Ophiuroids were frequently consumed but were 

 usually represented in stomachs by small arm 

 fragments. 



Small (1-100 mm SL) tomtate had a diet domi- 

 nated numerically by very small crustaceans (cope- 

 pods) and volumetrically by fishes and decapods 

 (Table 2). Amphipods were most abundant prey tax- 

 on for 101-150 mm tomtate and polychaetes made up 

 the greatest volume of food. Large (151-200 mm SL) 

 tomtate primarily consumed pelecypods, which were 

 the most abundant taxon, and cephalochordates, 

 which were abundant in the diet and made up the 

 greatest prey volume. 



Many hard bottom invertebrates that were abun- 

 dant in suction samples at inner and middle shelf 

 sites were not important in the diet of tomtate (Table 

 3). Of the eight dominant hard bottom invertebrate 

 species, only two (the polychaete Chone americana 

 and the corophoid amphipod Erichthonms brasili- 

 ensis) at inner shelf sites and one (the caprellid 

 amphipod Luconacia incerta) at middle shelf sites 

 made up a greater percentage of the diet than they 



did of benthic samples. On the other hand, inverte- 

 brates that were common in stomachs were general- 

 ly not abundant in benthic samples and electivity 

 values were usually positive. 



Tomtate are apparently not completely dependent 

 on hard bottom habitat for prey. Some of the most 

 abundant prey species are pelagic (e.g., brachyuran 

 megalopae, copepods). Most benthic prey are in- 

 faunal species that are restricted to soft sediments. 

 Amnandia maculata, a dominant prey species on the 

 inner shelf, is a deposit-feeding polychaete that bur- 

 rows in soft sediments (Fauchald and Jumars 1979). 

 Ervilia concentrica, an important prey species on 

 the middle shelf, was not collected at any of the 1 1 

 hard bottom stations. This bivalve is common in soft 

 sediments (Porter 1974). The cephalochordate 5rar^ 

 chiostoma caribaeum, a common prey species on the 

 middle shelf that was very rare in benthic samples, is 

 also an infaunal sand bottom species (Hildebrand and 

 Schroeder 1928). Thus, a large portion of the prey of 

 Haemulon aurolineatum are not hard bottom epi- 

 faunal species, suggesting that tomtate are not 



Table 2. — Percent frequency occurrence (F), percent number (N), and percent volume (V) of higher tax- 

 onomic groups of food in the diet of Haemulon aurolineatum, by length interval. 



Length Intervals (mm SL) 



Prey taxon 



Algae 



Cnidaria 



Hydrozoa 



Anthozoa 

 Turbellaria 

 Annelida 

 [ylollusca 



Gastropoda 



Pelecypoda 



Cephalopoda 

 Arthropoda 



Pycnogonida 



Copepoda 



Stomatopoda 



Mysidacea 



Cumacea 



Tanaidacea 



Isopoda 



Amphipoda 



Decapoda 

 Sipunculida 

 Bryozoa 

 Echinodermata 



Echinoidea 



Ophiuroidea 

 Chaetognatha 

 Chordata 



Cephalochordata 



Pisces 



Number of stomachs examined: 

 Examined stomachs with food: 

 Mean length of fish v*/ith food (mm SL): 

 Length extremes in interval (mm SL): 



464 



