162 
BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF FISHERIES. 
Two fish were identified as Opisthonema oglinum (LeSueur) . They were both 
about 8 cm. long and were removed from fishes 16 and 17 cm. in length. The rest 
of the fish remains were beyond identification. The two smallest specimens had 
eaten only schizopodous forms. In all cases only one kind of food was found in a 
stomach. 
The following discussion of the food of the squeteague is taken from an 
unpublished report, “The Food of the Squeteague, Cynoscion regalis (B. andS.), 
at Beaufort, N. C.,” by Selig Hecht and William J. Crozier. 
This study of the food of the squeteague was made at the laboratory of the 
United States Bureau of Fisheries, at Beaufort, N. C., during July and August, 
1912. Eigenmann (1901, p. 45) and Peck (1896, p. 351), writing from Woods 
Hole, Mass., describe the food of young squeteague as consisting entirely of shrimp 
and young fish (silversides, alewives, etc.). Peck tabulates the stomach contents 
of squeteague taken from the fish traps, showing that fishes, especially menhaden 
( Brevoortia tyrannus ) , butterfish ( Poronotus triacanthus) , and herring are its staple 
articles of diet and that scup, squid, and shrimp are also eaten. Tracy (1910, 
p. 132) notes that squeteague taken in traps in Narragansett Bay had Fundulus 
and small shore fishes in their stomachs. Linton (1905, p. 384) examined the 
stomachs of 45 squeteague taken at Beaufort and reports the finding of shrimp, 
fish, and annelids in 3 small specimens, and a preponderance of fish, together with 
large shrimp, crabs, seaweed, broken shells, and lamellibranchs, in the larger ones. 
Table 6 contains the results of the examination of the stomachs of 382 sque- 
teague taken from the pound net operated by the laboratory. It may be objected 
that when confined in a net in company with numerous other fishes the squeteague 
are subjected to abnormal feeding conditions. Although it is true that many 
menhaden, for example, were found in the net at times when menhaden were found 
in the stomachs of certain squeteague, there were, however, always numbers of the 
hairy-back ( Opisthonema oglinum ) and of other species of a size, at least, appropriate to 
the requirements of the squeteague. Yet, only a single hairy-back was taken from 
the stomach of a weakfish during the entire season. In addition to this, it may be 
pointed out that the remains of various fishes were identified among stomach con- 
tents in such a state of digestion as to make it almost a certainty that the meal 
had been ingested previous to the capture of the fish in the pound, at most 24 hours 
previously. As Riddle (1909, p. 447) has shown for Amiatus, and as Weinland 
(1901) found for the dogfish, torpedo, and ray, digestion is an extremely prolonged 
process in fishes. Van Slyke and White (1911), in a study of protein digestion in 
the smooth dogfish, Mustelus canis, report that between two and three days are 
required for the complete digestion of a meal of finely chopped beef, which presents 
no such obstacles to digestion as scales, bones, etc. There is no reason to suppose 
that the process is much faster in teleosts. We infer, therefore, that the fishes 
examined represent as close an approximation to the normal as is possible under 
working conditions. 
