pletely intcrmcdiato that they cannot ho ideiitifiofl 

 as hcloiitriiic: to either of the component races. 



THE PLAN 



The distribution of eacii species of galHnaccous 

 game bird that has an estabhshed range either 

 wholly or partly within the United States is shown 

 on a separate ma[). This shows the all-time range 

 of the species as determined from all records avail- 

 able to us. The distribution of races is indicated 

 by different patterns on the map. For species 

 that presently have much different limits to their 

 distribution than they formerly had, separate maps 

 are included to show present range as compared 

 with that at some time in the past. 



A description of the habitat occupied by each 

 species is included to help in understanding the 

 limitations of distribution. ' 



METHODS 



The distribution maps are based in large degree 

 upon the authors' studies of geographic variation 

 within each species. Tliese studies consisted in 

 comparing large series of specimens in the National 

 collections in Washington. These series of speci- 

 mens were supplemented by l)orrowing critical 

 material from museums tiu-oughout the United 

 States and Canada. Tliere is difl'erence of opinion 

 about the distinctness of certaui races, but the 

 differentiations lierein presented seemed to us to 

 show geograpiiic variations in the most logical 

 waj', especially when compared with environ- 

 mental or ecological clifferences in ranges. Cui'- 

 rent methods of indicating geographic variation 

 within species by trinomial "scientific names" are 

 crude at best, but it is the only conmionly acceptetl 

 method. The races separated on the maps are 

 identified by legends giving the tiiird or subspecific 

 terms of the trinomials. 



The localiti(>s of all specimens identified by us 

 are shown by solid dots on tlie maps. Open circles 

 denote occurrences reported in the literature and 

 in correspondence. No effort was made to include 

 all occurrence records, i)ut only those tliat helped 

 to fill gaps in ranges from which we liad not per- 

 sonally seen specinuMis. 



Preliminary maps showing the distiibutioii of 

 these species, as far as we were able to work thcni 

 out, were sent to the game departments of all 

 States and Canadian Provinces, as well as to indi- 

 viduals tliought to have special knowledge of dis- 

 triliution in the less well dclined areas. 'I'hese 



persons were also requested to supply information 

 on habitats occupied. The cooperation received 

 from these sources was good and helped greatlj- to 

 draw the distribution limits more accuratelv. 

 This was particularly important with respect to 

 present distribution and local liabitats occupied. 



ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 



The followiTig supplied valuable advice on 

 preparation of maps and liabitat descriptions: 



O. A. Ammann, Michigan Department of Conservation; John M. Allen, 

 Indiana Department of Conservation; Lester Hagley, Wyoming Game and 

 Fish Commission; Thomas S. Basketl. Missouri Cooperative Wildlife Re- 

 search Unit; U. A. Benson. Nova Scotia Department of Lands and Forests; 

 William R. Bergeson, Montana Game and Fish Commission; Pierce Brod- 

 korb, University of Florida; John L. Buckley, .\laska Cooperative Wildlife 

 Research Unit; Ralph G. Carpenter, 2d, New Hampshire Fish and Game 

 Department; Floyd B. Chapman. Ohio Department of Natural Resources; 

 John Chattin. Fish and Wildlife Service; D. M. Christisen. Missouri Con- 

 servation Commission; Jim Coats, Kansas Forestry, Fish, and Game Com- 

 mission; P. M. Cosper, Arizona Game and Fish Commission; H. T. J. Cramer 

 Wisconsin Conservation Department; T. Stuart Critcher. North Carolina 

 Wildlife Resources Commission; Paul D. Dalke, Idaho Cooperative Wildlife 

 Research l^nit; Geo. W. Davis, \'ermont Fish and Game Commission; 

 L. Irby Davis, Harlingen, Tex.; E. W. Dahlgren, Oklahoma rjame and Fish 

 Department; Eugene H. Dustman, Ohio Cooperative Wildlife Research 

 l^nit; Arnold B. Erickson, Minnesota Department of Conservation; 0. E. 

