IN AN article published in the Nineteenth Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology in 1900, A. E. Jenks defined the wild rice district of the Upper Lakes and classified the tribes living within this area as wild rice gatherers. He also theorized that the high population density reported in the area northwest of Green Bay was based on the abundance of wild rice which grew there. Thus, Jenks' paper has stood for over half a century as an early example of an ecological study of native American groups, and has served as a guide for those ethnographers who later defined the cultural and ecological areas of native North America; notably, Kroeber (1939) and to a lesser extent, Wissler (1938; 1940). Since Jenks' publication, however, a great deal of historical material pertaining to the Great Lakes region has been made available. It will be the purpose of this paper to demonstrate that five of the Central Algonkin tribes included by Jenks in this area were not wild rice gatherers, and further, that the population concentration was not only recent but was a result of (1) French trading activities in the area, and (2) the pressure exerted on these tribes by the westward thrust of the Iroquois. Wild rice was important to a much smaller segment of the population than Jenks supposed.2 The wild rice gathering Indians are listed by Jenks (1900:1038) as the Siouan speaking Dakota, Winnebago, and Assiniboin; and the Central Algonkin speaking Ojibwa, Menomini, Sauk, Fox, Ottawa, Potawatomi, Mascouten, and Kickapoo. It is well substantiated that the Santee Dakota, Winnebago, Menomini, and some of the Ottawa, Assiniboin, and Ojibwa were wild rice gathers. However, the evidence for the Sauk, Kickapoo, Fox, Mascouten, and Potawatomi indicates they were not wild rice gatherers.3 In referring to the Fox and Sauk, Jenks (1900:1050) says, That they were producers of wild rice is unquestioned, but it is regretted that so little is known of them during the period when they must have depended largely upon the grain. He cites no references to support this statement. On the other hand, he makes it evident that the canoe is essential to a wild rice gathering economy (Jenks 1900:1061), but the Fox did not use the canoe as late as 1666 (Jesuit Relations Vol. 51:43; Vol. 54:223; Blair 1911a:20). Also, many sources mention the Fox's dependency upon the raising of Indian corn and hunting, but none of these mention wild rice (Jesuit Relations Vol. 51:43; Vol. 54:207, 223; Anonymous 1718:889). The Sauk used the canoe, so they cannot be discounted on this technicality. However, this may have been a recent acquisition, since they are noted as being very poor canoemen (Blair 1911:303). The Sauk, like the Fox, grew Indian corn and hunted (Jesuit Relations Vol. 54:207).