extreme in minimizing their iwortanoe. It is perfectly 
conceivable to me that a man fed on lettuce, coffee, oorn- 
bread, sugar and mustard or any one of or combination of 
several other perfectly gooM foods might show loss of 
weight and vigor without in any way nroving a lack of value 
of the same foods in combination with other things. 
However, I do not profess cometency in nassing 
on the conclusions drawn snd have suggested that Errington 
forward his final draft of the manuscript ( he requested 
me not to send on the nreliminary draft) to Washington 
for reading and criticism by Mr. McAtee. Er-ington was 
reluctant to aee to this, saparently fearing delay, but 
I informed him such submission of manuscrpts was a nart 
of the University-Biological Survey agreements. I under- 
stand he will sutbit the manuscript upon its comletion. 
In this connection I wish to renort a very notice- 
able and apparently growing tendency to discount the inter- 
pretation of stomach analyses which have been made and 
are made by the Survey, not only in Wisconsin but here and 
there around the country. This,apparently, is due in part 
to the various nutritional theories which have been ad- 
vanced in an attemt to exr)lain pheasant and Hungarian 
partridge failureS. I mention it in the present report 
because it seems an optitune time for a statement of what 
stomach analyses really indicate, and for a statement of 
what experimental work in necessary to check the laboratory 
analyses. 
Erors in a Former     rt of Mine. Errington has nointed 
out thai in a ormer re,    I stated definitely that he had 
used the predator-to-quail approach and not the .uail-to- 
predator a"nroaoh in connection tith a part of his nroIlem 
whereas, as a matter of fact, he has used both. He nartic- 
ularly states that his winter observations of isolated coveys 
of quail, with systematio and peiodio counts of In ividnals 
and an attemot to locate the agencies responsible for winter 
mortality, constitute a quail-to-predator approach. This 
is certainly correct and I acknowledge the error. 
Also called to my attention was my statement in a 
former rerort that the Wisconsin Fellowhip Study was the 
most local of the several investigLtions -ith which the Survey 
is cooperating. Errington stated that in his o-inion the 
Cooperative Quail Investigation was even more local thdu 
his own study, and that Aldo Leopold agrees that this was 
the case.  I had also stated in the report that I did not 
consider the Wisconsin study was representv   of all the 
 
-2-