Pobranry 4, 18G9. 1 



JOOBNAL OF HOBTICULTUBB AND COTTAGE GARDENEB. 



93 



change itself iinder peculiar conditions of temperature and 

 moisture into Cryptococoua alvearis (as he terms it), foul-brood 

 fungus." He further says the fungus first attaches itself to the 

 larva, but in trifling quantity. It lives on, until, when in the 

 nymphoid state, it is killed by the " fungus multiplying pro- 

 digiously in geometrical progression, which also continues to 

 increase after the death and at the expense of the chrysalis, 

 which it ultimately changes entirely into itself." 



The theory of Dr. Preusa, who, besides being a scientific mi- 

 oroscopist, is an experienced apiarian, has attached to it the 

 weighty name of the distinguished entomologist M. Leuckart, 

 who, it appears, attributes, with Dr. Preuss, the worst kind of 

 foul brood to the presence of microscopic fungus. 



It is but right here to remark, that the fungoid theory is not 

 a new one to the readers of this Journal, and whatever credit 

 Dr. Preuss may be entitled to in respect to the views which he 

 has associated with it, yet the theory itself has been so far 

 anticipated by " G. F. 13., Spaldinei," who in a very interesting 

 article under date of September Ist, 1803, came to the con- 

 clusion, after having subjected portions of foul-brood combs to 

 microscopic examination, that whatever might be the anterior 

 cause, "the disease itself is the result of the action and pre- 

 sence of fungi. ' 



I may also recall the fact, that in an article of my own of 

 the 12th of January, 1864, when narrating the results of a 

 microscopic examination of foul brood which an eminent pro- 

 fessional gentleman undertook at my request and in my pre- 

 sence, I stated, that though he failed to detect, after the most 

 painstaking investigation, life of any kind in the putrescent 

 matter submitted to him, yet he discovered in some fermenting 

 honey innumerable fungi, beautifully interspersed throughout, 

 dotting the whole area of vision with numberless globular- 

 looking bodies corresponding to the fungi usually found in all 

 fermented liquors. 



Without pronouncing any decided opinion, however, npon 

 Dr. Preuss's fungoid theory, I would only say that it looks 

 highly feasible, and so far as my experience of the origin of 

 foul brood is concerned, is quite reconcileable therewith. 



As I have already stated, the point to which I principally 

 directed my attention hitherto in the discussion of foul brood, 

 was, How it originated. Now, it is very satisfactory to see, not 

 only from the observations before quoted of Baron von Ber- 

 lepsch, but now more particularly from those of Dr. Preuss, 

 that the opinions I then propounded as to the anterior cause of 

 foul brood, and which were at that time so strenuously op- 

 posed by almost all the apiarian writers in this Journal, have 

 the high sanction of Dr. Preuss in his fungoid theory. His 

 views are so nearly identical in some points with those I ex- 

 pressed in 18C3 4, that I may be pardoned quoting a sentence 

 or two. He says, " A particularly favourable soil (for the fer- 

 mentive fungu.s), is found in dead and mouldering larvae or 

 chrysalids ; and for this reason, if brood which has died from 

 cold or other causes be permitted to remain in the hive, it 

 may occasion virulent foul brood, without feeding with dele- 

 terious honey or such like." And again, " The removal of a 

 hive, by which too many bees are lost, and those remaining are 

 unable to foster the brood, may promote foul brood." And 

 again, " The multiplication of stocks by artificial means, by 

 which, when the proportion of bees to the brood is too small, 

 the latter may readily be chilled to death, is more favourable 

 to the outbreak of foul brood than natural swarming. We are, 

 therefore, very careful that dead brood, especially such as is 

 sealed over, should be removed as soon as possible from the 

 hive, and buried deep underground, since the fungus, which 

 may be already on it, readily grows luxuriantly in the open 

 air." 



