The study is mostly solid with respect to methods, the writing is good, and the authors make efforts to show the relevance to taxa outside of fishes. The big picture is to try to explain why some species, like the species studied here, are particularly vulnerable to some introduced species. They also offer a potentially mitigating possibility for managers of endangered species: head-starting that includes predator-recognition training. I have a few comments:

Title: Although I generally enjoy witty titles, I’m not sure that this one adds anything

62: At this early point in the paper, you should specify “predatory” diet cues. What is meant by “lack the ability to detect and avoid predation events as they happen”? I think all of this is in reference to the lack of ability to respond to epidermal alarm cues, which indicate an close by and recent predation event. Of course, fish can use visual, lateral line, or social cues to “detect and avoid predation events as they happen.

79ish: It is important that we know a little more about who these fish are and how they live. What is the superorder (since many people interested in chemical alarm cues are familiar with the Superorder Ostariophysi, should know that these fish are not in that Superorder). What other closely related fish (family?) are known to have alarm cues? What is the structure of the community where these fish live. You told us there are no bass—what about other predatory fish? That is are they Bass naïve or Piscivore-naïve? What other predators are likely there—aquatic insects, wading birds, etc.

83: Since mosquitofish are piscivorous, I’m not sure why you are mentioning here since the context is coexistence with predators.

123: Suboski 1990 didn’t demonstrate “near permanent” association between these two cues since it was a short-term study.

171-172: To rule out the possibility of the fish just responding to any new scent that is in the water, you should include a third treatment—something that is smelly (unlike the water control) but that is not considered a threat. Since you didn’t do this, you need to explain why you think that the response you saw was specific to the conspecific alarm cue.

201+: Did you confirm that each bass at a prey fish?

216: Change to “appeared to behave naturally