|
<br />
<br />662
<br />
<br />COPEIA, 1989, NO.3
<br />
<br />SUTTKUS, R. D., AND G. H. CLEMMER. 1977. The
<br />humpback chub, Gila c)'pha, in the Grand Canyon
<br />area ofthe Colorado River. Occ. Pap. Tulane Univ.
<br />Mus. Nat. Hist. 1:1-30.
<br />TANNER, V. M. 1950. A new species of Gila from
<br />Nevada (Cyprinidae). Great Basin Nat. 10:31-36.
<br />Tyus, H. M. 1986. Life strategies in the evolution
<br />of the Colorado squawfish (PI)'chocheilus lucius).lbid.
<br />46:656-661.
<br />-. 1987. Distribution, reproduction, and hab-
<br />itat use of the razorback sucker in the Green River,
<br />Utah, 1979-1986. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 116:
<br />111-116.
<br />-, B. D. BURDICK, R. A. VALDEZ, C. M. HAYNES,
<br />T. A. LYTLE AND C. R. BERRY. 1982. Fishes ofthe
<br />upper Colorado River basin: distribution, abun-
<br />dance, and status, p. 12-70. In: Proceedings of a
<br />symposium on fishes of the upper Colorado River
<br />system: present and future. W. M. Miller, H. M.
<br />Tyus and C. A. Carlson (eds.). Publication of the
<br />Western Division, American Fisheries Society, Be-
<br />thesda, Maryland.
<br />--, AND W. L. MINCKLEY. 1988. Migrating Mor-
<br />mon crickets, Anabrus simplex (Orthoptera: Tetti-
<br />goniidae), as food for stream fishes. Great Basin
<br />Nat. 48:25-30.
<br />U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE (USFWS). 1985.
<br />Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; no-
<br />tices of completion of review for 1978 and of five-
<br />year review for species listed before 1976 and in
<br />1979 and 1980. Fed. Regist. 50:29900-29909.
<br />
<br />Copn.. 1989(3). pp. 662-672
<br />
<br />-. 1987a. Humpback chub, Gila cypha, recovery
<br />plan (review draft). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
<br />Region 6, Denver, Colorado.
<br />-. 1987b. Bony tail chub, Gila elegans, recovery
<br />plan (review draft). Ibid.
<br />_. 1987c. Recovery implementation program
<br />endangered fish species in the upper Colorado Riv-
<br />er basin. Ibid.
<br />VALDEZ, R. A. 1985. Status of the distribution and
<br />taxonomy of Gila c)'pha in the upper Colorado Riv-
<br />er. Proc. Desert Fishes Counc. 12(1980):53-68.
<br />-, AND G. H. CLEMMER. 1982. Life history and
<br />prospects for recovery of the humpback and bony-
<br />tail chubs, p. 109-119 In: Fishes of the upper Col-
<br />orado River system: present and future. W. M. Mil-
<br />ler, H. M. Tyus and C. A. Carlson (eds.). Western
<br />Division, American Fisheries Society, Bethesda,
<br />Maryland.
<br />VRIJENHOEK, R. C., M. E. DOUGLAS AND G. K. MEFFE.
<br />1985. Conservation genetics of endangered fish
<br />populations in Arizona. Science 229:400-402.
<br />
<br />tionship between the sizl
<br />size of eel (Beumer, 197~
<br />ofthis plasticity, Helfm3
<br />gested an ability to "m(
<br />guilla use "inertial" fee.
<br />with the jaws and shifti
<br />grasping and shaking (!
<br />ously enabling the eel t.
<br />the prey), and rotation
<br />the longitudinal axis al
<br />prey) to manipulate pr'
<br />these "modes" is obs(
<br />fashion, and appears t
<br />variables of prey size a
<br />Preliminary observa
<br />(Miller, 1987) reveale(
<br />three genera (Echidna,
<br />thorax) utilize another 1
<br />ting," to manipulate p
<br />behavioral modificatiol
<br />to further exploit pre
<br />them by being able to
<br />a wider size range of p
<br />feeding would allow. ~
<br />this study was to test
<br />qualitative and quantit
<br />feeding behavior in thl
<br />to analyze feeding seq
<br />"large" prey. A basic
<br />to describe the variou
<br />
<br />(MED, WLM) DEPARTMENT OF ZOOLOGY AND
<br />MUSEUM, ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY,
<br />TEMPE, ARIZONA 85287 AND (HMT) U.S. FISH
<br />AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, 1680 WEST HIGHWAY
<br />80, ROOM 1210, VERNAL, UTAH 84078. Ac-
<br />cepted 9 Dec. 1988.
<br />
<br />MATERIALS
<br />
<br />Feeding Behavior of Echidna nebulosa, Enchelycore pardalis, and
<br />Gymnomuraena zebra (Teleostei: Muraenidae)
<br />
<br />guillid eels (Anguilla) reveals that they may feed
<br />on a tremendous variety of prey items, includ-
<br />ing insects, molluscs, crustaceans, teleosts, am-
<br />phibians, and plants, and that there is no rela-
<br />
<br />Three species of ml
<br />ulosa (snowflake mOi
<br />(dragon moray), and (
<br />moray) were used in
<br />collected in Hawaii,
<br />Central Michigan Uni
<br />ture. Aquaria (60, 20
<br />up with undergravel
<br />head aerators were ai
<br />for surface water agil
<br />ity was maintained by
<br />per liter of water, am
<br />tained between 1.02(
<br />ger automatic aqu3
<br />temperature bet weer
<br />vided by NEC Biolu>:
<br />top of each aquariUl
<br />coral was used as sut
<br />or clay flower pots a
<br />
<br />TRACY J. MILLER
<br />
<br />The feeding behavior of three species of muraenid eels was divided into two
<br />parts: detection-orientation-assessment-capture, and manipulation-feed. Home,
<br />search, strike, orient, "M," rotate, knot, shake, release, probe, and feed were
<br />mutually exclusive behaviors observed in feeding sequences. Feeding episodes,
<br />analyzed by lag sequential analysis, revealed that the feeding sequence is non-
<br />random and that feeding episodes involving small prey are less complex than
<br />those involving large prey. Direct observation revealed that the behavioral rep-
<br />ertoire of Echidna nebulosa and Enchelycore pardalis includes rotation and knot-
<br />ting, while that of Gymnomuraena zebra includes rotation but not knotting. Knot-
<br />ting is utilized when feeding on "large" prey or when resistance is met when
<br />pulling on prey.
<br />
<br />ONCE prey is detected, successful capture
<br />and manipulation determine to what ex-
<br />tent an organism is able to exploit its resources
<br />(Webb, 1986; Wainwrig-ht, 1987). Work on an-
<br />
<br />Observations of feeding
<br />in feeding sequence (
<br />
<br />@ 1989 by [he American Society of Ichlhyologists and Herpetologists
<br />
|