60 HISTORICAL NOTES ON BEE DISEASES. 



tures were made from the larv.se before feeding and after feeding. 

 Bacillus alvei did not appear on the plates made before the colony had 

 been fed the culture, while many appeared on those made after the 

 cultures were fed. The culture therefore reached the larvae and no 

 disease resulted. While the negative results of these few experiments 

 were not sufficient to disprove an etiological relation between Bacillus 

 alvei and foul brood, it did cause those doing the work to question the 

 experimental results which others had reported. 



The samples of American foul brood which were received and 

 examined were labeled "foul brood." Six of the seven samples of 

 this disease received gave no growth when cultures were made. 

 Concerning the bacteriological findings in this disease the following 

 is written: 



Stained cover glass preparations made from the dried dead larvse contained large 

 numbers of spores, but they failed to grow in any of our media. 



Since the spores which were found in such large numbers in the 

 larvse dead of this disease would not grow, no inoculation of healthy 

 brood was attempted. The samples of this disease did not show, 

 on examination^ the presence of Bacillus alvei. This at once sug- 

 gested the fact that the disease is not the one studied by Cheyne as 

 foul brood. 



A study of five samples of the so-called pickled brood gave 

 practically negative results both microscopically and culturally. 

 The point to be noted here is that no fungus was found in this dis- 

 order corresponding to the one described by Howard (p. 42) as 

 Aspergillus poUini. This fact very naturally suggested the proba- 

 bility that Howard had made another error in the determination of 

 the cause of a brood disease. 



The report included the study of brood from only three healthy 

 apiaries. In samples taken from two of them, Bacillus alvei was not 

 found, while a sample from the third apiarj^ which was thought to be 

 healthy but m a diseased district, showed the presence of Bacillus 

 alvei in considerable numbers. 



The following facts were learned in the investigations just reviewed: 



1. At least two infectious diseases affecting the brood of bees 

 exist. This fact had been known, however, for some time by the 

 inspectors of apiaries of New York State, and by Dzierzon (p. 18) 

 and many others years before. 



2. Howard had erroneously reported European foul brood to be a 

 new disease, which he named the "New York bee disease" or "black 

 brood.'' 



3. To produce foul brood in a healthy colony by feeding cultures 

 of Bacillus alvei was by no means easy. 



