PRESENT STATUS OF INVESTIGATION OF BEE DISEASES. 25 
the fungus multiplies, and gives an elaborate calculation of the number that 
might be found in a cell containing a deceased larva. 
As might have been expected, Preuss’s statement aroused considerable dis- 
cussion at the meeting of German bee-keepers a short while after the publication 
of his paper. 
Vogel (Bienen Zeitung, Nos. 21 and 22) expressed doubt as to whether 
C. alvearis was the real cause of foul brood or only a consequence of the disease, 
but on the whole agreed with Preuss. 
Wiegand (Bienen Zeitung, Nos. 21 and 22) agreed with Preuss’s theory, and 
in giving his experience said that the disease was introduced into his apiary 
through honey brought from a distance. 
Pollman (Bienen Zeitung, Nos. 21 and 22) believed that the disease was intro- 
duced by feeding honey from Havannam, where, when extracting the honey, 
both brood and honeycomb were mashed up and the honey pressed out. 
Doctor Leuckhart (Bienen Zeitung, Nos. 21 and 22) agreed with those who 
thought the disease due to a fungus, but discredited the supposition that it was 
the same as the fermentation fungus mentioned by Preuss, and rather thought 
it was related to the silkworm fungus and that most of the brood diseases 
ending in death were called “foul brood,” while they were really something 
else. He believed that the fungus was present in the eggs of the queen when 
laid. 
Geilen (Bienen Zeitung, Nos. 21 and 22) believed that the disease came from 
the putrefying remains of animal bodies upon which the bees alighted, 
Muhlfeld (Bienen Zeitung, 1869, No. 3) again, in 1869, presented his former 
views and also those of Preuss and gave directions for maintaining the health 
of bees. He recommended the boiling of the honey and a use of carbolic acid 
in the strength of 1: 100, or permanganate of potash 1: 300, as disinfectants. 
Lambrecht (Bienen Zeitung, 1870, No. 2.) thought that foul brood was caused 
by fermentation of the bee bread. 
Hallier (Bienen Zeitung, 1870, No. 2) considered it no specific disease, but 
thought it was probably produced by different fungi. 
Cornallia (Bienen Zeitung, 1870, No. 5) proved contrary to the above and 
found a fungus which he thought developed foul brood. He called it Crypto- 
coccus alvearis and used carbolic acid, potassium permag, and lime water as 
disinfectants. 
Fisher (Bienen Zeitung, 1871, pp. 105-125) advanced a new foul-brood theory 
in 1871, which somewhat follows the view of Liebig regarding the silkworm 
disease and plant diseases. According to this theory, the predisposing cause 
was insufficient nourishment, especially short stores for winter and spring. 
Shortage of pollen supply was the next cause. Fisher tried to prove his views 
by the practical experience of bee keepers and explained that the first result of 
repeated and continued feeding was an increase in the production of bees; and 
a consequent disproportion between brood and brood feeders arose, which should 
be looked upon as another cause of foul brood. The disease, he said, might be 
lessened or exterminated by applying means to reduce the production of brood, as 
the removing of the queen and the area which the brood occupied. Foul brood 
is probably the cause of a quantitative dearth of nourishment and a consequent 
degeneration of the bees. The appearance of fungus growths was only a see- 
ondary matter. 
Schonfeld (Bienen Zeitung, 1874, pp. 201 and 261) infected several hives 
with foul brood, and when it had fully developed he took a comb of the rotten 
brood to the Physiological Institute at Breslau and had it submitted to a micro- 
scopical examination by Doctors Cohn and Hidam (Bienen Zeitung, 1874, pp. 201 
