Bobwhite 37 



ous enough to give a true picture of quail abundance. Those for Michigan were 

 furnished by H. M. Wight, and part of those for Indiana by R. E. Yeatter. 



Even in Missouri, however, Map 6 undoubtedly errs in presenting a heavier 

 proportion of dense to sparse samples than actually exists on the ground, the rea- 

 son being, as already pointed out, that sportsmen are unfamiliar with poor ground. 

 There is also, no doubt, an unconscious tendency in all observers to tell about the 

 best, rather than the worst, that their locality affords. How much to discount the 

 map for these errors can only be guessed at. 



No discount for "fish stories" need be made. In Missouri only three out of 

 177 samples were rejected as obvious exaggerations. The utmost good faith was 

 apparent in the great majority of observers. 



The two following captions will attempt to interpret the meaning of Map 6 

 in the light of other information gathered during the survey. 



Analysis of Abundance Map. In order to more easily visualize the 

 meaning of the figures in Table 5, and in order to summarize their distribution 

 as shown in Map 6, Chart 1 has been prepared. This shows the frequency with 

 which the various density classes occur in various States, and for Missouri the fre- 

 quency with which they occur in various types. 



Let the non-mathematical layman not be gunshy of the term "frequency of 

 density classes." It means exactly what it says: how often the various densities 

 or grades of abundance occur, that is, which is the most frequent, next most fre- 

 quent, etc., and what are the highest and lowest grades of abundance which occur 

 at all. Averages, while they might appear simpler, are not worth much for meas- 

 uring stands of game which always run from good to poor. They do not tell the 

 frequency of the good and poor stands and are likely to be misleading. 



Chart 1 shows that two to four acres per quail is the most frequent density 

 when all of the samples in all of the States are put together. For the reasons 

 already pointed out, that is, lack of figures on poor ground, this figure represents 

 the most common condition on the good ground rather than in the region as a 

 whole. 



The graph shows that this is also the most common condition in Missouri 

 as a whole and in Indiana as a whole, but that in the Hill Belt of Missouri the 

 most frequent density is one class higher, namely, one to two acres per quail. 

 Clearly the Missouri hills are our best quail country. 



Michigan, on the other hand, has 8 to 16 acres per quail as its most frequent 

 density. 



Why Michigan and the Missouri hills are thicker and thinner, respectively, 

 than the region as a whole is readily seen by a glance at Map 6. 



Although Michigan quail are thinner, Map 6 shows that they are not as thin 

 as those of Wisconsin. Just why this should be is not clear, since the climates are 

 roughly similar. The fact that the Michigan dairy industry is less intensively 

 developed is the most probable reason. A greater scarcity of foxes is a much less 

 probable one. Both States are of course closed to quail hunting. 



