CONCLUSIONS 



Use of the habitat (no decompression) and rebreather (no bubbles) 

 allowed us to gather information in 17 days (a total of about 100 

 hours in the water for the two of us) that is comparable to that 

 published by Hobson (1965, 1968) based on 1200 hours underwater and 

 that published by Starck and Davis (1966) based on 100 night and 

 many more daytime dives. In addition, we can describe the change- 

 over in activity patterns in some detail. Data on the effects of 

 storm-caused turbidity could not have been gathered except for a 

 habitat. We are convinced that studying fish behavior from a 

 habitat with a rebreather is an important and effective way of solving 

 many ichthyological problems. Additional work on the changeover is 

 still needed and this work should include recording of available light 

 throughout the study period, 



LITERATURE CITED 



Hobson, Edmund S, 1965. Diurnal- nocturnal activity of some inshore 

 fishes in the Gulf of California. Copeia 1965 (3): 291-302. 



. 1968, Predatory behavior of some shorefishes in the Gulf of 



California. U.S. Fish. Wild. Serv. Res, Rept, 73, 92 pp, 



Starck, Walter A, II and William P, Davis, 1966, Night habits of 

 fishes of Alligator Reef, Florida, Ichthyologica, Aquar. 

 J. 38(4): 313-356, 



VI-260 



