showing a high% of Neanderthal allele patterns displayed in a few groups of humans. Not that this means for sure if they are different species, or perhaps Neanderthals were closer to humans, or even should be in the same species as ourselves. More data is needed, but to political implications it is not an easy field to study.

Then again Ability to produce fertile offspring is not a good indicator of species either, as there are plenty of animals that can produce fertile heterozygous offspring, but almost never do in the wild, and are regarded as different species.

There are a ton of birds that can, Coyotes and Wolves, Bonobos and Chimps etc...

If its that confusing down here I simply cannot fathom applying it to an alien in any sure way.