124 Game Survey of the North Central States 



First of all, it is necessary to dispose of the obvious question: Does the 

 north central region resemble the native home of these birds? 



The concensus of opinion is that the pheasant was not a native of Europe, 

 but was introduced from Asia Minor either by the Romans, or during early feudal 

 times. The native homes of the two pheasant species forming our hybrid stock 

 are the region of the Black Sea, and north China, respectively. The north central 

 region does not resemble either. It does, however, strongly resemble the north 

 European ranges in which the same hybrid is now successfully naturalized. A 

 close counterpart for our range of climate, cover, food and predators is found 

 within the European zone of naturalization. 



The European home of the Hungarian partridge extends from southern 

 Scandinavia to northern Italy and Asia Minor, including west Russia. Here 

 again the visible aspects of the environment offered by the north central States 

 have close counterparts in the home of the species. Most of our stock doubtless 

 came from Hungary, parts of which resemble the north central States in many 

 outward respects. 



The real question, however, is not so much whether the north central region 

 resembles Europe, but whether the localities in which plantings have been a suc- 

 cess in that region are visibly different from these in which plantings have been a 

 failure. 



If there are visible differences the survey failed to find them. A blindfolded 

 naturalist set down to look about in north central Indiana where Hungarians have 

 succeeded, could not distinguish the country from west central Indiana where 

 they have failed. North central Ohio is not visibly different from southeastern 

 Michigan, but Hungarians have failed in the former and are spreading of their 

 own accord in the latter region. In Iowa the only visible difference between the 

 zone of pheasant success in the north, and the zone of pheasant failure in the 

 south, is in the origin of the soil, which only a geologist or a soils expert would 

 be likely to detect. Neither is it possible to explain success or failure on the 

 basis of absolute latitude alone. Northeastern Iowa, where both species have 

 failed, has a considerably higher latitude than west central Ohio where both 

 have succeeded. Northern Missouri, where both have failed, has the same 

 latitude as north central Ohio, where pheasants at least have succeeded. 



When we say that success lies in a northern zone, and failure in a southern 

 zone, we admit of course a general latitudinal relationship. To offer this as a 

 "cause," however, simply changes the label of our enigma it does not explain it. 

 Through what mechanism does latitude work? Why does the zone of success 

 have, in some places, sharp edges which run north and south instead of east and 

 west? Latitude is no answer to these questions. 



Of all the visible factors of the environment, predators would seem to be 

 the most likely to display radical variations not easily detected in a casual ex- 

 amination of the country. Here again, however, it would seem likely that these 

 variations, if they actually determined success or failure, would form a patchy or 



