RNA content. Predictive power is therefore substantially improved by incorporating biochemical indices into growth models. In the various growth models I tested, CI was repeatedly selected as an independent variable with significant predictive power. Bjorndal et al. (2000) found a similar positive correlation between condition index and recent growth rates in wild green turtles. These findings are particularly interesting in light of criticisms of the use of ratio-based indices (Hayes and Shonkwiler 2001) and suggest that, at least for green turtles, the use of "body condition" as measured using Fulton's K (Ricker 1975) for predictive purposes is meaningful and appropriate. The growth model I developed fails to explain 32% of the variance in growth rates. A portion of this unexplained variability probably results from fairly large coefficients of variation for the biochemical assays I performed. This variation could potentially have been improved by measuring DNA and RNA concentrations from the same subsamples of tissue, but the nucleic acid isolation kits I used precluded me from doing so. Additionally, a number of nucleic acid quantification techniques are available (Caldarone et al. 2006), and it is possible that one of these techniques might have allowed for improved precision in measuring DNA and RNA content. The remaining unexplained variability in growth rate may result from a mismatch in the time scales over which the various indices in the model accurately detect changes in growth. As condition index relies on measurement of body mass (a result of tissue accretion) and body length (a result of bony growth), it most likely provides information about longer term growth processes than nucleic acid and protein concentrations, which presumably fluctuate over shorter time scales (Ferron and Leggett 1994). Because sacrificing wild green turtles to collect liver samples for measuring nucleic acid concentrations is not an acceptable practice, the multivariate model that best predicted recent