FISHERY BULLETIN: VOL. 69, NO. 3 



above in the midwater and canopy regions. 

 Nevertheless, observations of cleaning were suf- 

 ficiently frequent to recognize this species as a 

 habitual cleaner, though probably less so than 

 either the seiioritas or the juvenile sharpnose 

 seaperch. In taking material from the bodies 

 of other fishes, the kelp perch uses the same 

 picking teclmique that it employs to pick items 

 from an algal substrate, or that are adrift in 

 midwater. Its pointed snout and dentition, which 

 is similar to that of the senorita, as described 

 above, are well suited to cleaning. 



Insofar as an aggregation of kelp perch tends 

 to remain in one location, these fish can perhaps 

 be regarded as maintaining a station at which 

 other fishes are cleaned. But I saw no indication 

 that more than one or a few members of a given 

 aggregation clean, or that other fishes come to 

 these locations from any distance for cleaning. 

 In fact, I saw only blacksmiths and other kelp 

 perch being cleaned by this fish. In the one 

 observation of intraspecific cleaning, a single 

 kelp perch swam among others of its aggrega- 

 tion, intently inspecting their bodies. Usually 

 the subject of this attention moved away, where- 

 upon the cleaner moved to another fish. A few 

 responded to the cleaner by erecting their fins 

 and hovering immobile in a head-down posture, 

 and these were cleaned. Occasionally a fish be- 

 ing cleaned suddenly darted away as if the clean- 

 er had been too vigorous in its attentions. All 

 blacksmiths being cleaned were solitary indi- 

 viduals that hovered in head-down soliciting 

 fashion close to an aggregation of kelp perch. 

 Whether or not one of the perch had earlier 

 made an initiating overture was never deter- 

 mined. Never more than one or two of the perch 

 in the aggregations wei'e seen cleaning these 

 blacksmiths. Occasionally a cleaner would close- 

 ly follow a halfmoon or kelp bass that inciden- 

 tally i^assed close by, but I saw no evidence that 

 these fish were interested in the perch, and no 

 cleaning occurred. 



Three kelp perch, 91 to 99 mm long, one of 

 which had been cleaning a blacksmith, were col- 

 lected from an aggregation hovering near a 

 stand of feather-boa kelp. The gut contents of 

 the individual known to have cleaned the black- 

 smiths contained (showing the percent of total 



volume): gnathiid isopod larvae (50S^), non- 

 parasitic isopods (STr), gammarid amphipods 

 (^Vf ) , caprellid amphipods (20''y ) , and uniden- 

 tified material (20''f). Neither of the two that 

 were not known to have cleaned contained evi- 

 dence of ectoparasites: one was full of caprellid 

 amphipods (90'^'r) and unidentified material 

 (lO'^r). whereas the other had nothing in its 

 digestive tract except a few unidentified frag- 

 ments posteriorly. 



Llmbaugh (1955) reported kelp perch clean- 

 ing kelp bass, opaleyes, garibaldis, blacksmiths, 

 and walleye surfperch i^nyperprosopon arcjcn- 

 teum). 



DISCUSSION 



Various cleaning fishes remove a wide variety 

 of deleterious material from the bodies of the 

 animals they service. In addition to ectopar- 

 asites, this material includes diseased, injured, 

 or necrotic tissue, fungi, and unwanted food 

 particles (Feder, 1966; Hobson, 1968, 1969b; 

 and others) . However, the discussion below con- 

 siders cleaning only as the removal of ectopar- 

 asites, because my data indicate that these are 

 the only items taken in significant amounts from 

 California fishes by the cleaners considered in 

 this report. 



INCIDENTAL VS. HABITUAL CLEANING 



Cleaning is widespread among small-mouthed 

 marine fishes that characteristically pick minute 

 organisms from the substrate (Hobson, 1968). 

 Included are species of the families Chaetodon- 

 tidae, Pomacentridae, Labridae, Embiotocidae, 

 Blenniidae, and others. Morphological and be- 

 havioral characteristics suited to their way of 

 life have preadapted many species of these fami- 

 lies for the cleaning habit. Probably some such 

 fishes iHck ectoparasites only incidentally during 

 routine foraging when under certain conditions 

 the body of an adjacent fish, infested with ecto- 

 pai-asites, becomes accessible as just another 

 feeding substrate. The relative tendency of a 

 given si)ecies to clean likely is influenced by both 

 short-term ;uid long-term environmental 

 changes. Such changes may be expected to alter 



514 