lu the hiahly valuable remarks of your esteemed corre- 

 spondent, " E. S.," on Dr. Preuss's fungoid theory, with much 

 of which I entirely agree, I am also pleased to notice that his 

 views as to the origin of fonl brood seem now to be almost 

 identical with my own. In 18(')4 he stated, that though at first 

 inclined to believe with me, that foul brood might originate in 

 " chiU," yet from certain experiments then related by him, he 

 was constrained to say that — " 1st, Foul brood is a real disease, 

 and not caused by the brood getting chilled ; and, 2nd, It is 

 infections." In 1SG3, after an experience of two summers of 

 this peat, "R. S." expressed himself still more decidedly in 

 support of these views. Notwithstanding all this, however, 

 " R. S." has, ever since the commencement of the controversy, 

 with a commendable zeal worked earnestly and perseveringly, 

 by observation and experiment to discover, if possible, the 

 truth, aud we ha\e now the results of these summed up ia the 



following sentences, which I quote from the article above re- 

 ferred to (November I2th, 1808), " A putrescent body is, no 

 doubt, a fitting nidus for [fungusj sporules ; and I do think 

 that sealed-up larva\ dying from whatever cause, and continn- 

 ing nnremoved, have much to do with the introduction of the 

 foul-brood peat into our hives. It is in these putrescent bodies 

 I believe the germ of disease is to be found." And again, 

 "I have made several direct experiments with combs from 

 which I had extracted putrid brood, which had been allowed to 

 die of cold, and I have no hesitation in saying that healthy 

 hives were tainted by their introduction." It is but right to 

 state, that appended to these views ia the following caveat :— 

 " Notwithstanding all I have said, it is still possible that I 

 may have been making use of previously-infected combs, in 

 spite of the most painstaking examination." 



In endeavouring, then, to arrive at the sentiments of apiarian 

 writers as to the origin of foul brood, we find a growing belief 

 that to the existence of decayed, abortive, and dead larva; in 

 the cells, killed by cold or heat (a matter, I think, of imma- 

 terial consequence), we may often, at least, trace the origin of 

 foul brood. Bonner, though unable to satisfy himself, yet 

 supposed it might be owing to extreme cold. Huish could not 

 class " abortive brood " amongst the " actual diseases of bees," 

 yet regarded it as the " cause of the death of a number of bees, 

 if not the ruin of many hives, as it engenders a corrupted air 

 in the hive, which ia highly injurious to the bees." Baron 

 von Berlepsch says of chill, " nothing ia more likely " to ori- 

 ginate foul brood ; while Dr. Preuss especially, aa we have 

 already seen from his valuable paper, is most decided in his 

 opinions on this head. And then we have the opinions of 

 Mr. S. Bevan Fox and " AKenfuewshibe Beb-kebi'Eb" (will 

 the latter, especially, forgive me for classing him in this 

 friendly category?), and, lastly, the opinions of my esteemed 

 friend, "R. S.," the discoverer of Koehler's secret, referred to 

 by " M. J.," May 2ist, 1808, all more or less favouring the 

 views that the presence of dead larvae in any hive may give 

 rise to evils which, if not timeously removed, may eventually 

 terminate in extinction and ruin. 



Now, in conclusion, let ns assume it as a fact that fungi are 

 found in foul brood, as Dr. Preuss asserts, and that dead and 

 mouldering larva or chrysalids which have died of cold or 

 other causes, and permitted to remain in the hive unremoved, 

 ofiera "particularly favourable soil " for the introduction of 

 fungi; then, assuredly, we can see that foul brood originating 

 from this cause cannot be said to originate in disease at all, as 

 I all along contended, but from accident. Moreover, it it be 

 admitted as a scientific fact that fungus ia simply an effect 

 and not a cause of disease, then it is evident fungus cannot, 

 even in the moat virulent forms of foul brood, be its anterior 

 cause. But while it may be admitted further, that dead and 

 mouldering larva; do originate the foul-brood fungus, which 

 when once introduced proves so disastrous in its effects, how 

 are we to account for its introduction into other hives where 

 these anterior causes had no place ? Now, foul brood, though 

 not originating in disease, properly so called, yet once produced, 

 it may, by the putrescent miaama generated by it, so affect 

 healthy larvfE subjected to its influence, as to create disease, 

 the fungi finding in these affected or diseased larv.i) a fitting 

 soil, as well as in the case of dead larvas, for their growth and 

 propagation. Dr. Preuss himself, I think, acknowledgea this 

 view when he saya, " I should define the difierence made by 

 Dzierzon between non-contagious and virulent foul brood as 

 consisting in this — that noncontagious foul brood means the 

 death of the larva from other causes, and virulent foul brood 

 the death of the larva from foul-brood fungus." 



The same view, I think, may apply to the supposition of foul 

 brood being introduced independently of infection or the death 

 of the larva; from chill or neglect, such as by feeding with fer- 

 menting honey. Here, also, the larvie may become affected 

 and diseased by the deleterious food given them inducing the 

 fungi to make a aettlement in a soil equally suitable, it may be, 

 aa in the other caae, and, consequently, leading to the same fatal 

 results. 



I do not intend to do more than simply throw out these few 

 remarks with reference to Dr. Prenas's very interesting paper ; 

 for though I can myself see, according to the views I have here 

 indicated, how kis propositions may be reconciled and a con- 

 sistent theory established both as to the origin and propagation 

 of foul brood, yet I confess from my inexperience of its more 

 aggravated forms, I may not be coueidered competent to pro- 

 nounce authoritatively aa to its various phases and modes of 

 BotioD, regarding which I notice a conaiderable divergence oi 