 Frye, Jr., Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission; Larry R. Gale, 

 Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources; D. R. Gasco>"ne, 

 Fish and Wildlife Service; John C. Gatlin, Fish and Wildlife .Service; William 

 E. Oinn, Indiana Department of Conservation; W. Earl Godfrey. National 

 Museum of Canada; Clifton M. Greenhalgh, Utah Fish and Game Com- 

 mission; Gordon W. Gullion, Nevada Fish and Game Commission; W. J. K. 

 Harkness, Ontario Department of Lands and Forests; T. A. Harper, .Sas- 

 katchewan Department of Natural Resources; R. D. Harris, Canadian Wild- 

 life Service; J. Hatter, British Columbia Game Commission; Arnold O. 

 Haugen. .\labama Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit; C. O. Hi.xon, Ala- 

 bama Department of Conservation; T. H. Holder. Arkan.sas Game and Fish 

 Commission; Carl Hunter, Arkansas Game and Fish Commission; Neil 

 Hotchkiss, Fish and Wildlife Service; Albert E. Hyder, Tennessee Game and 

 Fish Commission; J. H. Jenkins, University of Georgia; William S. Jennings, 

 Texas Game and Fish Commission; Ferd C. Kleinschnitz, Colorado Game 

 and Fish Commission; Roger M. Latham, Penmsylvania Game Commission; 

 J. Burton Lauekhart, Washington Department of Game; Levon Lee. New 

 Mexico Department of Game and Fish; A. Starker Leopold. University of 

 California; Jessop B. Low, Utah Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit; Alex- 

 ander C. Martin, Fish and Wildlife Service; W. V. Masson. Oregon Game 

 Commission Donald D. McLean. California Departmi^nt of Fish and Game; 

 Howard L. Mendall, Maine Cooperative Wildlife Research I'nit; Wilford 

 L. Miller, North Dakota Game and Fish Department; Paul Moore, Ohio 

 Department of Natural Resources; Henry S. Mosby, Virginia Cooperative 

 Wildlife Research Unit; Russell E. Mumford, Indiana Department of Con- 

 servation; David Munro, Canadian Wildlife Service; .\rnold Nelson, Fish 

 and Wildlife Service; Frank P. Nelson, South Carolina Wildlife Resources 

 Department; Johnson Nefl, Fish and Wildlife Service; Alex J. Reeve, Mani- 

 toba Department of Mines and Natural Resources; Chandler S. Bobbins. 

 Fish and Wildlife Service; W. R. Salt, University of Alberta; Robert L. 

 Salter, Idaho Department of Fish and Game; J. Henry Sather, Nebraska 

 Game, Forestation, ami Parks Commission; William O. Sheldon. Massa- 

 chusetts Cooi)erative Wildlife Research Unit; Eldon H. Smith, South Dakota 

 Department of Game, Fi.sh, and Parks; Ralph H. Smith. New York Con- 

 servation Department; L. L. .Snyder. Royal Ontario .Museum; Lyle K. 

 Sowls, Arizona Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit; E. B. Speaker, Iowa 

 Conservation Commission- Paul Springer, Fi.sh and Wildlife Service; A. M. 

 Stebler, Oklahoma Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit; W. E. Stevens, 

 Northwest Territories Northern Administralion and Lands Branch; Robert 

 E Stewart, Fish and Wildlife Service; Harold V, Terrill, Missouri Conserva- 

 lion Commission; DonaM R, Thompson, Wisconsin Conservation Depart- 

 ment; Ernest A. Vaughn. .Maryland Department of Game and Inland Fish; 

 Oscar Warbach. Michigan Department of Conservation; Angus M. Wood- 

 bury University of Utah; Lee E. Yeager. Colorado Cooperative Wildlife 

 Keseareh Unit an.l R. E. Veatter, Illinois Natural History Survey Division. 



