468 
Fishery Bulletin 107(4) 
Table 2 (continued) 
Prey taxon 
N 
O 
M 
%N 
%o 
%M 
%IRI 
Labridae 
2 
2 
29.5 
1.8 
1.3 
2.6 
0.5 
Pseudocheilinus tetrataenia 
1 
1 
1.7 
Stethojulis balteata 
1 
1 
27.8 
Monacanthidae 
15 
13 
52.5 
13.2 
8.2 
4.5 
12.6 
Pervagor aspricaudus 
2 
2 
19.5 
unidentified Monacanthidae 
13 
11 
33.0 
Mullidae 
3 
3 
40.3 
2.6 
1.9 
3.5 
1.0 
Unidentified Mullidae 
3 
3 
40.3 
Pomacanthidae 
1 
1 
19.8 
0.9 
0.6 
1.7 
0.1 
Centropyge potteri 
1 
1 
19.8 
Pomacentridae 
3 
3 
35.4 
2.6 
1.9 
3.1 
0.9 
Stegastes marginatus 
2 
2 
29.1 
unidentified Pomacentridae 
1 
1 
6.3 
Priacanthidae 
10 
8 
125.1 
8.8 
5.0 
10.8 
8.6 
Heteropriacanthus cruentatus 
9 
7 
122.2 
unidentified Priacanthidae 
1 
1 
2.9 
Scaridae 
12 
12 
319.0 
10.5 
7.5 
27.6 
25.1 
Calotomus carolinus 
1 
1 
72.0 
Scarus psittacus 
4 
4 
107.1 
unidentified Scaridae 
7 
7 
139.9 
Synodontidae 
1 
1 
41.6 
0.9 
0.6 
3.6 
0.2 
Saurida gracilis 
1 
1 
41.6 
Unidentified fishes 
85 
70 
250.4 
Crustaceans 
34 
29 
78.6 
15.5 
18.2 
5.5 
2.3 
Grapsidae 
1 
1 
9.0 
0.9 
0.6 
0.8 
0.1 
Plagusia depressa 
1 
1 
9.0 
Hippolytidae 
10 
10 
38.1 
8.8 
6.3 
3.3 
6.6 
Saron marmoratus 
10 
10 
38.1 
Portunidae 
2 
2 
12.0 
1.8 
1.3 
1.0 
0.3 
Charybdis hawaiensis 
1 
1 
10.6 
Charybdis paucidentata 
1 
1 
1.4 
Rhynchocinetidae 
1 
1 
0.3 
0.9 
0.6 
0.0 
0.0 
unidentified Rhynchocinetidae 
1 
1 
0.3 
Unidentified crustaceans 
20 
18 
19.2 
Subtotal (unidentified fishes and 
crustaceans excluded) 
114 
109 
1154.9 
100.0 
108.8 
100.0 
100.0 
Total (all prey items) 
219 
197 
1424.5 
Priacanthidae, Chaetodontidae, Aulostomidae, and Cir- 
rhitidae (Table 2). 
Oahu and Kona C. argus populations did not dif- 
fer significantly in either stomach vacuity rate (50.0% 
vs. 40.7%; chi-square test, n= 285, P=0.13) or relative 
stomach fullness (0.73% vs. 0.76% of own body M; f-test, 
n= 285: P=0.84). Both island populations also revealed 
the importance of fish prey in their diet (96.7% vs. 98.1% 
by %IRI ) and showed a similar overall dietary breadth 
(14 versus 18 families). In addition, the Scaridae, Acan- 
thuridae, and Priacanthidae were concurrently among 
the five most important prey families by %1RI for both 
islands (Table 3). Still, diet composition differed in 
several respects. Most importantly, the dominant prey 
family by %IRI in the diet of C. argus from Kona (Ho- 
locentridae) was not found in the diet of C. argus from 
Oahu, and vice versa, the dominant family in the diet 
of Oahu C. argus (Monacanthidae) was rare in the diet 
of C. argus from Kona. The only other family for which 
%IRI values differed by >5% was the Chaetodontidae, 
which was more important in the Kona than the Oahu 
diet. Balistidae and Mullidae were slightly more impor- 
tant in the Kona diet, and Pomacentridae, Cirrhitidae, 
and Synodontidae in the Oahu diet. For all remaining 
families, absolute %IRI values differed by <1% (Table 3). 
Cumulative prey curves for family-level analyses 
based on the overall (i.e., Oahu and Kona samples com- 
bined) and on the Kona sample showed strong asymp- 
