16 



9x 



UJX 



2< 



it 



< 



(7) 



uji- 



w2 



ZQC 



o< 



(7) 



3 



QC 



3C/) 



-13 



<l- 



l-< 



UPLA 



PI 



CLS 



-OLI 



CAL 



77 



UID 

 1-DET 

 ^MISC 



CRZ 



OST 



HA1 



ISL 



-HA2 



20 



21 



41 



NEM 



OLI 



HA 1 



HA 2 



361 



^Eh 

 -NER 

 MAL 



-CLS 



-CAL 



:L P 



^UID 

 MISC 



j-PI 

 -BIV 



CRZ 



Na 



BRA 



£OST 



HA1 



99 



l-GAM 

 T-MISC 



GAM 



DET 



35 



CLS 



Na 



me 



NEM 



NER 



:-Eh 



MAL 



0~LT 



-SPI 



HA 2 



-PLA 



61 



l-CLS 

 OST 



\ 



HA 1 



588 



Kp 



Me 

 MISC 



CRZ 



CAL 



*-PI 

 BIV 



-OST 



Na 



80 



-UID 

 J-MISC 



ELS 



-NER 

 -CAL 



GAM 



UID 



48 



-DET 

 ^MISC 



Na 



10 



■DET 



HEH 



NER 



hPLA 

 -fOR 



t-Eh 



CTS" 



HA 2 



JLP_ 



-MAL 

 -OLI 

 -OST 

 HA1 



J-CYA 

 .Me 



gifgRSET 



"p 



Na 



USES. 



UID 



k A 

 AL 



42 



NER 



*-DET 



CLS 



-Na 



Lp 

 ESQ! 



DET 



65 



NEM 



-CAP 

 -CHI 

 XIID 



CLS 



Na 



-AMP 



UID 



FISHERY BULLETIN: VOL. 82, NO. 3 



J-MISC 



NER 



CLS 



UID 



26 



-OST 

 -CAP 



r-DET 



>-NER 

 ~CLS 



Na 



GAM 



msc 



-COR 



-UID 



30 



101-1 



BESD 



PLA 



ns 



Me 



MISC 



~5T 



20 



FOR 

 L-NER 



SPI 

 t-OST 



HE2>HA1 

 La -CAL 



^CYA 

 DET 



POL 



Eh 



CLS 



BRA 



UID 



CLS 



Na 



GAM 



NER 



-AMP 



-COR 



1-UID 

 -MISC 



56 



FIGURE 5. — Ontogenetic comparisons in diet among the five most dominant species captured in this study. Sample size (stomachs 

 with food) appear below histograms, size increment (standard length) above. Prey designations are defined in Table 4. 



462 



