formed less than 1 percent of the total food of the deer. Field observa- 
n3 would indicate that tni s dogwood was probably red-osier (C. st .1. 
ifera ) . as it is the most common species in this area that would be avail- 
able above deep snows. Its low use by deer sight be interpreted I an 
that it is uncommon or unpalatable, but neither is the case. I . .ecies 
is moderatoly common in the areas wh .e winter stomachs were collected 
and had been browsed hoavily by deer. Although it i6 one of I vored 
deer foods, the available supply was small and was removed early in the 
p, before the stomachs representing this study were collected. 
Species of the rose family (Rosaceae) rere found la 27 perc< 
of the fall and 4 percent of the winter stomachs and formed 3 pe: 
by volume of the former and less than 1 percent of the latter. The family 
was represented by raspberry, cherry, strawberry, rose, and spiraea. 
Club mosses, lichens, and fungi combined were found in 35 percent 
of the fall stomachs and represented 2.2 percent of the volume eaten. In 
the winter series one occurrence of lichen represents this gre . 
Grasses (G-ramineae) appeared in 27 percent of the fall and 23 perce I 
of the wir.tor stomachs and formed 2 percent of the volume in each seri<. . 
Sedges (Cypcraceae) were found in only ono fall stomach. 
All the foods found in the examined stomachs (including eaten 
la too small a quantity to form 1 percent by volume) are listed in table 1. 
Some of the stomach contents were too finely masticated for positive 
identification, and these were divided into two groups: Items that could 
be identified only as seed plants (angiosporms) , which formed 10.7 percent 
of the fall and 3.5 percent of the winter food, and other unidentified items, 
which formed 3 percent of the winter food. 
FIELD QBSEWAIIOHS 
1/ 
. feeding experiments in Michigan showed that white codar is the 
only native browse that fed alone will support deer in winter. To supply I 
required nutrients, all other browse species had to be fed in larger quanti- 
ties and in combination with cedar or with a variety of other plants. The 
results of the experiments emphasize the difficulties faced by deer la winter. 
only is food in general more scarce at that season, but with most of the 
white cedar gone, other foods must be found in greater quantit; . 
Reduction in the variety of food available in winter is indicated, 
as shown in table 1, by the contents of the deer stomachs on vrhich thll 
study is based. Necessarily, therefore, the deer had to eat larger quanti- 
ties c species available at that time, and if the nutritional value of 
Be foods was less, the quantity needed to sustain life might be greatly 
4/ See footnote 3, page 2. 
- 4 - 
