2 SACBROOD, A DISEASE OF BEES. 



tracted his attention as an " aspergillusmycosis in bees." The dis- 

 eases, as described by Howard and Maassen, then, would be called 

 fungous diseases. 



If there are any such fungous diseases of bees in the United States 

 they have not yet attracted the attention of the bee keepers. I base 

 this conclusion upon the fact that during my study of bee diseases 

 there has not yet been received from the bee keepers any sample that 

 could be considered a fimgous disease. If future investigations 

 demonstrate that there exists a fungous disease like the one Howard 

 has described, then the name ■■' pickled brood " can be used to desig- 

 nate it. AVlien using the term "' pickled brood " in the future the 

 possible disease condition described by Howard will be meant. 



A DISEASE OF THE BROOD WHICH IS NOT FOUL BROOD. 



There is a disease of the brood of bees that has attracted consid- 

 erable attention among bee keepers that is neither American foul 

 brood, European foul brood, pickled brood, chilled brood, nor 

 starved brood. This disorder of the brood has for many years been 

 recognized by bee keepers as being different from foul brood. Doo- 

 little, of America, in 1881 wrote of a disease which he says is similar 

 to and called foul brood but which is not foul brood. He writes that 

 the larvae die here and there throughout the brood comb and that 

 the disease may disappear entirely or it may reappear the next sea- 

 son. Jones, of Canada, in 1883 wrote also of a disease which results 

 in a dying of the brood, with appearances similar to foul brood ; but 

 he states that the disease is not foul brood. He says that the bees 

 frequently remove the dead brood and that no further trouble ensues. 

 Simmins, of England, in 1887 wrote of dead brood which he says is 

 not foul brood, and describes the difference in appearance between 

 the brood dead of the disease and brood dead of foul brood. He 

 states, furthermore, that the condition is different from chilled brood 

 and that Cheshire did not find any microscopic evidence of disease 

 in larva3 dead of the disease. An editorial in one of the bee journals 

 in 1892 is of particular interest at this point. The editor wrote that 

 he had recently encountered dead brood which did not seem to be 

 infectious and which lacked two decisive symptoms of the real foul 

 brood, viz, the ropiness and the glue-pot odor. 



My own study of this dead brood, recognized b}^ the bee keepers 

 as being different from foul brood, was begun in 1902. Eight sam- 

 ples labeled " pickled brood '" Avere received from the bee inspectors 

 of New York State during 1902 and 1903. These samples were ex- 

 amined and were found to be practically free from microorganisms. 

 The results of these examinations were published in January, 1904. 

 Burri, of Switzerland, in 1906 reported the results of the examination 

 of 25 samples of brood material thought by the bee keepers to be 



