FISHERY BULLETIN': VOL 69. NO. 3 



when it was collected. This fact further sup- 

 poi-ts the contention that cleaning tends to be 

 si:iecies-specific for a jjiven seiiorita. 



The data clearly show that the parasites most 

 frequently taken l)y senoritas are certain mobile 

 forms that occur on the body surface of their 

 host. It may be that other parasites on the ex- 

 ternal body surface are not taken. No leeches or 

 trematodes were found among gut contents, 

 even though these forms are abundant on 

 the garibaldi and halfmoon. Also, the gut con- 

 tents did not show evidence of the lernaeid 

 Peniodus fissipes, an immobile form which par- 

 tially embeds itself in the skin of its hosts — 

 mostly on the fins. This parasite occurs on top- 

 smelt, garibaldis, and halfmoons among those 

 known to he cleaned by seiioritas. However, 

 negative evidence based on the meager gut-con- 

 tent data are weak, especially as the cleaning 

 labrid Lahroides phthirophar/us in Hawaii, 

 which feeds mostly on caligoid copepods, fre- 

 quently takes lernaeids (Randall, 1958; Young- 

 bluth, 1968). I would expect additional study 

 to show that cleaning seiioritas at least occasion- 

 ally take P. fissipes. Nevertheless, several 

 abundant fishes infested by P. fissipes, but not 

 found to carry caligids, gnathiids, or other mo- 

 bile external forms, were not seen being cleaned. 

 For example, the white seaperch is one of the 

 most abundant species at the 3- to 10-m station 

 off La Jolla and yet was never seen being cleaned. 

 Twelve specimens of this fish were examined, 

 and the only ectoparasites found were one to 

 four P. fissipes on three individuals. Similarly, 

 the only parasite found on 11 rainbow seaperch, 

 an abundant species in the study areas that was 

 not seen being cleaned, was a single P. fissipes 

 on one individual and two on another. 



However, not all fishes whose external body 

 surfaces are heavily infested by mobile forms 

 were observed being cleaned. The sheephead, 

 Pimelometopon pnlrhrum, is a case in point. 

 CalifiHS hohsoni occurs on this fish, but onl.v in- 

 frequently — a single specimen of this copepod 

 was taken from each of 2 of the 14 sheepheads 

 that were examined. However, the sheephead 

 is heavily infested by two s])ecies of Lepeophthei- 

 rus, a genus of copepods that is closely related 

 to Caligus. Up to 70 L. parvjis were taken from 



the body surface of a single sheephead, and this 

 fish has not yet been seen being cleaned. Fur- 

 thermore, up to 4 gnathiid larvae, which cleaners 

 take from other fish, were found on 3 of the 

 sheephead. Similarly, the treefish, Sebastes ser- 

 riceps, which is heavily infested with caligids, 

 has not yet been seen being cleaned. The tree- 

 fish is not known to carry C. hohsoni, but 13 of 

 15 specimens examined carried up to 12 Lepeoph- 

 theiru.s louglpes on their body surface, and 3 

 carried up to 5 gnathiid larvae. The significance 

 of these exceptions to what seems a valid gener- 

 alization has not l:)een determined. Perhajis it 

 is significant that these two species of fish are 

 not heavily infested by copepods of the genus 

 Caligus, as are the more frequently cleaned 

 fishes. 



The many parasites that infest the oral and 

 branchial cavities might seem to be potential 

 prey for cleaners, but I found no evidence that 

 these iiarasites are taken by seiioritas. 

 , The principal ectojjarasites on the body sur- 

 face of the two most frequently cleaned fishes, 

 the blacksmith and the topsmelt, are the copepods 

 Caligus hobsoni and C. serratus, respectively, 

 which are very similar to one another morpho- 

 logically. With just one exception among the 

 fishes surveyed (discussed below), C. ser-ratus 

 seems to be restricted to topsmelt. On the other 

 hand, C. hobsoni occurs on a wide variety of 

 species and is also the principal form on gari- 

 baldis and halfmoons. Interestingly, a list of 

 the fishes hosting this parasite, ranked by in- 

 cidence (Table 3), looks much like the ranking 

 of fishes that were observed being cleaned by the 

 seiiorita (Table 1). 



The importance of cleaning in reducing the 

 incidence of ectoparasites on fishes. — Certainl.y 

 cleaners remove many ectoparasites from the 

 bodies of certain fishes — the numbers in their 

 diet attest to this fact. But does cleaning in 

 fact aiijireciably reduce the level of infestation 

 on these fishes, or do other parasites quickly 

 replace those that are removed by the cleaners? 

 Although this question is difficult to answer, some 

 insight is i)rovided by observatio'iis on the gari- 

 baldi. When guarding eggs on their nests dur- 

 ing the reproductive season, male garibaldis be- 



508 



