A study of winter use of the staminate flower buds of quaking and bigtooth aspen (Populus tremuloides and P. grandidentata) by ruffed grouse (Bonasa umbellus) on an area in a northern Minnesota boreal forest shows a significant (P < 0.05) preference for the male flower buds of qualQing over bigtooth aspen for 4 out of the 8 years of the study. Preferences for quaking aspen over paper birch (Betula papyrifera) were highly significant (P < 0.01). Aspen utilization varied according to soil type; ratios of occurrence:use indicated that trees on peat soil were used most heavily. Based on their representation in the forest, trees in the 16to 25-year-age-class were used significantly less (P < 0.01 ) for feeding than was expected. Close agreement existed between observed mean feeding periods of 15.S minutes determined by radiotelemetry and our calculated value of 16.2 minutes based on crop volume, bud size, and observed feeding rates. During the winters of 196647 and l9S8 69, when snow accumulation was average or above, frequency of arboreal feeding observations ranged from none (March 1967) to 0.09 bird per mile (November-December 1968). During winters characterized by soft powdery snow, or below normal accumulations of snow, or poor production of hazel (Corylus cornuta) catkins, or a combination of these snow conditions and poor production of hazel catkins, arboreal feeding was more prevalent, with frequency values of 0.25 bird per mile (March 1968) to 0.30 bird per mile (January-February 1968). Aspen provides not only an abundant, reliable, and highly nutritious winter food resource for ruffed grouse, but it can be readily managed as an important wood fiber resource. cies of aspen, quaking and bigtooth, which are abundant in this area. The objective of the present paper is to examine the nature of winter feeding habits of ruffed grouse and to document preferential use of certain quaking aspen over offier available hardwoods. The exploitation of these preferences in derreloping a ruffed grouse management program has been described by Gullion (1972). Drs. A. C. Hodson, Head, and W. H. Marshall, Professor, respectively, Department of Entomology, Fisheries, and Wildlife, University of Minnesota, gave strong support to this program and Dr. B. A. Brown, Superintendent of the Cloquet Forestry Center, College of Forestry, University of Minnesota provided accommodations for this project. Botanical nomenclature is based on Gleason and Cronquist ( 1963 ) . In a recent paper, the significance of some studies of food habits of game birds was questioned, and observations concerning the feeding behavior of ruffed grouse in the vicinity of Cloquet, Minnesota, were cited as an example of selective or preferential feeding in certain tees by these biids (Gullion 1966a). The example cited is the use of staminate flower buds of the two spe1 Paper 7980 Scientific Journal Series, Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station, St. Paul. This paper reports progress on the Forest Wildlife Relations project of the Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station, the Department of Entomology, Fisheries, and Wildlife, in cooperation with the College of Forestry, University of Minnesota, and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Division of Game and Fish. Earlier phases of the study were supported by Federal Aid to Wildlife Restoration funds as Minnesota Project W-35-R; the radiotelemetry work cited was made possible by National Science Foundation Grants GS-8644, O17858, and GO1345.