Abstract: The three-dimensional structure of schools of saithe (Pollachius virens) and the interactions between individuals over time were analyzed in 12,240 frames of videotape sampled at 2.7 Hz. Time series analyses of the interactions between identified individuals allowed testing of assumptions of anonymity vs. leadership in schools and investigation of the transfer of information between individuals by which collective decisions are made. Results include the following:1.Saithe match changes in both swimming direction and speed of their neighbors but correlations are greater for swimming speed. Average speed of the school does not greatly affect correlations between neighboring fish although the reaction latencies may be somewhat increased. As shown previously (Partridge et al. 1980) nearest neighbor distance (NND) decreases with increasing school velocity.2.Saithe simultaneously match the headings and swimming speeds of at least their first two nearest neighbors within the school (NN1 and NN2). Partialling out the correlation between a fish's neighbors demonstrates that a fish's correlation to his second nearest neighbor (NN2) is not simply a transitive function of mutual correlation between the NN1 and NN2.3.Several sources of individual variation in schooling performance were examined. In all respects except one, that of preferred positions within the school, saithe showed no individual differences, i.e., some were not “better schoolers” than others. Although fish in the school differed in length by up to a factor of 2.5, no size related effects in NND or nearest neighbor positioning were found.4.Single Linkage Cluster Analysis (SLCA) of the cross-correlations of fishs' swimming speeds and directions demonstrated quantitatively the existence of subgroups within schools if they contain more than 10-11 members. Subgroups acting more-or-less independently in terms of short term variations in speed and direction nonetheless remained within the school as a whole and were not often apparent to observers since members of one group interdigitated with those of another. How individuals know to which subgroup they belong remains unanswered.