On Map E. distribution is, of course, intended to mean estab- 
lishment. In a state so constantly and heavily stocked as Ohio, it is hard

to differentiate establishments from birds recently turned down. No pheas-

ants were counted as established which might have consisted of recently 
planted birds only. 
The most dependable evidence of establishment is, of course, 
survival for a term of years under hunting and without the help of new 
plants. Such evidence is never wholly clear in a state so widely and 
persistently planted as Ohio. Very few of the local observers consulted 
were willing to venture the statement that pheasants in Ohio would thrive

under hunting if plantings ceased. I consider this attitude to be sub- 
stantiated by the nature of the ground, at least as compared with Michigan

and Minnesota. Swamps are much less widely distributed in Ohio than in 
these states. As a result of the Game Survey in Michigan, Iowa, Minnesota,

and Ohio, it may now be said with some confidence that in the north cen-

tral states pheasants thrive only where they have swamps, or large fields

of standing uncut corn, or both. Ohio corn being usually cut, the fields

averaging small, and swamps being scarce, no heavy and resistant popula-

tions need be expected to prevail over large continuous areas. 
Pheasants and Glacial Soils. However, such a generalization 
is not a sufficient definition of pheasant range. Iowa has the right 
kind of corn all over the state, but no pheasants below the line of 
glacial drift soils except in the Missouri bottoms. Ohio seems to show 
a similar relation between pheasants and glacial drift. The only pheas- 
ants below the drift are in the swampy gravelly river bottoms. In some 
Of these bottoms like the Scioto (see Map Z.) they are very abundant. 
 
-23-