PARASITISM AND DISEASE IN WILD GROUSE 415 



Examination of over 300 Adirondack region grouse which were old enough to show stomach 

 worms, revealed the presence of this parasite in only four cases. All four of these birds were 

 collected on the periphery, two on the northwest boundary adjoining the St. Lawrence valley, 

 and two on the southeast boundary adjoining the Hudson and Lake Champlain watersheds. 

 None was found in the Adirondack interior. It has been reported that infections with this 

 worm are contracted by eating sow bugs. Specimens of the latter (Porcellio scaber) have been 

 found in the crop contents of grouse chicks from this region, so it would appear that it is not 

 the absence of this intermediate host which accounts for the negative findings. 



The croj) worm was found only in the counties bordering on the Hudson River. Allen and 

 Gross" reported it oidy from New F^tigland and Columbia County. New York, while Cram^ 

 reported that the infection of quail with these worms was quite localized. Sinte this is one 

 of the parasites which has also been reported from poultry, it is of interest to note that it is 

 seldom encountered in chickens in New York. Beaudette" reported only two cases in almost 

 ten thousand autopsies of New Jersey poultry. 



Relation of Other Animal Diseases to Grouse 



Speculation c<jncerning the relation of other animals to disease and parasitism in grouse was 

 provoked l)y the results of early attempts at hand-rearing, when domestic chickens were used 

 as foster mothers. Records of the association of grouse with other wild birds has led to similar 

 coiijcrlure, as has the discovery that they are susceptible to certain diseases which also occur 

 in manunals. 



Poultry Diseases in Grouse 



When attempts were first made to rear rulTcd grouse in captivity, a number of observers 

 presented evidence that the birds were commonly afflicted with diseases of domestic fowls. 

 It was thought that their association with chickens might be a factor in "grouse disease". There 

 is consideral)le truth in this view when it is applied to artificially propagated birds, since it 

 is probably |)ossible to transmit the majority of j)oultry diseases to grouse under experimental 

 conditions. 



As early as ]i582"" fowl cholera was mentioned as a destroyer of ruffed grouse in Illinois but 

 it was not until 1930 that Green and Shillinger"" reported the actual idenlilication of tliis dis- 

 ease in wild grouse. Though air-sac mites were contracted from chickens during tlu' period 

 when arlificiallv propagated grouse were "range reared", this infection has never been encount- 

 ered in wild birds. 



Since the early work on grouse rearing, observations on certain conditions which were at- 

 tributed to association with poultrv have failed to reveal direct connections in a number of 

 cases. The large intestinal roundworm of grouse, which was for years reported as Ascaridia 

 liiieata, the roundworm of the fowl, has lately been shown to be a distinct species, Ascaridia 

 boiiasae, and the cecal worm in the grouse, re])orted often as Heterakis gallinae or //. vesica- 

 laris by the early workers, has also been shown to be different (Heterakis bonasae). Infection 

 with the proventricular roundworm (Dispharynx spiralis) is so rare in chickens that it can 

 scarcely be considered a poultry parasite. The tapeworm (Davainea proglottina) has been 

 found in wild grouse in Labrador in localities where no poultry has ever existed, though this 

 worm is generally considered to be a parasite of domestic fowls. Though Allen" recorded white 

 diarrhea in hand-reared grouse chicks, subsequent tests for pullorum disease were negative and 

 this condition was regarded as associated with faultv brooding or nutrition. 



