HOWARD, FEBRUARY 15, 1900. 47 



Summarizing this paper by Howard the following points might be 

 moutioncd: 



1. Howard received during the year 1899 a few samples of a 

 brood disease, principally tlu'ough JVfr. West, of New York State. 



2. Ho reported that the disease was a new one and gave to it the 

 name ''New York bee disease" or ''black brood." 



3. From the samples of the disorder he claims to have isolated 

 an organism to wliich he gave the name Bacillus milii. 



4. He made no description of "Bacillus milii" by wliich it is 

 possible to identify the organism positively. 



5. He claims tliat "Bacillus milii" is the cause of the disorder 

 wliich he studied, and in support of it he relates some experimental 

 work. 



6. He says that "Bacillus milii" may be accompanied by another 

 species, "Bacillus thoracis," wliich may assist in the destruction of 

 the brood. 



This concludes our consideration of three papers written by 

 William R. Howard. 



Re%aewing the \\Ti tings of Wilham R. Howard, one learns that 

 they have caused no small amount of confusion in the mmds of bee- 

 keepers respecting the brood diseases of bees. Howard claimed to 

 have found Bacillus alvei in that form of foul brood characterized by 

 a ropiness, and asserted that that organism is the cause of the disease. 

 He gave the name "pickled brood" to an apparent disorder of bees 

 which, he says, had often been mentioned in the writings of bee- 

 keepers. He asserts that this "pickled brood" is due to a fungus 

 to wliich he gave the name Aspergillus imUini. He called the disease 

 about wliich Chesliire and Cheyne had already written (p. 25), 

 "black brood." He declared the disorder to be due to a micro- 

 organism to which he gave the name Bacillus milii. The incomplete 

 description which Howard made of the species, however, does not 

 make it possible to identify such an organism. 



The authors of this paper have received some evidence, however, 

 as to the identity of Howard's Bacillus milii. Howard sent bouillon 

 and agar cultures of what he claimed was Bacillus milii to one of his 

 coiTespondents stating that it was possible that the culture was not 

 pure. Accompanying the cultures was a stained cover-glass prepara- 

 tion which he said was prepared fi'om the vegetative form of the 

 bacillus. The cultures, together with the stained preparation, 

 were forwarded to us. In the cultures was found only Bacillus alvei. 

 The stained preparation contained apparently only spores (not 

 vegetative forms), and as far as it is possible to know from a micro- 

 scopical examination these spores were the spores of Bacillus alvei. 

 Such facts should dispel any particular anxiety one might possess 

 concerning the existence of such an organism as Bacillus milii. 



